Rural Regeneration in the UK 1138908355, 9781138908352

Citation preview

RURAL REGENERATION IN THE UK

Rural Regeneration in the UK provides an accessible yet critical overview of rural regeneration policy and governance in the UK. It charts the key patterns and processes of rural change since 1945 and the emergence and evolution of rural regeneration policy and governance in shaping rural spaces. A key objective of the book is to highlight how, and to what extent, rural regeneration policy and governance are responsive to an increasingly differentiated and uneven rural economy and society. Part One considers the context for rural regeneration, including theoretical frameworks of relevance and the ways in which rural regeneration policy and governance have been framed. In particular, it includes a consideration of how the rural has been made ‘thinkable’, and the extent to which this has moved beyond traditional concerns with agricultural development. Part Two highlights the key dimensions and spaces of rural regeneration. This includes responses to rural change from ‘within the rural’, including community-led approaches, the use of culture and the extent to which approaches may be converging or diverging within a devolved UK. Rural Regeneration in the UK provides a comprehensive and integrated analysis of responses to rural change that will appeal to a broad audience of students, scholars and practitioners both in the UK and abroad. Simon Pemberton is Professor of Human Geography at Keele University, UK. His academic work has a strong policy application and bridges the geography– planning–public policy interface. He has research interests in rural regeneration, rural and community planning, and the rescaling of the state. He has published widely in all of these areas.

This page intentionally left blank

RURAL REGENERATION IN THE UK

Simon Pemberton

First published 2019 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Simon Pemberton to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pemberton, Simon, author. Title: Rural regeneration in the UK / Simon Pemberton. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018058953| ISBN 9781138908345 (hardback) | ISBN 9781138908352 (pbk.) Subjects: LCSH: Rural development--Great Britain. Classification: LCC HN400.C6 P46 2019 | DDC 307.1/4120941--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018058953 ISBN: 978-1-138-90834-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-90835-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-69449-8 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Taylor & Francis Books

CONTENTS

List of illustrations Preface Acknowledgements

vi viii x

PART I

Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

1

1

Introduction: The Context for Rural Regeneration

3

2

Rural Regeneration Policy

22

3

Rural Regeneration Governance

53

PART II

Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

83

4

Rural Community Regeneration

85

5

The Role of Culture in Delivering Regeneration in Rural Areas

112

6

Devolution in the United Kingdom and Rural Regeneration

137

7

Conclusion

171

Index

196

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1

Multi Area Agreements Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) Bettisfield Village Hall Bettisfield Village Hall in Context Shropshire Hills Discovery Centre

70 72 93 94 126

Tables

2.1 Breakdown of Allocation of SRB Funds (Rounds 1–3) 2.2 Countryside Agency Budget (1999–2000) 2.3 Funding Commitments for Rural Programmes Specified in the 2000 Rural White Paper 5.1 Creative Categories and Industries 5.2 Great Place Projects in Rural Areas of England 6.1 Devolution and Rural Policy / Governance 6.2 Classification of Communities First Areas

27 33 34 117 122 142 155

Boxes

2.1 Key Features of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) 2.2 Key Features of Rural Challenge 2.3 Examples of Projects Funded by Rural Challenge

26 29 30

List of illustrations vii

2.4 The Evolving Nature of Rural Regeneration Policy in England 5.1 Cultural Activities for Delivering Social Inclusion: OswestryCultFest 7.1 Summary of 2014–20 Rural Development Programmes in the UK 7.2 Rural Futures: Phase One

43 128 173 183

PREFACE

The genesis of this textbook is three-fold. First, while several books have been produced in recent years that have systematically considered the key policies, approaches, issues and debates concerned with urban regeneration in the UK and beyond (for example, see Tallon, 2013 and Jones and Evans, 2008), there is currently no equivalent dealing with rural regeneration. Second, while a number of textbooks have also been concerned with either ‘the rural’ in general or particular aspects of the rural (again, see Woods, 2011; 2005 on ‘Rural’ or ‘Rural Geography’) there is currently no text that offers a comprehensive analysis of regeneration in rural areas, how and why this has evolved over time, its relative importance and potential future directions. Indeed, the nearest text in this area (Rural Regeneration in England) was last published over 100 years ago by William Sutherland in 1913! This book therefore seeks to respond to this gap in knowledge. However, a third driver for writing this book also emerged as a consequence of developing a new third year undergraduate module at my current university on ‘Rural Geographies’, which has a considerable emphasis on rural regeneration policy and governance as well as its effects on rural areas. While I expected my students to engage with and use a wide range of literature, there was little information on how rural regeneration was reflective of broader and ongoing shifts in rural economy and society. Indeed, considerable attention in the UK is now being placed on ‘functional economic areas’ (FEAs), sub-regional governance, and the importance of cities and their hinterlands in economic growth and development. Yet part of the problem has been a perception of rural areas as ‘carriages’ or an appendage to the ‘locomotive’ of the metropolis (see Shucksmith, 2008), rather than being important spaces in their own right, and with their own specific regeneration challenges and opportunities. As a result, forces for, as well as

Preface ix

processes and outcomes of rural regeneration, are often neglected in broader regeneration discussions, as well as in academic courses that consider particular aspects of rural change. But, of course, such changes – and regeneration responses – vary, both spatially and temporally. Thus, the notion of the ‘differentiated countryside’ (see Marsden et al., 1993) and the uneven rural economy and society are integral to the focus of the book, and the varying ways that rural regeneration may respond to particular contexts and issues. Moreover, the emphasis on how and where we might see differences also alerts us to the politics of rural regeneration and associated issues of empowerment (of some) and disempowerment (of others) informed by state–market–civil society relationships. These ideas are also central to the conceptual framework adopted for analysis. The textbook will therefore be of use to those seeking to place both historical and contemporary processes, policies and outcomes of rural regeneration into context. Importantly, it provides critical insights into the importance of issues such as power and hegemony, structure and agency and scale in shaping rural regeneration. It also focuses on issues of rural regeneration driven by ‘rural change from within’, and the importance of community-led local development (CLLD), and differing attributes of rural areas.. The implications will therefore have resonance for those working in different parts of the UK as well as beyond. The book is split into two broad sections. Part One considers the context for rural regeneration, including theoretical frameworks of relevance and the ways in which rural regeneration policy and governance have been framed. In particular, it includes a consideration of how the rural has been made ‘thinkable’, and the extent to which this has moved beyond traditional concerns with agricultural development. In turn, Part Two subsequently highlights the key dimensions and spaces of rural regeneration. This includes responses to rural change from ‘within the rural’, including community-led approaches, the use of culture and the extent to which approaches may be converging or diverging within a devolved UK. A conclusion subsequently summarizes key contemporary debates and considers future directions for rural regeneration.

Bibliography Jones, P. and Evans, G. (2008). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Sage. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. (1993). Constructing the countryside. London: UCL Press. Shucksmith, M. (2008). New Labour’s countryside in international perspective. In: M. Woods (Ed.). New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.59–78. Tallon, A. (2013). Urban regeneration in the UK (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. London: Sage. Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London: Routledge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many of the ideas and thoughts contained within this textbook have originated from teaching my third year Rural Geographies module at Keele University. To my past and present students, I hope this reflects some of our conversations over the years. I would also like to place on record my appreciation of the support and encouragement received from the late Dr. Bill Edwards during my time at Aberystwyth University. The late Thursday afternoon discussions in Bill’s office (and often continuing at the Varsity in town) with Professor Mike Woods and Professor Mark Goodwin were memorable in so many ways! Bill left us far too soon (in 2007) but his legacy lives on in all of the students he taught. To Mum and Dad, this book is for you. Thanks for everything and for all the support – from Aberystwyth to Keele. Finally, to Suz, Sophie and Owen – the book would not have happened without you! Hopefully it helps to at least partially justify the long weekends, evenings and early mornings I spent in the office.

PART I

Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

This page intentionally left blank

1 INTRODUCTION The Context for Rural Regeneration

Chapter Aims This chapter initially outlines the structure of this textbook and the importance of rural regeneration within the context of United Kingdom (UK). It identifies how rural regeneration is an important field of study in its own right, yet has often been neglected with reference to the majority of work that has focused on urban regeneration to date. In addition, it defines the nature of rural regeneration – as opposed to rural development – and sets the context for framing rural regeneration in relation to ongoing processes of rural change.

Introduction and Organisation of the Textbook Regeneration is often conceived as the preserve of urban areas, with a strong focus on physical regeneration of city centres, docks and former hubs of heavy industry. However, it is just as important in rural areas, and needs to encompass physical, social, economic and environmental issues to be successful. (The Guardian, 4 February 2013)

The above quote is from “Not Just for Urbanistas: Regeneration Is Alive and Kicking in Rural Towns” in The Guardian Newspaper during the period in which this textbook was being prepared. It provides a very useful starting point for the book as it immediately draws attention to the explicit focus of much of the regeneration literature – in the UK and beyond – on urban areas. Indeed, regeneration has often been perceived as the preserve of the urban and perhaps unsurprisingly given processes of urban economic decline and urban social polarisation that have been charted for many UK cities (Tallon, 2010).

4 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

However, to view regeneration as a solely urban process is misleading. Rural areas have also experienced considerable economic and social restructuring, which has led to a requirement for rural regeneration. A key objective of this textbook is to consider the provenance and nature of rural regeneration in the UK and to situate such approaches within the wider economic, social and political context. Given processes of economic and social restructuring, it is also inevitable that the nature of policy initiatives concerned with responding to the needs of rural areas has changed over time, with emphases varying between ‘top-down’ government-led interventions and ‘bottom-up’ locally-led initiatives. The textbook therefore considers the nature of such interventions and their emergence in the transition of some rural areas from being traditional places of agricultural production to places increasingly dominated by consumption-based activities. However, the book will note how such a shift has not been clear-cut and this in itself has implications for the effectiveness of rural regeneration policy in an increasingly “differentiated countryside” (Marsden, Murdoch, Lowe, Munton and Flynn, 1993). Each chapter covers a different aspect of rural regeneration. This chapter provides a discussion of the early beginnings of rural regeneration policy and how rural regeneration can be defined and framed in theoretical terms. A consideration is also made of how it is similar or different to urban regeneration, as well as the changing context within which it has emerged. The implications for our understanding of the structures and scales of rural regeneration policy and governance – and an increasingly uneven and differentiated rural regeneration approach – are also discussed. Chapters 2 and 3 subsequently explore the specific policy and governance frameworks for rural regeneration. Key ‘objects’ of governance are considered and the extent to which these may have changed both spatially and temporally. In particular, Chapter 2 highlights the post-1945 emphasis in the UK on the development of agricultural and rural industries and how during this so-called ‘productivist’ phase there was a strong ‘top-down’ emphasis on a productionoriented rural economy. Subsequently, this approach was replaced through the 1980s with an emphasis on neo-liberal, entrepreneurial / commodified, marketdriven (and often multi-functional) approaches (Woods, 2011). Moreover, much of the discussion in Chapters 2 and 3 is focused on England, as it provides a particularly good example of the pressures and changes that different types of rural areas have faced, the nature of policy and governance responses, and the effectiveness of such arrangements. Nevertheless, the governance approach set out in Chapter 3 takes a slightly different approach to the norm. Rather than considering governance change in isolation, it links to the previous chapter by exploring the ways in which the institutions and actors responsible for the governance of rural regeneration may be strategically and spatially privileged above others – and how this can subsequently impact on the nature of rural regeneration policy / strategy. Indeed, by adopting a scalar perspective the chapter illustrates how the scaling of rural regeneration can be linked to the activities of governments that seek to privilege some interests over others, but also how the ‘crafting’ of scale itself is shaped by interests both within

Introduction 5

and beyond government (Jessop, 1997). The chapter therefore focuses on the transformation in rural regeneration governance over the last 20 years, including the rise of rural partnership working as a new mode of rural governance (Edwards, Goodwin, Pemberton and Woods, 2001), the respective engagement of rural communities therein and issues of exclusion and / or empowerment (Ray, 2006). Part Two of the textbook moves on to highlight the key dimensions and spaces of rural regeneration. Given the increased importance of governing through communities, collective action and an emphasis on community-led active citizenship in rural regeneration policy (Gardener, 2008), Chapter 4 explores the problems and opportunities of (neo-)endogenous or bottom-up rural development. Chapter 5 then considers the cultural aspects of rural regeneration and how in many places there has been a shift from rural protectionism and urban containment to developing a consumption-based “new marketplace countryside” (Woods, 2011). But it also highlights how rural areas often have very different abilities to capitalize on such assets. In the UK, considerable debate has taken place over the ways in which devolution has created opportunities for each of the devolved nations to create territorially specific governance and policy arrangements. Within this context, Chapter 6 examines how rural regeneration policy and governance have evolved in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales; the objects of governance privileged; and the role of the EU, which has arguably led to opportunities for the self-determination of rural regeneration policy remaining fairly limited. Finally, the concluding chapter (Chapter 7) highlights how there has been a paradigmatic shift in both the process and delivery of regeneration within the UK and beyond. In essence, the era of the state underwriting regeneration activity – certainly in the context of the UK – has passed and there is now an increasing concern with decentralising responsibility and activity to a wider range of stakeholders. But in turn, the chapter notes how this raises new and important questions over the institutions, actors, strategies and scales that may be privileged and the influence of the state and other political interests therein. In this respect, there has arguably an increasing prioritisation of the urban, while rural–urban interdependencies are not yet being explored sufficiently.

Defining Rural Regeneration Looking back to Furbey’s (1999) discussion on the metaphor of regeneration, two particular points arise that are of relevance to this introductory chapter. First, he notes how ‘regeneration’ in Latin means ‘rebirth’ and associated Judeo-Christian concerns with ‘being born again’ (Furbey, 1999). Indeed, for Jones and Evans (2008), they note how such a notion was very appealing during the 1980s when urban policy under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was informed by a neo-liberal, market-based approach focused on individuals rather than communities. In turn, they argue that “regeneration – as opposed to mere ‘redevelopment’ – became a moral crusade, rescuing not only the economy but the soul of the nation” (Jones and Evans 2008, p.2).

6 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

This distinction between regeneration and redevelopment is crucial in the context of rural areas. While considerable attention has focused on rural and regional development – albeit with each often having different objectives and operating at different scales (see Woods, 2005) – there has been much less focus on rural regeneration per se. However, finding an explicit definition of how rural regeneration may differ from rural development is problematic. Of the studies – both academic and policy-related – that consider rural regeneration, hardly any offer a definition. For example, Osborne, Williamson and Beattie (2004) attempt to delineate how rural regeneration may be different from urban regeneration (see below). But in terms of a definition, they offer only a broader conception of regeneration “denoting programmes and policies intent to lead to the social, economic and/or community development or rejuvenation of a local area – and particularly where this area has recently suffered significant decline or depopulation” (Osborne et al., 2004, p.158). The most useful distinction between rural development and rural regeneration is made by Woods (2005). He notes how “development suggests a process of progressive change or modernisation … thus the provision of electricity to rural parts of the United States, for example, was clearly a rural development project” (Woods, 2005, p.146). In a similar vein, Moseley (2003, p.5) highlights how rural development “generally refers to the process of improving the quality of life and economic well-being of people living in relatively isolated and sparsely populated areas”. ‘Regeneration’, on the other hand, “suggests a more cyclical process – that there has been a buoyant economy that has fallen into decline and requires remedial action to return it to its previous condition” (Woods, 2005, p.146). Hence rural regeneration can be seen as an initiative for reversing rural decline. Moreover, he argues that programmes focused on addressing the decline of small rural market towns or replacing jobs lost in agriculture may be described as strategies for rural regeneration. A further important point that Woods (2005) makes – which is focused upon in both Chapters 2 and 4 – relates to a difference between traditional ‘top-down’ (or exogenous) rural development and ‘bottom-up’ (or endogenous) rural regeneration. With regard to the former, a key challenge was to overcome rural differences through state-led major infrastructure projects. A ‘growth pole’ approach was often adopted for the economic development of regions and rural areas were seen as distant technically, economically and culturally from the main (urban) centres of activity (Moseley, 2003). However, such approaches were deemed to be ineffective at securing rural development and hence there was a paradigm shift in rural policy to alternative ‘bottom up’ models characterized by community-led initiatives, and often drawing on local resources to capitalize on differences (p.146). As such, the emergence of rural regeneration has been concerned with bottom-up approaches, although a relational and networked approach that considers the importance and interaction of local (and beyond local) influences is now the accepted norm, which has been reflected in recent rural regeneration initiatives.

Introduction 7

Indeed, returning to Furbey’s (1999) work, the second key point that emerges relates to the provenance of rural regeneration and how it may be distinctive in comparison to urban regeneration. The next chapter sets out in detail how rural regeneration policy has emerged and evolved in the UK. But in simple terms, rural regeneration has a long gestation and was first referred to in the late 19th century following attempts to modernize the structure of local government and to address the problems of both urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, both in the UK, across Europe and in the United States, governments have employed a number of differing strategies to regenerate declining rural areas (Gkartzios and Norris, 2011). A ‘productivist’ approach focused on supporting the agricultural sector generally predominated in the post-war period in the UK. However, with the decline in the relative importance – at least in economic terms – of agriculture in the UK since the early 1990s, a ‘post-productivist’ approach to the countryside focused around diversification, agri-tourism, environmental conservation and improving the quality of life in rural areas has emerged (Murdoch, Lowe, Ward and Marsden, 2003). This broader approach to rural policy intervention in the context of an increasingly connected and networked ‘global countryside’ (Woods, 2007) – as we shall see – has been highly variegated, both spatially and temporally, and has resulted in significant changes in the nature of power relationships and the nature of rural regeneration that has been undertaken.

How Might Rural Regeneration Be Different? The work of Osborne et al. (2004) and others can be drawn upon to usefully highlight five key features that differentiate rural regeneration from urban regeneration. These relate to issues of spatiality, the complexity of regeneration in rural areas, the paucity of human capital, the lower level of resources and the nature of governance structures. First, with reference to the spatial features of rural areas, there is often no spatial separation of poverty. This has implications for the effectiveness of area-based regeneration initiatives, as well as the ability of regeneration activities to focus on those most in need. Compounding such issues are dominant discourses of the ‘rural idyll’, with deprivation frequently being denied and rural areas seen as problem free, and with regeneration seen predominantly as an issue for urban areas (Woodward, 1996). In addition, the marginality and remoteness of some rural areas means that there is often a preponderance of smaller, rather than larger private sector firms within the rural economy. Hence the ability to harness the resources of private sector actors to facilitate economic regeneration, for example, can be quite limited. Furthermore, the distances that individuals – from both the community and the private sector – may have to travel to participate in (strategic) regeneration partnership working may also hinder involvement.

8 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Another related point concerns the importance of rural market towns. While they have frequently been privileged in rural regeneration policy given they can act as service, housing and employment centres, their links to outlying rural communities have often been quite variable. This has implications for the effectiveness of place-based and area-wide regeneration strategies. Strong rural community identity may also serve to provide community support in respect of bottom-up regeneration initiatives; however, it may also militate against joint working between communities (Osborne et al., 2004, p.16). Second, with reference to the complexity of regeneration in rural areas, there is often a complex pattern of funding programmes and agencies – ranging from the EU (and its Rural Development Programmes – RDPs), to national, sub-regional and local regeneration initiatives. This can lead to confusion as well as issues of self-selection and self-interest on rural regeneration partnerships. Linked to the spatiality of rural areas and the distinctiveness of the private sector, there is also a tendency for rural areas to be more reliant on small-scale funding schemes than urban areas, as in contrast to urban areas they often have no other (private-sector led) resources to put into schemes (Osborne et al., 2004, pp.17–20). Third, the lower population densities in rural areas can make it more difficult to maintain a critical mass of social capital in rural regeneration. Again, linked to issues of the spatiality and complexity of the rural, ‘elitism / cronyism’ and ‘burn out’ can also arise, and certain groups are also more likely to be isolated and / or excluded in rural areas, including women, older people and travelling communities. In addition, as well as problems of private sector engagement, it can also be difficult to engage the farming community – especially in community-led initiatives, and whom may feel threatened by tourism-related activities involving access to their land (see Scott, 2004). While rural areas tend to have a larger number of local voluntary groups relative to their population than urban areas, they are often smaller, with few paid staff, and are highly dependent on volunteers with limited support structures (Osborne et al., 2004, p.5). Fourth, traditionally the available resources for rural, as opposed to urban, regeneration are more limited. In England, for example, the major tranches of the previous Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) programme were reserved for the regeneration of urban areas. A total of 80% of the budget was allocated to large comprehensive schemes in the most deprived areas (Chanan, Gilchrist and West, 1999). This has made EU funding comparatively more important for rural regeneration, and especially since 2008 with the onset of the global economic crisis and the legacy of fiscal austerity and public sector retrenchment in the UK. Finally, a fifth key difference in respect of regeneration in rural areas relates to governance structures and more specifically partnerships as a mode of governance. Partnership working as a key mode of governance for regeneration has emerged more recently in a rural context (see Edwards et al., 2001). Indeed, the hegemony of partnership as a mode of strategic planning and service delivery is particularly distinctive in the context of rural areas (Osborne et al., 2004, p.23).

Introduction 9

However, there is often a reduced availability in the variety of different partners in rural areas, including private sector involvement (Edwards, Goodwin, Pemberton and Woods, 2000; Shucksmith, 2000). Moreover, local government involvement can be variable. For example, in some rural areas, local government has remained extremely influential and powerful; however, in others it has become much more marginal (Osborne et al., 2004, pp.22–23).

Different forms of rural regeneration One further point that Furbey (1999) raises – and which continues to resonate – is that “regeneration seems to offer an almost infinitely inclusive canopy under which all may be persuaded to shelter and find agreement, yet vital issues remain beyond the pale” (p.440). This has been reflected in terms of the varying emphases placed by successive governments and policy makers in the UK and beyond on ‘community-led’ regeneration, ‘property-led’ regeneration and ‘economic’ regeneration (Tallon, 2013; 2010). In a rural context, there are a number of parallels with the urban regeneration literature with reference to the importance of community-led regeneration. Indeed, a considerable amount of research in a rural context has focused upon the role of community-based rural regeneration partnerships, such as those supported through EU funds (for example, LEADER partnerships) (see Ray, 2006; Scott, 2004; Edwards, 1998). However, concerns have been raised in respect of the degree of autonomy that such partnerships have had in practice (what some have referred to as ‘meta-governance’; see Jessop, 2009), the imbalance of power relations (with local authorities sometimes using monies to fund their own projects; Furmankiewicz, Thompson and Zielinska, 2010), and the need to develop a wider and more inclusive approach, which especially engages with the agricultural (farming) community (Scott, 2004). Indeed, academic discourse has often been indifferent to the importance of the farming community given the declining importance of agriculture in economic terms. Yet McManus et al. (2012) draw attention to the role that farmers can play in integrating social, economic, cultural and indeed environmental issues, and the ways in which agriculture can sustain the functionality and viability of rural market towns through farmers markets, farm-based tourism and supporting the visitor economy. Given increasing austerity in the UK and beyond, Chapter 4 will highlight in more detail how the role of community-led regeneration has become increasingly important. However, in rural areas this has served to reinforce the idea of communities becoming self-reliant, although there are clearly capacity gaps and unevenness in the extent to which rural communities are able to do this. There are also issues of rural protectionism impinging upon the extent to which rural regeneration activities involving both production and consumption-based activities are being promulgated.

10 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

In respect of property-led regeneration – and which has arguably been a key aspect of the regeneration process in urban areas – this may involve a very different process in rural areas, and also lead to very different outcomes. For example, Gkartzios and Norris (2011) identify that a key objective around increasing housing output can be related to processes of migration both in and out of rural areas, and the need to provide a range of opportunities that are affordable to those living in the rural, as well as those seeking to move in. In such a way, this may help to address population decline and also provide new opportunities for employment. However, their study of recent experiences in the Republic of Ireland also highlights a number of problems that have arisen with this approach, including over-supply and high vacancy rates due to a lack of integration between supply and demand. With reference to rural economic regeneration, Stockdale (2006, p.358) notes how this may involve job creation, addressing income levels, securing economic diversification (for example, through self-employment and new business creation) and improving local expenditure patterns. While some of these objectives are arguably very similar to what might be expected in an urban context, the importance of self-employment and supporting small- and medium-sized enterprises is particularly important due to the absence of larger companies in rural areas. Other work on rural economic regeneration in both an Australian and Swedish context has highlighted the importance of place-marketing, but with a differing rationale to the urban in respect of the need to attract in-migrants through provision of employment, housing, health and education facilities. This includes developing infrastructure to facilitate the return migration of skilled migrants, and who in turn may be able to facilitate endogenous (bottom-up) rural regeneration (McManus and Connell, 2014). The importance of the cultural economy has also been widely charted in an urban context. But in rural areas, there has been a general neglect of the rural in cultural policy and a similar absence of concerns relating to the role of culture in rural policy. Yet Bell and Jayne’s (2010) work in the West Midlands of the UK has highlighted the importance of culture and the need to develop creative rural economies in areas such as film, arts and antiques (and which can give rural areas an international symbolic role), crafts (which may be more localized in respect of shaping the identity of an area), architecture and publishing (see Chapter 5).

The Global Countryside and a Differentiated Rural The preceding discussion highlights the differing regeneration responses that can occur in rural areas. But in addition, it also alerts us to the uneven impact of globalisation on rural localities and the varying needs and opportunities that can arise as a result. Woods (2011; 2007) has therefore used the concept of the ‘global countryside’ to draw attention to such issues. Features of a hypothetical global countryside include high levels of property investment and elongated commodity

Introduction 11

chains, the presence of transnational corporations, the supply and employment of international migrant labour, commodified natural environments and global flows of tourists and amenity migrants, increased social polarisation and increased contestation of globalisation processes and of rural identities (Woods, 2007). However, he notes how there has been a lack of grounded analysis of how globalisation processes actually work to transform and remake rural places in comparison to the wealth of research on the global city. Moreover, the exact impact of such processes will vary given that the rural is a multifaceted, relational and co-constituted space, “defined by networks in which heterogeneous entities are aligned in a variety of ways” (Murdoch, 2003, p.274). As such, there are many hybridities of rural spaces occurring through processes of negotiation, manipulation and contestation involving both local and global actors (and including human and non-human actors; Woods, 2011, p.367). In practical terms, this can be exemplified in a number of ways. For example, the Wales Rural Observatory (2009) has referred to the existence of what they define as ‘Deep Rural’ localities. These, they argue, differ from other types of rural area in respect of the fact that they are communities comprising between 180 and 500 households, having fewer than five of twelve key services and are located at least 30 minutes’ drive-time from a centre with a population of more than 10,000. Additionally, the UK government’s Rural-Urban Classification (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – DEFRA / Office for National Statistics – Bibby and Brindley, 2014) has also sought to differentiate rural areas according to physical settlement and related characteristics. This has resulted in local authorities in England being assigned to one of six categories:      

Mainly Rural (rural including hub towns and where ≥80% of the total resident population are accounted for by the combined ‘rural’ and ‘rural-related’ components of its population and its ‘conurbation’ context) Largely Rural (rural including hub towns where 50–79% of the total resident population are accounted for by the combined ‘rural’ and ‘rural-related’ components of its population and its ‘conurbation’ context) Urban with Significant Rural (rural including hub towns where 26–49% of the total resident population are accounted for by the combined ‘rural’ and ‘rural-related’ components of its population and its ‘conurbation’ context) Urban with City and Town Urban with Minor Conurbation Urban with Major Conurbation

Despite this functional and rather descriptive approach to defining the rural, what it implicitly highlights is the fact that there is no objective definition of the rural and that “there is no single vantage point from which the panoply of rural or countryside can be viewed” (Murdoch, 2003, p.274, cited in Woods, 2009). In essence, it supports the

12 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

acknowledgement of the fact that there is a ‘differentiated countryside’ (Marsden et al., 1993) given the networked, relational and hybrid nature of the rural. In turn, the variegated nature of rural areas also helps to highlight that there is a politics associated with rural regeneration in respect of how the rural is rendered ‘thinkable’, which ‘objects of governance’ and interests are privileged in rural regeneration processes above others, and that such decisions – in the form of governance processes, the nature of policy responses and the allocation of resources – may transcend the space and scale of rural localities (adapted from Woods, 2011, p.379; also see Goodwin, 1998). Indeed, reference to a ‘politics of rural regeneration’ can take us beyond traditional concerns of rural politics – and the associated pre-eminence of agricultural and forestry policy, as well as the conservation / management of land (Woods, 2006). However, rural governance structures and rural representation in the context of rural regeneration may extend beyond land owning and farming elites both spatially and temporally, and reflecting challenges over the meaning and regulation of rurality itself (Woods, 2011). Consequently, the significance of political ideologies and politics in shaping policies and associated governance structures for rural regeneration can give rise to an increasingly uneven and differentiated rural regeneration approach. This is charted in Chapters 2 and 3 in respect of rural regeneration policy and governance analyses.

Framing Rural Regeneration The differentiated nature of rural areas – as well as rural regeneration therein – raises questions over how we might frame rural regeneration in theoretical terms. In this textbook, the Strategic-Relational Approach (SRA) is used to explore the sites, scales and structures of relevance to rural regeneration policy and governance. In particular, while regeneration has been viewed as an inherently technical process (Roberts and Sykes, 2000) there has been less focus hitherto on the changing form and governance of rural regeneration, nor on the influences behind such changes, such as the state. The recent collapse of global financial markets exposed traditional property-led regeneration models as being largely unsustainable. As such, “the accepted physical regeneration model of the late 1990s and early 2000s financed on the back of cheap credit and increased land values has been severely undermined by current financial and economic conditions” (Glossop, 2009, p.63). Coupled with this have been increasing public austerity measures and consequently there has been a withdrawal of the state from much regeneration activity. In contrast, there is now an increasing concern with decentralising responsibility and activity to a wider range of stakeholders, including local communities (Department for Communities and Local Government – DCLG, 2011a). But in turn, this raises new and important questions over the institutions, actors and scales

Introduction 13

that may be privileged with respect of rural regeneration and the influence of the state and other political interests therein. The SRA – as a non-functionalist account – has been identified as “perhaps the most theoretically sophisticated discussion of the state currently available” (Kelly, 1999, p.109), and has been used in a variety of different contexts. For example, Valler and Wood (2004) explored the response of business interests to the rise of English regionalism under New Labour through the SRA lens. Through using the SRA they highlighted how it helped to generate a better understanding of how on-going centralism – as well as the perceptions and organisation of business interests – impinged on the relatively limited restructuring of business activity that took place. Lagendijk (2007) has also drawn on the SRA to make the point that local social and political forces can influence the nature and form of different forms of regionalism and the areas/interests privileged. The SRA therefore helps to draw our attention to how the changing institutions and geography of the state can influence the nature of political strategies and how these may subsequently influence rural regeneration policy and governance. But equally, it also draws our attention to the dialectical relationship that exists in that we additionally need to understand how local political strategies themselves can inform the changing institutions and geography of the state (Pemberton and Goodwin, 2010). In the context of rural regeneration, what this means is that it becomes possible to locate new forms and scales of rural regeneration policy and governance – for example, the shift under the 2010–2015 coalition government to sub-regional and localist approaches in England – within wider sets of social and political forces that may mediate/influence the reconfiguration of state power. Moreover, the use of the SRA helps us to understand how new objects of governance for rural regeneration policy may be formed by social and political forces operating at specific scales and through specific strategies. Again, this is important if reference is made to the introduction (for example) of elected mayors, enterprise zones and sub-regional Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) under the coalition government. A concern with objects of governance for rural regeneration policy and how these may vary within an increasing differentiated and hybrid rural also alerts us to the importance of rural space itself and how this may be theorised. In this respect, it is instructive to draw attention to Halfacree’s (2006) Lefevbre-inspired three-fold categorisation of rural space. This helps to outline how evolving approaches to rural regeneration in the UK have prioritized differing aspects of ‘rural locality’, ‘representations of the rural’ and rural ‘everyday lives’, and how they entwine in different ways. For example, if we focus on rural locality, this inter-relates with other features of rural space as it is heavily informed by ideas / representations of what the rural should look like. In particular, it highlights how the rural is a product of broader economic, social and political processes and that material rural space is inscribed through distinctive spatial practices, which traditionally have been linked to agricultural production. However, as already identified, the nature of such practices

14 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

has changed over time, with rural landscapes being increasingly commodified and with some becoming a lower cost centre of production for manufacturing, while others have been associated with tourism-based consumption activity. From a rural regeneration perspective, there are several consequences. First, with regard to the rural as a space of both production and consumption, this means that there is arguably a need for rural regeneration to increasingly differentiate between the types of support required for business. In this respect, we can distinguish between businesses of the rural – such as agriculture and land-based businesses, as well as those tied specifically to the rural visitor economy – and more generally businesses in the rural, such as micro and community businesses that operate from such places but who are not necessarily dependent upon the physical features of the landscape. Second, if we focus on representations of the rural, these relate to how the rural has been made ‘thinkable’ (Goodwin, 1998) and reflected in the prioritisation of different objects of governance. Indeed, what we can discern is that the rural – both spatially and temporally – has been defined and problematized in a particular way. Traditional representations have involved the rural being a space of both productivism and protectionism and concerned primarily with agricultural development. Indeed, as we shall see in Chapter 2, an agriculturally-dominant formal representation of the rural has informed policy approaches to the rural in the UK and beyond. However, the onset of neo-liberalism and the increasing integration of the rural into global systems of production and consumption (the ‘global countryside’) have led to an increasing commodification and consumption of the countryside and a re-regulation of agriculture with a market-oriented rationality. Nevertheless, such representations cannot exist without some form of rural locality and as Chapter 6 will highlight, the ways in which such representations have differed in both their discursive and material outcomes can be seen clearly in the context of the devolved administrations of the UK. For example, while in Wales and Northern Ireland a concern with agriculture is still predominant in much rural regeneration policy, in Scotland there is evidence of a broader approach emerging around land reform, addressing issues of peripherality and social inclusion. In England, a ‘wider than farming’ perspective is also becoming increasingly apparent in the context of the role of the rural regeneration in securing national economic prosperity. However, it has been argued that this has been at the expense of marginalising concerns over the natural environment. Finally, if we take the third aspect of rural space – the ‘lives of the rural’ – this involves an acknowledgement of the ways in which both representations of the rural and the nature of rural locality are brought into being by everyday practices in the rural. In this respect, both individuals and institutions may develop their own experiences and meanings of the rural, which subsequently influence their own attitudes and behaviours. These may be more or less distinctive depending upon the differing inter-relations between everyday lives of the rural, rural locality and rural representations (Marsden et al., 1993). In this context, there is a need to consider the

Introduction 15

nature of rural regeneration responses, and how these need to be flexible and differentiated. One key response has been ‘neo-endogenous’ regeneration responses (again, see Chapter 4), and with many suggesting that rural regeneration is now synonymous with community-led regeneration (Gardener, 2008).

Contemporary Trends and Future Possibilities Given that the rural is often imagined in relation to the urban, more recently work has recognized the increasing interdependencies of rural and urban space, rather than the rural as an appendage to the ‘locomotive of the urban’ (Shucksmith, 2008). A key consequence for those involved in rural regeneration is the need to consider the links and integration that may be required with urban regeneration policy, rather than developing approaches in isolation, which adopt some form of ‘bounded rationality’ of the rural. This may involve joint investment strategies; transport strategies; housing strategies and a recognition of an increasingly mobile and networked (as opposed to ‘fixed’) rural, with flows of people, goods and knowledge in both directions simultaneously (Milbourne and Kitchen, 2014). However, aspects of rural space may still require specific types of rural regeneration approaches – for example, differentiated support dependent upon the types of businesses in the rural (which are often smaller); issues of accessibility (both virtual and structural) and the nature of employment (which can be seasonal or lower paid) (Pemberton and Shaw, 2012). Thus, given a number of the issues highlighted above, we can begin to postulate over the nature of both current and future rural regeneration policy initiatives in the 21st century. These are considered more extensively throughout the rest of this textbook and especially in Chapter 2. However, possibilities that have been raised in respect of developing a more effective approach to rural regeneration include:     



A return to some form of ‘Key Settlement Policy’ or promoting Market Town ‘hubs’ that can secure benefits from agglomeration tendencies. On-going farm diversification, for example, in the agri-food sector. Recognising the interdependence between the agricultural economy and rural economy in securing effective rural regeneration. Addressing traditional quality of life perceptions of ‘deep rural’ areas that may be in decline, yet are disguised and hidden by the ‘rural idyll’. A re-emphasis on focusing on key drivers of rural change and the role of rural regeneration in responding – for example, the need for infrastructure development (including premises and ICT), addressing issues of accessibility and issues impinging upon the productivity of firms (such as workforce skills, information, advice and guidance). Tackling issues such as underemployment and low pay, housing affordability and non-decent homes and fuel poverty.

16 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Summary This chapter has identified how rural regeneration is an important field of study in its own right and how it is distinct to urban regeneration through – for example – issues of spatiality, the nature of human and financial resources and governance structures (Osborne et al., 2004). It highlights the problems of the ‘rural idyll’ through concerns of addressing rural decline and the need for remedial action, as opposed to more progressive forms of change often associated with rural development (Woods, 2005). However, the changing nature of rural areas – set within the context of an increasingly connected, networked and relational ‘global countryside’ (Woods, 2007) – means that rural regeneration itself needs to be differentiated, multi-scalar and dynamic if it is to be effective. In this respect, endogenous bottom-up models of rural regeneration have often become synonymous with such an approach (Ray, 2006). However, as Chapter 2 highlights, there is a need to consider the vertical and horizontal linkages between such bottom-up interventions and those operating at other scales, such as sub-regional or national. Furthermore, when considering key ‘objects of governance’ and how the rural has been made ‘thinkable’ (see Goodwin, 1998), there needs to be an acknowledgement of both economic and non-economic issues, such as culture and broader social issues; how these may entwine; and a problematising of productivist and post-productivist rural economies. While some have portrayed this shift as being distinct, others such as Wilson (2010) have more pertinently highlighted the rural as ‘multi-functional’ and the continuing importance of agriculture and other land-based industries. In turn, this draws our attention to the politics of rural regeneration (Woods, 2006), and the importance of power in shaping particular forms of rural regeneration activity and the subsequent issues that are privileged. In the context of Jessop’s (1990; 2008) Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) and Halfacree’s (2006) three-fold classification of rural space, it also alerts us to the differing ‘representations of the rural’, the implications for the nature of rural regeneration and governance, and the ways in which these entwine with the nature of rural localities and the nature of everyday lives in the rural. Such issues – and their reflection in the provenance and evolution of rural regeneration policy – are now considered in the following chapter.

Key Points  

Rural areas have experienced profound economic and social restructuring, which has led to a requirement for rural regeneration. While considerable attention has been focused on rural and regional development – involving a process of progressive change or modernisation – there has been less focus on rural regeneration.

Introduction 17



 

  

Rural regeneration suggests a more cyclical process, with interventions seeking to address rural decline to return areas to their previous condition (Woods, 2005). It has frequently been characterized by community-led initiatives drawing on local resources to capitalize on rural differences. Rural regeneration can be differentiated from urban regeneration based on issues of spatiality, the complexity of regeneration in rural areas, the paucity of human capital, the lower level of resources and the nature of governance structures. The concept of ‘the global countryside’ (Woods, 2007) alerts us to the uneven impact of globalisation on rural localities and the varying needs and regeneration opportunities that can arise as a result. Consequently, there is “no single vantage point from which the panoply of rural or countryside can be viewed” (Murdoch, 2003, p.274). The variegated nature of rural areas highlights that there is a politics associated with rural regeneration, where ‘objects of governance’ and interests are privileged in rural regeneration processes above others. The Strategic-Relational Approach (SRA) (Jessop, 1990; 2008) may be a useful tool used to explore the sites, scales and structures of relevance to rural regeneration policy and governance. Halfacree’s (2006) three-fold model of rural space helps to outline how evolving approaches to rural regeneration in the UK have prioritized differing aspects of ‘rural locality’, ‘representations of the rural’ and rural ‘everyday lives’, and how they entwine in different ways.

Study Questions    

In what ways are rural and urban regeneration different? Outline the different forms of rural regeneration. Why is there a need for rural regeneration policies to be differentiated? How do different aspects of rural space inform the nature of rural regeneration responses?

Further Reading / Websites of Relevance While there are relatively few publications that focus directly on rural regeneration, Woods (2005; Chapter 10 – Rural Development and Regeneration, pp.145–159) provides a useful introduction and definition. Edwards et al. (2001) also provide a comprehensive discussion of the role of partnership working in rural regeneration, while Osborne et al. (2004) explore the rural dimension of community regeneration partnerships. In addition, Gkartzios and Norris (2011) focus on property-led rural regeneration and how this may differ from an urban context. More generally, Furmankiewicz et al. (2010) consider the role of area-based partnerships in rural Poland, while Pemberton and Goodwin (2010) provide a good illustration of how the strategic-relational approach can be applied in the

18 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

context of rural studies. Halfacree’s (2006) three-fold model of rural space is also useful to consider how rural regeneration may be framed:       

Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. London: Sage. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2000). Partnership working in rural regeneration: governance and empowerment. Bristol: Policy Press. Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30(2), pp.156–181. Gkartzios, M. and Norris, M. (2011). ‘If you build it, they will come’: governing property-led rural regeneration in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 28, pp.486–494. Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N. and Zielinska, M. (2010). Areabased partnerships in rural Poland: the post-accession experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, pp.52–62. Pemberton, S. and Goodwin, M. (2010). Rethinking the changing structures of rural local government: state power, rural politics and local political strategies? Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), pp.272–283. Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. London: Sage, pp.44–62.

Key Websites of Relevance: European Commission – for a focus on Agriculture and Rural Development – http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) – The UK government department responsible for policy and regulations on environmental, food and rural issues – www.gov.uk/government/organisations/depa rtment-for-environment-food-rural-affairs. gov.uk – Policies, publications, consultations and statistics portal on rural issues – www.gov.uk/government/topics/rural-and-countryside. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – Rural Policy Reviews – www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/oecdworkonruraldeve lopment.htm. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) – for example, a focus on poverty and social exclusion in rural areas – www.jrf.org.uk/search/site/rural. Rural Community Network – Regional voluntary organisation(s) established by community groups from rural areas to articulate the voice of rural communities on issues relating to poverty, disadvantage and equality –www.ruralcommuni tynetwork.org/.

Introduction 19

Office for National Statistics (ONS) – for information on the rural/urban local authority (LA) classification (England) – www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/ geography/products/area-classifications/rural-urban-definition-and-la/rural-urba n-local-authority-la-classification-england-/index.html.

Bibliography Bell, D. and Jayne, M. (2010). The creative countryside: policy and practice in the UK rural cultural economy. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), pp.209–218. Bibby, P. and Brindley, P. (2014). 2011 rural-urban classification of local authority districts in England. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – DEFRA / Office for National Statistics – ONS. Chanan, G., Gilchrist, A. and West, A. (1999). SRB 6: involving the community. London: Community Development Foundation. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011a). Regeneration to enable growth: what government is doing in support of community-led regeneration. London: DCLG. Edwards, B. (1998). Charting the discourse of community action: perspectives from practice in rural Wales. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), pp.63–77. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2000). Partnership working in rural regeneration: governance and empowerment. Bristol: Policy Press. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, pp.289–310. Furbey, R. (1999). Urban ‘regeneration’: reflections on a metaphor. Critical Social Policy, 19(4), pp.419–445. Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N. and Zielinska, M. (2010). Area-based partnerships in rural Poland: the post-accession experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(1), pp.52–62. Gardener, G. (2008). Rural Community Development and Governance. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s Countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.169–188. Gkartzios, M. and Norris, M. (2011). ‘If You Build It, They Will Come’: governing property-led rural regeneration in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 28(3), pp.486–494. Glossop, C. (2009). Regenerating Cities. In: P. Hackett (Ed.), Regeneration in a downturn: what needs to change?London: The Smith Institute, pp.62–67. Goodwin, M. (1998). The governance of rural areas: some emerging research issues and agendas. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), pp.5–12. Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. In: P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. London: Sage, pp.44–62. Halfacree, K. (2012). Heterolocal identities? Counter-urbanisation, second homes, and rural consumption in the era of mobilities. Population, Space and Place, 18(2), pp.209–224. Jessop, B. (1990). State theory: putting capitalist states in their place. Oxford: Blackwell. Jessop, B. (1997). A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes. In: M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: regulating urban politics in a global economy. London: Sage, pp.51–73. Jessop, B. (2008). State power: a Strategic Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. Jessop, B. (2009). Avoiding traps, rescaling states, governing Europe. In: R. Keil and R. Mahon (Eds.), Leviathan undone? Towards a political economy of scale. Vancouver/Toronto: University of British Columbia Press (UBC Press), pp.87–104. Jones, P. and Evans, G. (2008). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Sage.

20 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Kelly, D. (1999). The strategic-relational view of the state. Politics, 19(2), pp.109–115. Lagendijk, A. (2007). The accident of the region: a strategic relational perspective on the construction of the region’s significance. Regional Studies, 41(9), pp.1193–1208. McManus, P. and Connell, J. (2014). Putting places on the map? Marketing rural and regional Australia. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 3(2), pp.105–113. McManus, P., Walmsley, J., Argent, N., Baum, S., Bourke, L., Martin, J., Pritchard, B. and Sorensen, T. (2012). Rural community and rural resilience: what is important to farmers in keeping their country towns alive? Journal of Rural Studies, 28(1), pp.20–29. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. (1993). Constructing the countryside. London: UCL Press. Milbourne, P. and Kitchen, L. (2014). Rural mobilities: connecting movement and fixity in rural places, Journal of Rural Studies, 34(2), pp.326–336. Moseley, M. (Ed.) (2003). Local partnerships for rural development: the European experience. Oxford: ABI Publishing. Murdoch, J. (2003). Co-constructing the countryside: hybrid networks and the extensive self. In: P. Cloke (Ed.), Country visions. Harlow: Pearson, pp.263–282. Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N. and Marsden, T. (2003). The differentiated countryside. London: Routledge. Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30(2), pp.156–181. Pemberton, S. and Shaw, D. (2012). New forms of sub-regional governance and implication for rural areas: evidence from England. Planning Practice and Research, 27(4), pp.441–458. Pemberton, S. and Goodwin, M. (2010). Rethinking the changing structures of rural local government: state power, rural politics and local political strategies? Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), pp.272–283. Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. In: P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney (Eds.), The Handbook of Rural Studies. London: Sage, pp.278–291. Roberts, P. and Sykes, H. (2000). Urban regeneration: a handbook. London: Sage. Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), pp.49–59. Shucksmith, M. (2000). Exclusive countrysides? Social inclusion and regeneration in rural areas. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Shucksmith, M. (2008). New Labour’s countryside in international perspective. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s Countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.59–78. Stockdale, A. (2006). Migration: pre-requisite for rural economic regeneration? Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), pp.354–366. Tallon, A. (2010). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Routledge. Tallon, A. (2013). Urban regeneration in the UK (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. The Guardian (2013). Not just for urbanistas: regeneration is alive and kicking in rural towns, 4 February 2013; available on-line at: www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/ 2013/feb/04/rural-regeneration-local-councils-cambridgeshire, accessed 18 July 2018. Valler, D. and Wood, A. (2004). Devolution and the politics of business representation in Britain: a strategic-relational approach. Environment and Planning A, 36(10), pp.1835–1854. Wales Rural Observatory (2009). Deep rural localities. Cardiff: Wales Rural Observatory, available on-line at: www.walesruralobservatory.org.uk/sites/default/files/DeepRura lReport_Oct09_0.pdf, accessed 18 July 2018.

Introduction 21

Wilson, G.A. (2010). Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(3), pp.364–381. Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. London: Sage. Woods, M. (2006). Redefining the rural question: the new politics of the rural and social policy. Social Policy and Administration, 40(6), pp.579–595. Woods, M. (2007). Engaging the global countryside: globalisation, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Progress in Human Geography, 31(4), pp.485–508. Woods, M. (2009). Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), pp.849–858. Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London: Routledge. Woodward, R. (1996). Deprivation and ‘the rural’: an investigation into contradictory discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(1), pp.55–67.

2 RURAL REGENERATION POLICY

Introduction In this chapter, a focus is placed on rural regeneration policy in the UK and how this has evolved over time. The rise of globalisation, post-industrialism and associated processes of deindustrialisation and de-urbanisation have had a significant impact on the evolving nature of cities in the United Kingdom (UK) and beyond (Tallon, 2010). But such processes have also had a considerable impact on rural areas too. Consequently, a number of key scales for rural regeneration policy are focused upon – ranging from supra-national in terms of the influence of the European Union (EU) – through to national, regional, sub-regional and local initiatives. Given that Chapter 6 focuses more broadly on rural regeneration policy and governance in a devolved UK, this chapter mainly focuses on England, although pan-UK approaches are also considered where relevant. In addition, while the emphasis is on rural regeneration per se, due to the frequent conflation of rural regeneration with rural development it is perhaps inevitable that there is some reference to broader and on-going processes of rural development. A particularly important source of information to chart how rural regeneration policy has evolved are the Hansard Proceedings of the House of Commons and House of Lords. Dating back to 1803, they provide a revealing insight into the ways in which successive governments in the UK have viewed rural regeneration and how regeneration policy for rural areas has been shaped by particular interests. In Chapter 3, we consider the importance of rural regeneration governance and how this can shape rural regeneration policy. But such issues are also touched upon – where relevant – in this chapter given that Furbey (1999, p.440) suggests that regeneration’s strongest connections appear to be with individualistic and statist traditions. Hence the nature of rural regeneration policy and associated

Rural Regeneration Policy 23

‘objects of governance’ for rural regeneration frequently reflect the power of those who are able to act in and through the state (Jessop, 1997; 1990), but which may change both spatially and temporally as structures of rural regeneration governance also change. Indeed, wider sets of social, economic and political forces – including discourses and ideologies (for example, neo-liberalism) – serve to shape regeneration policy in rural areas in different ways.

Rural Regeneration Policy: From Agriculture to Beyond (and Back Again) The first semblance of rural regeneration policy in the UK – and England more specifically – can be traced to the late 19th century and efforts to introduce a new system of local government. For example, the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill of 1893 identified how the creation of a new local government system could be “an efficient instrument in the regeneration of the rural districts” (Hansard, 1893 – Leonard Courtney Member of Parliament (MP), House of Commons debates 15 December 1893). Further discussions around the implications of local government restructuring for rural regeneration continued into the early 20th century. For example, a Parish Councils Act sought to identify the key responsibilities for rural parish councils “and to accomplish the regeneration of the rural population of the country” (Hansard, 1907 – Charles Masterman, King’s Speech, House of Commons debates, 18 February 1907). During this period, a first key point that emerged relates to the rural being perceived as secondary to the urban in respect of its economic contribution. For example, in discussions over a Finance Bill in the House of Lords in 1909, the Marquess of Lansdowne argued the following: Who is going to develop the land, who is going to work the mines, who is going to run the mills if you frighten capital out of the country? If the mines remain unworked and the mills remain idle and the land is not developed, who will suffer? Will your schemes of afforestation and rural regeneration and so forth compensate the working men if they lose steady and regular employment? I think not. (Hansard, 1909 – House of Commons debates, 22 November 1909) Nevertheless, concerns over both fiscal reform and social reform to support those unable to work led to a key cornerstone of rural regeneration policy in England for nearly the next 100 years – the Rural Development Fund – created under the auspices of a newly-created Rural Development Commission (RDC) in 1907. Coupled with the introduction of this fund was an emphasis for local authorities to be given greater responsibilities for addressing housing to secure the regeneration of rural areas. But broader rural regeneration concerns around housing and welfare support were increasingly subsumed within a primary focus on agricultural reconstruction. Indeed, much of the debate in the House of Commons at this time were concerned with reorganising the (then) Board of Agriculture to secure resource efficiencies and to

24 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

facilitate the regeneration of rural areas (see Hansard, 1919 – House of Commons debates, 18 February 1919). This subsequently leads to a second main point – the early development of an approach that views the rural and urban as interconnected, rather than as distinct entities that are separate in their own right. This – as we shall see – has been a continuous theme (but with variable recognition) across successive national governments and can be initially identified during the 1920s. Speaking in relation to a Trade Facilities Bill in 1924, MPs argued vociferously that the regeneration of rural areas was a pre-requisite for solving the problems of unemployment in cities: Does he not see that unemployment in the cities is very much related to the conditions of the countryside, and if those conditions are bad, they immediately drive all the young men to compete in the labour market in the cities? Until you get at the root of the evil, the regeneration of the countryside by guarantees through loans and grants, you will still have the city problem of unemployment. (Hansard, 1924 – MP Macpherson, House of Commons debates, 12 March 1924) Indeed, the former Prime Minister David Lloyd George supported such a view and highlighted how “the little rural industries have disappeared; factories have disappeared … tanneries have disappeared … remunerative and interesting work for the population, have disappeared”. Such industries were thus identified as an essential part of the revival and regeneration of the British Countryside, although again this was perceived as only being achieved through dealing with the ‘agricultural problem’ (Hansard, 1926 – House of Commons Debates, 24 June 1926). Moving into the 1930s, there is less evidence of specific rural regeneration policy approaches emerging that moved beyond an existing focus on agricultural development and other primary industries, such as forestry and fishing. Moreover, the latter were seen by the Government at the time to “play a very large part in our future economy if foreign trade is to remain at its present low level” (Hansard, 1934 – David Grenfell MP, House of Commons debates, 19 April 1934). Between the late 1930s and late 1970s, there was little in the way of specific rural regeneration policy in the UK. In the post-war ‘productivist’ period (1945 to the mid-1970s), the rural was viewed predominantly as a space of production. It can be discerned that there was a strong top-down emphasis by successive national governments in the derivation of rural policy and with specific objects of governance continuing to focus on primary industries such as agriculture and forestry, as well as (to a lesser extent) mining and quarrying. An agriculturally-dominant formal representation of the rural, coupled to a focus on rural locality being inscribed through agricultural practices and underpinning everyday lives of the rural (see Chapter 1 and Halfacree, 2006), therefore informed rural regeneration policy approaches. Furthermore, an emphasis was placed on addressing rural employment decline and ‘lagging rural regions’ through interventions such as designated Development Areas and Key Growth (Settlement) Points for stimulating

Rural Regeneration Policy 25

employment opportunities, especially in the manufacturing sector. The latter exemplify elements of a ‘protectionist’ approach that was also in evidence, and with the overall emphasis on a protectivist / productivist agriculturally-centred economy. This was underpinned by a strong agricultural lobby and with farming unions embedded within policy-making and implementation structures both nationally and locally (Woods, 2011; 2008). As such, farming was constructed as the cornerstone of rural economy and society (ibid.). However, by the early 1980s, the economic and political context in the UK had changed considerably. Indeed, the privileging of agricultural interests and representations of regulating and planning the rural in the national interest were undermined during the 1970s and early 1980s. A failure to respond to demands for modernisation and an on-going capitalist search for profit meant that large areas of the rural became surplus to requirements (Cloke and Goodwin, 1992). In many areas this led to a stagnation of the local economy and ensuing unemployment, inadequate access to vital services and housing, and continuing out-migration and the emergence of an ageing population (Woods, 2009). In response, in the UK the Thatcher Conservative governments of the 1980s emphasised a neo-liberal, competition-based, de-regulated approach and an increasing emphasis on ‘commodifying the rural’ and a ‘new marketplace countryside’ (Marsden, Murdoch, Lowe, Munton and Flynn, 1993). Consequently, there were calls for a differentiated approach to regeneration in rural areas (ibid.). Nevertheless, the debate initially remained couched in the context of agriculture. For example, in 1981 the then Secretary of State Mr. Peter Walker commented how policies to redress “the social imbalance between urban and rural dwellers are directed to creating and sustaining a healthy and viable agricultural industry which is of fundamental importance to the maintenance and regeneration of rural areas” (Hansard, 1981 – House of Commons debates, 21 May 1981). By the early 1990s, rural regeneration appeared to be “the flavour of the year” (Hansard, 1991 – MP Eddie McGrady, House of Commons Debates, 10 July 1991) but with more specific packages to support rural regeneration being developed in Wales and Northern Ireland, albeit with a strong agricultural and tourism focus. Indeed, in Northern Ireland, tourism was increasingly seen as a fundamental concern of rural regeneration and with an emphasis on increasing farm diversification and calls for a broader approach to rural regeneration focused on retaining the focal points of rural communities, such as the school, the church, the village shop and the pub. As we shall see in Chapter 6, the EU’s Peace and Reconciliation fund was increasingly important in terms of delivering such ambitions. In England, the Rural Development Commission – set up in 1909 as a permanent Royal Commission to benefit the rural economy of England and to advise and administer a ‘development fund’ (about £1 million per annum by the end of its life) – supported a range of initiatives focused around the development of rural industries. These included a ‘Rural Industries Loan Fund’ (from 1940). However, in the context of rural regeneration, it had responsibility for supporting

26 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

the delivery of two main programmes – the Single Regeneration Budget and Rural Challenge. These are discussed further below.

The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) – Competition and Partnership in Rural Regeneration In relation to the continuing problems of Britain’s inner cities, an emphasis on Area-Based Initiatives (ABIs) had emerged in urban regeneration policy, and with an emphasis on tackling market failures in land and property markets, as well as drawing in resources from the private and voluntary sectors to improve the quality of life of local people. Hence a new programme – the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) – was launched in April 1994 to bring about economic, physical and social regeneration in local areas, and with an emphasis on local partnership working to develop a more responsive and integrated approach (see Box 2.1).

BOX 2.1 KEY FEATURES OF THE SINGLE REGENERATION BUDGET (SRB) Partnership: Very much the ‘engine-room’ of the SRB approach to regeneration. The argument being that the nature of the regeneration problem often contains diverse and complex features embracing economic, social and physical factors. In turn, this requires relevant partners to come together in order to improve the general well-being of the area concerned. The involvement of other public delivery agents was also designed to encourage more Mainstream Bending of resources into deprived areas. Where possible, it was envisaged that the involvement of community representation would facilitate more bottom-up responses. Competition: The argument was that bidding for funding would encourage innovation in regeneration – in essence key players getting their act together. In relation to SRB, this meant achieving a regeneration package and associated outputs and capacity building that met Government requirements. However, a more overt competitive-based approach to delivery begged questions as to whether innovation in the regeneration response compromised meeting need. ‘Hands-Off’ Management: Local partnerships were responsible for the management of regeneration schemes on the basis of guidance provided by the Government. Flexibility: The SRB programme enabled regeneration partnerships to build regeneration schemes that varied considerably in their size, geography, duration, theme and objective. It was possible under SRB to secure funding for Thematic bids as well as more Holistic bids. Source: Rhodes, J., Tyler, P. and Brennan, A. (2007). Evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget: a partnership for regeneration (Final Evaluation Report). Cambridge: Department of Land Economy.

Rural Regeneration Policy 27

Given the SRB had a national coverage it encapsulated both urban and rural areas. This was perceived as being an advantage compared to the geographical selectivity of previous major regeneration programmes such as the Urban Programme and City Challenge, and which had a predominantly urban focus. The SRB can therefore be viewed as perhaps one of the first major initiatives to facilitate rural regeneration. Nevertheless, concerns were raised over its competitive nature and the extent to which rural local authorities had been successful or not, as well as the extent to which resources were being spread too thinly. Table 2.1 below highlights how only 2% of the total funds available from the SRB programme were allocated to remoter – and mainly – rural areas during the first three rounds of the programme. Arguably, the lack of focus on the needs of rural areas through early rounds of the SRB programme related to the 1995 White Paper published by the Conservative government entitled: Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside (Department of the Environment, 1995). This was the first rural White Paper by the UK Government since 1979 and was partially a response to the Government being concerned about the advance of opposition parties – and in particular the Liberal Democrats – in the (rural) south-west of England (Ward, 2008). Rather than a singular sectoral focus on agriculture, the Rural White Paper for England adopted a wider territorial approach and focused on broader rural issues, including the changing nature of rural economy and society. However, its focus on issues such as rural regeneration, rural poverty and rural deprivation was generally absent (although the Rural Challenge initiative – see below – was mentioned in terms of whether competitive bidding systems should be extended to other aspects of the RDCs expenditure; see Jones and Little, 2000). The lack of attention on rural regeneration, poverty and exclusion, according to Cloke and TABLE 2.1 Breakdown of Allocation of SRB Funds (Rounds 1–3)

Area Type London Boroughs Metropolitan Cities and Districts Non-metropolitan Cities Districts with Industrial Areas or New Towns Resort, Port and Retirement Urban and Rural–urban Mixed Remoter Mainly Rural ENGLAND

Total SRB Spend Rounds 1–3 (Estimated £ Million)

% of Total SRB Spend

822 1289

26 41

313 429

10 14

126 83

4 3

65 3,127

2 100

Source: Hansard, 1999 – House of Commons Debates, 10 March 1999; vol.327, cc.242–4.

28 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Little (2005), was due to the ‘othering’ of such issues within political and cultural constructions of rural life. As such, rural regeneration was not perceived as being of necessity given the imagined rural idyll and the unproblematic nature of rural areas (Cloke and Little, 2005). In turn, it is perhaps unsurprising that rural areas received relatively little SRB funding. Following changes to the composition and area targeting within other mainstream programmes (such as Health Action Zones and Employment Action Zones), there was subsequently a tightening of the SRB approach. Hence a revised two-tier approach was adopted which allocated approximately 80% of new SRB resources to large comprehensive schemes in the most deprived (urban) areas, and with the remaining 20% of resources being made available for smaller pockets of deprivation, including rural areas (Rhodes et al., 2007, pp.114–115). In relation to the targeting of rural expenditure associated with the SRB, the Rural Development Commission – and which was seen as the Government’s key rural regeneration agency – used local deprivation indicators to focus investment toward 31 Priority Rural Development Areas. These had replaced previous attempts to focus resources on areas of greatest need through ‘Trigger areas’ (1960s), ‘Areas of Pull’ (1970), ‘Special Investment Areas’ (1975) and ‘Pockets of Need’ (1977). While little information is available for Round 4 of SRB, in Round 5 around 7% of SRB resources (£70 million, and combined with resources from the Rural Challenge Fund – see below) were allocated to wholly rural schemes or the rural parts of mixed area schemes, while in Round 6, £60 million was allocated to rural areas (Hansard, 1999 – House of Commons Debates, 10 March 1999; vol.327, cc.242–244). Beyond this date, the funds from SRB for rural areas were rolled into a Single Pot to be allocated by the new Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) that were set up in 1999 (see below). In overall terms, the effectiveness of SRB programmes in tackling the regeneration needs of rural areas was mixed. Through drawing on one particular example – the West Cornwall (Rural) Initiative – Rhodes et al. (2007) note how the SRB programme helped to develop the regeneration skills and local expertise and capacities of those involved, and in turn helped to secure funds from alternative sources, such as the EU to secure new employment opportunities, enhance tourism and to improve the local environment. They also highlighted the need for local partnership-led regeneration programmes, which should adopt a strategic approach in order to secure mainstream involvement from the outset: Rural areas can experience particular problems in relation to mainstream delivery of services because of the scattered nature of the settlement pattern. If the SRB scheme does not attempt to work with service providers to improve this, then any benefits to the overall process by which regeneration problems are tackled can be elusive and scattered. Economic measures on their own are not sufficient. (Rhodes et al., 2007, para.7.8.8)

Rural Regeneration Policy 29

A further lesson that emerged was for the need to undertake regeneration projects in market towns in order to provide services for disadvantaged residents in their rural hinterlands. However, a number of criticisms were also levelled at the SRB approach in rural areas based on the West Cornwall example. These included i) a slow rate of progress in the initial stages of many SRB programmes; ii) fragmentation and a lack of clear vision or coherent strategy; iii) the lack of any genuine community involvement in the rural regeneration process as a whole (although this failure was later corrected in successor body partnership arrangements for the West Cornwall Initiative); and iv) more emphasis being given to physical regeneration rather than social / community regeneration (for example, community health issues were not addressed and affordable housing, public transport and accessibility to public services were often given a low priority).

The Rural Challenge Fund – Further Competition and Uneven Rural Regeneration The Rural Challenge Fund was also set up in 1994 to encourage innovation and partnership working to secure regeneration in the Rural Development Areas of England (Rural Development Commission, 1999). Local authorities within the designated Rural Development Areas could bid for up to £1 million in funding, and with six ‘prizes’ awarded annually (Jones and Little 2000, p.175). Most local authorities could bid every other year (although some could bid annually). In turn, this meant that annually there were 16 bids competing for six awards. Priority was given to applications that set out their ability to secure the highest private sector leverage, that involved partners from the public, private and voluntary sector, that illustrated innovation, which could be replicated more widely, and which offered value for money (Rural Development Commission, 1994). Key features of the Rural Challenge approach are set out in Box 2.2. It is noticeable that a number of these features reiterate the approach of the SRB programme in terms of an emphasis on partnership working, including private sector involvement and community engagement.

BOX 2.2 KEY FEATURES OF RURAL CHALLENGE Leverage: Rural Challenge set targets for the leverage of private capital before state funding was released. Partnership: A new partnership role for citizens and communities was identified by Rural Challenge, along with the public and private sector. Partnerships were expected to enhance the policy culture within their area and with the outcome of creating a partnership culture being of equal to or of even greater importance than the outcomes promised by the actual projects.

30 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Competition: Rural Challenge awards were made on the basis of direct competition between partnerships and with the winning partnerships often having relatively large sums of money to spend in small communities. Source: Jones and Little (2000, pp.173–175).

In total, Rural Challenge invested £21 million in 23 schemes between 1994 and 1999, and secured an additional £54 million in investment from public, private, European and lottery sources. Over 200 new community facilities were created, 250 new businesses set up and 3,000 jobs either secured or created (Rural Development Commission, 1999; see Box 2.3).

BOX 2.3 EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY RURAL CHALLENGE 







The Bakewell Project, Derbyshire (1996–1999) – Relocation of the old livestock market out of the town centre and development of a new agricultural and business centre, providing conference facilities, training, an IT resource centre and a new community centre. A lifeline for Bishop’s Castle, Shropshire (1995–1998) – Focused on regenerating the area, strengthening the local economy and improving service provision by creating 37 small business units, an IT resource centre and providing childcare and ‘community chest’ grants to support small arts, transport, tourism and social projects. Heart of the National Forest, Leicestershire (1995–1998) – Helped to develop the area’s tourist potential by converting a former 20 acre colliery site by providing a visitor and interpretation centre, 12 craft workshops, a new office development, a training centre for forestry and environmental conservation, a 750-seat amphitheatre and further land reclamation. Signpost, West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (1996–1999) – Used innovative technology to strengthen the area’s competitive ‘tourism offer’ by providing a comprehensive database on visitor attractions, businesses and accommodation in the area, as well as a Call Centre to handle holiday guide enquiries. Source: Rural Development Commission (1999). Rural challenge: lessons for the future. Salisbury: Rural Development Commission.

However, a number of criticisms arose in respect of Rural Challenge. First, issues relating to conflicting objectives in terms of the extent to which Rural Challenge integrated with other initiatives. Second, the competitive bidding process associated with Rural Challenge, which made it difficult for many actors

Rural Regeneration Policy 31

to justify spending large amounts of time and resources in preparing a partnership and bid that might not subsequently be successful. Indeed, many areas lacked the resources to develop a realistic bid in terms of political knowledge, local commercial knowledge and technical expertise. As a result, this also contributed to a spatially fragmented and uneven approach to rural regeneration, and with many areas not receiving funding at all: In a competition, there are winners and losers; that is certainly the case with Rural Challenge. Of the 16 national entrants to the competition, only six were chosen and there was an allocated share of £5 million, so many more areas were disappointed than were celebrating. (Hansard, 1997a – MP Angela Eagle, House of Commons debates, 22 December 1997, vol.303, cc.755–62). Many applications were therefore constructed around schemes that were seen as more likely to ‘win’ rather than being focused on the most problematic issues. Third, many partnerships were often formed as ‘partnerships of convenience’ in order to secure funds rather than representing a genuine collaboration and integration of interests. Hence local communities were often not taken seriously or lacked experience or expertise to engage effectively given the lack to time to develop partnership arrangements. Also, certain sections of the local community were often excluded or were less likely to engage in such arrangements meaning that those involved were not always representative of the wider community. In addition, the lack of private sector activity in more remote rural areas meant that such areas were generally less successful in securing Rural Challenge funding compared to those in market towns or former coal mining areas. Issues of involving the local community and private sector also meant that many Rural Challenge partnerships were often weighted toward the interests and needs of the local public sector (Jones and Little, 2000, pp.177–182). The Rural Challenge Fund was subsequently incorporated into the SRB programme and with bids covering rural areas being eligible for SRB support. Indeed, such a change was promulgated with the introduction of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in April 1999.

Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the 2000 Rural White Paper – Issues of Integration to Deliver a Broader Conception of Rural Regeneration? With the election of the Labour Government into power in 1997, new structures and objects of governance emerged for rural regeneration. These were increasingly entrepreneurial and market-driven and focused around consumption-based activities. The rationales behind such changes and the implications for rural regeneration governance are addressed in Chapter 3. But what can be noted is the

32 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

introduction of new Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) across England in 1999, which became responsible for much of the rural regeneration work previously undertaken by the RDC (including most of its budget for rural regeneration and SRB allocations). In this respect, the RDC was merged with the Countryside Commission to create a new Countryside Agency to advise the RDAs on rural issues (Rhodes et al., 2007, p.115). Applicants for SRB funds thus also needed to highlight how they were now contributing to RDAs Regional Economic Strategies. However, the shift in responsibility for rural regeneration away from the RDC was extremely controversial. The rural regeneration budget of the RDC constituted over half of its budget and led to the chair of the RDC resigning in protest. Indeed, there was criticism that the removal of responsibilities for rural regeneration from the RDC to the RDAs would lead to the rural agenda being neglected: We looked in vain for a single sign that the Government appreciate the real fear—a widespread fear—that RDAs will be urban-based and urban-focused, that they will have urban-dominated boards, and that—at the request of the Secretary of State— they will pursue an urban agenda. The extent of the Government’s determination to prevent regional development agencies from having to consider the rural dimension was shown when they argued against and defeated an Opposition amendment that would have required the Secretary of State to consult “such persons as appear to him to represent rural interests in the agency’s area”. (Hansard, 1998a – Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 January 1998; c.73; cited by Tim Yeo, Conservative MP, House of Commons debates, 01 April 1998) In response, the ruling Labour government argued that the new body emerging from the merger of the parts of the Rural Development Commission not transferred to the RDAs and the Countryside Commission – the Countryside Agency – would provide advice and expertise to the Government on further guidance to be issued to the RDAs in respect of rural areas. The new body would also continue to support a variety of rural regeneration projects in the Priority Rural Development Areas. It is therefore interesting to consider the budget for the first year in which the Countryside Agency operated (1999–2000 – Table 2.2). What this highlights is that most of its funds were targeted toward community development activities, as well as transport and accessibility issues. In contrast, its economic regeneration and enterprise budget was extremely limited given such responsibilities had now been passed to the RDAs. This calls into question the extent to which the new arrangements facilitated greater levels of integration in respect of expenditure and activity (also see Woods, 2008).

Rural Regeneration Policy 33

TABLE 2.2 Countryside Agency Budget (1999–2000)

Theme

£ million

a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

3.579 5.051 0.341 0.263 0.471 4.692 3.758

Transport Community development Planning Social exclusion Economic regeneration and enterprise Access Special areas

Source: Hansard, 2000a – House of Commons debates 21 November 2000, vol.357; cc.115–6W.

In December 1999, the Government’s Performance Innovation Unit (PIU) identified the need to further modernize rural policy in order to create enterprising economies, an enhanced environment, thriving rural communities and sustainable agriculture. Indeed, on-going concerns with agriculture and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) meant that farm diversification was also seen as key to broader rural regeneration efforts. Such issues therefore formed the basis of a whole range of rural regeneration-related priorities set out in a new Rural White Paper produced by the Labour Government in 2000 entitled Our countryside: the future, a fair deal for rural England (Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions – DETR / Ministry for Agriculture Food and Fisheries – MAFF, 2000). Some 260 key commitments were contained or referred to in the Rural White Paper, including enhancing opportunity and tackling social exclusion by improving productivity in the least performing rural areas and improving rural people’s access to services. 29 of the commitments had direct funding arrangements, and with 13 involving a competitive bidding process (Table 2.3). Following the publication of the Rural White Paper, the Government established a new remit on rural regeneration for the RDAs and committed to increase funding by £37 million between 2001–2002 and 2003–2004 to support a £100 million Market Towns regeneration programme. This was taken forward by the RDAs working with the Countryside Agency (and other local partners), and with partnership funds for 100 towns in or near the most deprived rural areas to act as a focus for local growth (the ‘Rural Priority Areas’). The Countryside Agency was also responsible for Rural Action (allocating relatively small amounts of funding to support community services) and the Vital Villages programme, which provided community service grants, parish transport grants and parish plans grants to help identify and meet local needs. In addition, a ministerial rural affairs group – a Rural Regeneration Committee – was set up to try and ensure that Government departments considered the impact of their policies on rural areas (Osborne, Williamson and Beattie, 2004). In essence, what can be witnessed is a comprehensive attempt to address the regeneration needs of rural communities, which encapsulated varying aspects of economic and social policy.

34 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

TABLE 2.3 Funding Commitments for Rural Programmes Specified in the 2000 Rural

White Paper Funding Commitment

Bidding

Community Service Fund*

✓

Refurbishing Post Offices

✓

Set Funding Formula

Total £15m over 3 years £2m

Single Small Schools Fund

✓

£240m over 3 years

One Stop Primary Care Centres

✓

£100m

✓

Sure Start

£22m

Social Exclusion Projects

✓

£4.5

Police Visibility in Rural Areas

✓

£60m

Housing Corporation Programme of Affordable Housing in Settlements under 3000 Starter Homes Initiative

✓

Not available

✓

£250m

Rural Housing Enablers

✓

*

£2.8m ✓

Promote Flexible Lettings Policies by Local Authorities Rural Transport Partnership*

✓

19.5m

Parish Transport Fund*

✓

£15m ✓

Rural Bus Subsidy Rural Bus Challenge Community Rail Partnerships

*

Rail Passenger Partnership Regeneration of 100 Market Towns* Leader +*

£13m

£132m

✓

£20m

✓

£0.2m

✓

£52m ✓

✓

£37m £50m

Business Clusters

✓

£54m

Help for Small/Medium Sized Abattoirs* School Milk Scheme

✓

£20m

✓

£1.5m

National School Fruit Scheme

✓

£42m

Extension of Redundant Buildings Grant scheme Local Heritage Initiative National Parks Grants

*

Increased Funding for AONBs*

✓

£4m

✓

£5m ✓

£31.5m (2002–2003)

✓

£1.1m (2002–2003)

Rural Regeneration Policy 35

Funding Commitment National Training Strategy/ Best Practice Toolkit for Parish and Town Councils* Help 1000 Rural Communities Prepare Plans*

Bidding

✓

Set Funding Formula

Total

✓

£2m

£5m

Source: Hansard, 2002 – House of Commons debates 7 November 2002, vol.392, c.567W. Note: * Programmes administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) or one of its agencies.

The Increasing Importance of the European Union (EU) and Endogenous Community (Rural) Regeneration While Table 2.3 identifies funds for rural regeneration that were provided by the Rural Development Commission and other national government sources, the importance of the EU to rural regeneration in both a UK and English context should not be underestimated. Indeed, over time EU funding became the dominant mechanism to support rural regeneration activity. Since the mid-1980s there was a focus on developing new models of support from the EU for rural areas given that agricultural surpluses and growing concerns over the environment challenged a sectoral approach to rural policy based around agriculture (Ward, 2002). Consequently, an increasingly territorial approach that targeted rural regions became evident and new funding streams emerged. In this respect, EU structural funds concentrated resources on areas of greatest need, and emphasised coordination and partnership, additionality and leverage and a strong emphasis on monitoring and evaluation (Armstrong, 1998; Roberts and Hart, 1996). For rural areas, the most significant of these funds was initially ‘Objective 5b’, which was designed to promote the development of fragile rural areas. Initially devised in 1988, the Objective 5b programme supported four areas in Round 1 (1989–1993) in the UK – Devon and Cornwall, Rural Wales, Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Highlands and Islands. In Round 2 (1994–1999), 11 rural areas containing almost three million people received £700 million in support (£1.7 billion with match funding), including East Anglia, the South West, the Northern Uplands, the Marches, Lincolnshire and the Midlands Uplands (Ward and McNicholas 1998, p.369). Eligibility criteria included below average rates of economic development, an agricultural-dominated economy and poor levels of agricultural incomes. Most of the areas that received funding prioritised business support and tourism activities. However, a high degree of central government control was evident in respect of the content of individual programmes and how they were delivered (ibid., p.373). Roberts and Hart (1996) concluded that such programmes “acted to forge new relations between local actors and

36 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

[have] led to new ways of working becoming developed across a wide front”. However, in contrast, Armstrong (1998) criticised Objective 5b for offering “all things to all people”, while Martin et al. (1990) also argued that such funds were most successful in engaging businesses in regeneration, rather than local communities. With the reform of CAP and EU enlargement, the Objective 5b programme was replaced by a new ‘Objective 2’ programme (2000–2006). While this included provisions to support rural regeneration, it was much more tightly defined and with economic development activities focused specifically on the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties, including rural areas. This meant that a spatially uneven approach to rural regeneration and development became increasingly apparent. Alongside the Objective 2 programme, the Objective 1 programme (2000–2006) was also important in that four regions of the UK – South Yorkshire, West Wales and the Valleys, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly – became eligible for such support (Northern Ireland and the Highlands and Islands region in Scotland were no longer eligible). Funds from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) were available in Objective 1 areas to support the restructuring and diversification of the rural economy, while outside of Objective 1 areas, the EAGGF provided funding through an England Rural Development Plan (Guarantee Funds). In this respect, the latter became the key component in the delivery of many of the policies identified in the Rural White Paper (Ward, 2002) and between 2001 and 2007 £1.6 billion was allocated to the Rural Development Plan for England in order to support the conservation and enhancement of the environment. The Plan also sought to create a sustainable rural economy involving support for farming, forestry and other rural businesses to adapt to changing circumstances. However, the Rural Development Plan was frequently criticized as being too overtly focused on agriculture and other traditional rural industries rather than adopting a more comprehensive and wide-ranging set of rural regeneration activities (Ward, 2002). Further plans were subsequently produced for the 2007–2013 and 2014–2020 periods, which are discussed below and elsewhere (Chapter 6). The reform of EU structural funds also led to a number of ‘community initiatives’ being introduced. Their role in shaping and delivering rural regeneration is discussed extensively in Chapter 4. However, it can be noted that the LEADER initiative – funded through EAGGF – was particularly important in supporting the development of ‘Local Action Groups’ (LAGs) focused on creating innovative community-led approaches for delivering sustainable rural development and regeneration. There have been several iterations of LEADER (LEADER I, LEADER II, LEADER +). Mixed results have been reported in terms of the effectiveness of such programmes, both as a participatory mechanism to engage local communities and as a practical tool to deliver rural regeneration (Shucksmith, 2008). Such arguments are deliberated further in Chapter 4.

Rural Regeneration Policy 37

Rural Policy Retrenchment While some saw the Rural White Paper as the ‘high point’ of the Labour government’s approach to rural areas and the encapsulation of a broader approach to the rural that moved beyond traditional agricultural concerns (Woods, 2008; 2006), there were nevertheless some strong criticisms of the Government’s approach and the progress being achieved. For example, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Seventh Report on the Rural White Paper 2000 recommended that a new team of senior civil servants from outside MAFF should be brought in “to accelerate the glacial rate of progress in reorienting the Ministry’s priorities and to implement the major changes in rural policy which are required” (para.83). Furthermore, a major outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in England in February 2001 led to responsibility for rural policy being transferred from MAFF, DETR and the Home Office to a new department – the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). A key driver was the perceived failure of MAFF to deal effectively with the outbreak and hence DEFRA brought together responsibilities for agriculture, environment and rural affairs (Rowe, 2011). In so doing, it also inherited responsibility for delivering the Rural White Paper. The 2001 FMD crisis triggered widespread concerns about the co-ordination of rural policies. In response, there was a major shift in the focus of rural policy back to the needs of the agricultural sector. This shift also reflected the on-going influence of the farming lobby that in practice led to a re-regulation of agriculture but with a market-oriented rationality (Woods, 2008). Lord Christopher Haskins was appointed as a Rural Recovery Co-ordinator to plan for economic recovery and commissioned to undertake a review of the rural delivery activities of DEFRA and its agencies. His Rural Delivery Report was published in November 2003. It concluded that the separation of policy delivery from policy development was essential and that many of the problems of integrating rural delivery could be resolved by decentralising responsibilities to regional and local bodies (Haskins, 2003). Specifically, from a rural regeneration perspective it recommended a merger of the Rural Countryside Agency, DEFRAs Rural Development Service, and English Nature to create a new integrated agency – the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC). This was set up in October 2006 to provide impartial advice on rural matters to the Government and other bodies. The overall intention of these reforms was to improve accountability through a clearer separation of responsibility for policy and delivery functions; to rationalize rural funding streams; to focus on outcomes rather than outputs; and to move responsibility for social and economic programmes of the Countryside Agency to the RDAs (in particular), local authorities and the voluntary and community sector. But the reality was a narrowing of concerns of rural regeneration activity and on-going concerns over the extent to which the RDAs were focusing on the needs of rural communities (Harrison and Heley, 2015).

38 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

A Review of the 2000 Rural White Paper followed and informed the Government’s 2004 Rural Strategy, which embraced the principle of decentralising greater powers over the implementation of economic and social policy for rural areas. The Strategy also recommended the streamlining of over 100 rural, agricultural and environmental funding schemes to three major programmes. One of these was specifically focused on ‘Rural Regeneration’ (the others included ‘Agriculture and Food Industry Regeneration’ and ‘Natural Resource Protection’). Such emphases related to the Government’s new policy for rural areas, which also had three main foci: 1) a focus on economic and social regeneration in lagging rural areas and support for rural business and sustainable rural communities; 2) to tackle rural social exclusion and to achieve fair access to services for all; and 3) to protect and enhance the natural environment in rural areas – and in line with the Sustainable Communities Plan that was published in 2003. In this respect, the RDAs were again seen as important in the delivery of such ambitions, and in the context of new national Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets (and specifically PSA4) which sought to reduce the gap between the least well performing quartile of rural areas and the English median (DEFRA, 2004). However, following the failed attempt to create a regional assembly in the north east of England in 2004, the rural agenda was increasingly subsumed within the broader shift toward a city-regional – rather than regional scale – of working. In 2007 the Sub-national Review (SNR) of Economic Development and Regeneration led to the creation of a single national housing and regeneration agency – Communities England (HM Treasury, 2007). Its remit included rural areas of England. The SNR also confirmed the establishment of Multi Area Agreements (MAAs) – arrangements designed to support cross-boundary working by local authorities to engage more effectively in cross-boundary working (Harrison and Heley, 2015). But in terms of rural concerns, it was again highlighted how MAAs needed “to be carefully managed (in order to avoid) the perception that the rural authorities are getting fewer benefits” (Department for Communities and Local Government 2010a, p.50). Indeed, in reality the EU-funded 2007–2013 Rural Development Programme arguably became more important in terms of providing support to rural business and in facilitating community-led regeneration. ‘Bottom up’ endogenous approaches became synonymous with rural regeneration activity. The focus of the Rural Development Programme in England was multi-sectoral and more wide-ranging than in other parts of the UK (see Chapter 6) and heavily emphasized business support and diversification, improving skills and tackling social disadvantage. Around £600 million was made available between 2007 and 2013, and with the RDAs initially having responsibility for delivery in an attempt to integrate such funding with other rural regeneration programmes. But once again, the extent to which the needs of rural communities were being addressed was brought into question (Harrison and Heley, 2015).

Rural Regeneration Policy 39

Whither Rural Regeneration? The shift toward sub-regional working and voluntary local authority-driven (city-region) partnership arrangements offered the opportunity for rural areas to also pool responsibilities for rural regeneration. It was suggested by the Labour government that rural areas had an important role to play in the wider regional economy, and particularly with the onset of the global recession in 2008. But the Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing in 2008 cited the opposite and stated that Government policy was generally focusing on cities as the engines of economic growth and regeneration rather than rural areas (Taylor, 2008). Indeed, both Shucksmith (2008) and Ward (2006) identified how rural areas were increasingly viewed by central government as ‘carriages’ or ‘appendages’ being pulled along by “the urban locomotive of economic competitiveness” (Shucksmith, 2008, p.64), which would subsequently benefit from ‘trickle down’ of interventions focused on city-regions (Ward, 2006). However, such a perspective was criticized in that it was noted that urban centres were far more likely to gain the most from this type of approach (Shucksmith, 2008). The 2009 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (Department for Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS), 2009) further consolidated the shift to sub-regions by announcing the rationalisation of regional arrangements – for example the creation of a Single Regional Strategy – and the opportunity for local authorities to work together on a more formal basis. But there were on-going concerns over the impact of such changes on rural regeneration activity: Thank goodness we have the Secretary of State. Gosh, he really is concerned (about rural areas). But what is he going to do? … Will that great champion of rural England, the Prime Minister, take great strides to help out my community in Wiltshire? Lord Mandelson of north London or wherever he is from is not exactly the biggest ever champion of rural areas. (Hansard, 2009a – James Gray, Conservative MP, House of Commons proceedings 24 March 2009) In response, the appointment of a ‘Rural Advocate’ by the Labour government to highlight the impact of the recession on rural communities was generally viewed as a positive move and reinforced by the Commission for Rural Communities’ annual ‘State of the Countryside’ reports. But even so, the Government remained of the view that rural areas did not require specialist intervention and hence there was the continuation of a discourse which sought to minimize rural–urban differences (Woods, 2008, p.7): The important thing to stress is that wherever people live—in rural or urban communities—the problems that they face are pretty similar, despite the unique circumstances

40 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

that arise in some rural communities … although rural areas have many challenges, I do not accept that they are notably different from the rest of our society. (Hansard, 2009b – Dan Norris, Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, House of Commons proceedings 15 June 2009) With the 2010 General Election in the UK, a Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government replaced the Labour government. In a context of on-going financial austerity, the government began to disband the regional arrangements that had been set up to support economic development and regeneration, including the regional government offices, the RDAs and other agencies, such as the Commission for Rural Communities. The official rationale provided for the abolition of the CRC was to “remove duplication, improve efficiency and for the more effective targeting of resources” (Summary of comments received and Government response to consultation exercise, DEFRA, 2012a). Rather it was suggested that rural expertise could be consolidated in DEFRA. In this respect, DEFRA could act as the ‘rural champion’ within the Government in order to create a unified rural policy framework across government departments through activities of mainstreaming and rural proofing (Rowe, 2011). It was also advocated that a new Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU) within DEFRA would also be “better placed to communicate with rural communities and to stimulate debate about rural needs and proposed solutions” (Hansard, 2012 – Richard Beynon, Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, House of Commons proceedings 17 April 2012). However, only 12 of 41 respondents who responded to the consultation agreed to the abolition of the CRC and many questioned the extent to which the new arrangements would be impartial and move beyond the agenda of central government (ibid.). Through an emphasis on securing economic growth through new forms of localism and harnessing the private sector, the Coalition Government reiterated the importance of the Rural Development Programme for England as a key source of support for rural regeneration (DEFRA, 2012b). With the 2011 Localism Act it also promoted activities such as neighbourhood planning to address local needs, although in reality much of the emphasis in the context of neighbourhood planning was on developing a local land use plan to identify new sites for housing in order to meet national housing targets (DCLG, 2011b). From a rural perspective, Harrison and Heley (2015) note how the RDAs were criticised on several fronts, namely: i) national co-ordination and co-operation on rural affairs being much weaker than their predecessor, the Rural Development Commission (also see Ward, 2006); ii) the business-led boards of RDAs being dominated by representatives with a strong urban focus; iii) nationally prescribed performance targets greatly influencing RDA priorities, encouraging large-scale programmes of investment and activity to the detriment of smaller investments with more modest returns that are often required in less urban areas; and critically, iv) following the failure to establish directly elected regional assemblies in

Rural Regeneration Policy 41

2004, RDAs becoming increasingly involved in promoting the interests of England’s core cities (Harrison, 2012). The dismantling of the RDAs, and the creation of 39 new sub-regional Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) across England was therefore – at least in theory – a new opportunity to respond to the regeneration needs of rural areas. The purpose of LEPs – joint local authority-business bodies – was to promote private sector growth and job creation across the ‘natural’ economic geography of England and to replace ‘unnatural’ regional blocks “which did not always reflect real functional economic areas” (HM Government, 2010, p.13). But an analysis of LEP activity by the CRC (2012; 2010a) highlighted a number of issues in respect of their ability to respond to rural concerns. More specifically, in the context of rural regeneration these included a lack of recognition of how the development of the rural economy could contribute toward LEP priorities; LEPs prioritising support to larger projects, marginalising many smaller organisations and businesses located in rural areas; and a lack of clarity about how the work of LEPs overlapped with the activities of Local Action Groups under the LEADER community regeneration initiative as well as other structures such as Local Nature Partnerships, Rural Farming Networks and the Rural Development Programme for England 2014–2020 (CRC, 2012, pp.7–10). It was also noted how LEPs should link regeneration activities in urban areas to their rural hinterlands to a greater degree; and that a wider range of actors representing the broad spectrum of regeneration interests in rural areas needed to be involved in LEP activity rather than just the land-based sector (ibid., pp.9–10). Thus, concerns persisted over the extent to which the needs of rural areas were being met. This was subsequently brought into sharp relief with the 28 ‘City Deals’ that the Coalition Government announced in 2014, which aimed to decentralize local decision-making but predominantly in the context of urban areas. Lupton and Fitzgerald (2015) therefore summarised the Coalition Government’s (2010–2015) approach to regeneration as being:   

local, with national government in a strategic or supporting role; less about time-limited area regeneration schemes; and more about local growth through LEPs and new local growth deals to fund housing and infrastructure improvements.

Such points were set out in the Government’s ‘Regeneration to Enable Growth’ document (DCLG, 2011a). This emphasised less reliance on traditional property-led regeneration models (which had become largely unsustainable given the collapse of global financial markets), a withdrawal of the state from much regeneration activity and a decentralisation of activity to a wider range of actors, including local communities (DCLG, 2011a; Glossop, 2009). Crucially, a specific

42 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

emphasis on rural regeneration per se was also less evident. The Coalition Government’s own White Paper on Local Growth published in 2010 made just two references to rural areas (Her Majesty’s Government, 2010) while the Coalition Government’s 2012 Rural Statement did not make any mention of rural regeneration at all (DEFRA, 2012b). Indeed, the Rural Statement itself acknowledged that the Government had not explored “the important role of the church in rural communities, the key function of market towns as social and economic hubs, or the role of rural communities in managing and preserving the natural environment” (DEFRA, 2012b, p.16). In addition, a response to the 2011 Regeneration to Enable Growth document noted that the lack of strategic direction for regeneration in both urban and rural areas was unhelpful (The Stationery Office, 2012, p.1). As such, the rural regeneration agenda – both materially and discursively – had become increasingly absent at a national level.

Summary In discussing some of the more recent iterations of rural regeneration in England, the evolution of rural regeneration policy in England can be highlighted. Indeed, while a ‘rural regeneration’ discourse has existed for over 100 years, it is only since the early 1990s that it has been actively promoted and implemented, both materially and discursively. Furthermore, despite the identification in Chapter 1 of how rural regeneration can be differentiated from broader processes of rural development, it is clear that the terms are frequently used interchangeably. Notwithstanding this, the emphasis has been on identifying those types of initiatives that have attempted to reverse rural decline, and in line with Woods’ (2005) definition of rural regeneration. While the chapter has focused explicitly on rural regeneration policy, it is possible to discern that the provenance and nature of such policy are also entwined with structures of rural governance. These will be focused upon in Chapter 3. Nevertheless, it is clear that as new forms and scales of rural governance have emerged and evolved in England, this has had consequences for rural regeneration policy – including the key ‘objects of governance’ that have been prioritized by those able to act in and through the state (Jessop, 1997; 1990). In the post-1945 productivist period, broader rural regeneration concerns around housing and welfare support were subsumed within a focus on the agricultural economy and agricultural interests and given agriculturally dominant representations of the rural (see Halfacree, 2006). Such a privileging in respect of regeneration policy in rural areas was – at the very least – significantly broadened during the late 1980s and 1990s under the Thatcher and Major Conservative governments and through programmes such as the SRB and the Rural Challenge Initiative. These interventions, rather belatedly, highlighted the problematic assumptions of the ‘rural idyll’ and a denial of poverty and social exclusion in rural areas (Woodward, 1996).

Rural Regeneration Policy 43

SRB and Rural Challenge are arguably the two key regeneration programmes of relevance to rural areas that have been introduced in the last 30 years. What we learn from these area-based initiatives is the need for: i a reasonable ‘lead in’ time for regeneration programmes in rural areas to identify local needs, to develop genuine collaborative arrangements; to ensure that the interests of public sector partners do not dominate; and in order to ‘hit the ground running’; ii a clear strategic and long-term vision that local partners and local communities are able to commit to; iii the widest cross-section of community involvement in local rural regeneration programmes in order to identify local issues and to try and respond accordingly; iv equal value to be given to social and community regeneration activities, as well as physical regeneration in rural areas; v such programmes to be targeted on need rather than on those most likely to ‘win’, and to also focus on areas where private sector activity may be more difficult to secure (for example, outside of market towns). The programmes are also useful in illustrating a number of broader points of relevance in respect of the evolving nature of rural regeneration policy under successive national governments in England. These are set out and discussed in Box 2.4.

BOX 2.4 THE EVOLVING NATURE OF RURAL REGENERATION POLICY IN ENGLAND 





An initial emphasis on competition and partnership in rural regeneration policy, and which was consistent with a lack of ideological commitment of the (then) Conservative government that has also been reported in respect of urban areas. Top-down approaches to rural regeneration gradually being supplemented by bottom-up partnership-led initiatives, and with local government – unlike in urban areas – continuing to be a key player. However, such partnership arrangements evolved later than in urban areas (see Edwards, Goodwin, Pemberton and Woods, 2001). A relatively short-term and spatially uneven approach to dealing with rural problems that emerged over a much longer period, and with the needs of some communities – for example, those defined as ‘deep rural’ (Wales Rural Observatory, 2009) particularly pronounced. On average, rural areas also received relatively small funding allocations compared to urban areas, and especially in early rounds of the SRB programme.

44 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

 

  





An emphasis on involving the private sector but which has often been more difficult to achieve in rural areas given the nature and size of businesses. An initial emphasis (through programmes such as SRB and Rural Challenge) on area-based targeting – and especially in rural market towns – but which was recognised as being less successful in addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion given that these are less likely to be spatially concentrated or separated in rural areas (see Woodward, 1996). A complex environment for rural regeneration policy, particularly with the increasing importance of EU funding and the introduction of Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) (see McManus et al., 2012). An emphasis on economy and efficiency which has become more evident over time given issues of financial austerity and achieving ‘more with less’. A withdrawal of direct state intervention but which continues to ‘govern at a distance’ (see Goodwin, 1998) and with more emphasis on harnessing the private sector and local communities to secure rural regeneration (Osborne et al., 2004). An initial broadening and subsequent narrowing of rural regeneration policy, with agricultural interests becoming predominant once again, and a (belated) recognition of the need to enhance the involvement of the farming community in rural regeneration at a local level (see Scott, 2004 and Chapter 4). An increasing attention on cities and city-regions as key to prosperity and economic growth, but with varying attention to the specific needs of rural communities therein (see Harrison and Heley, 2015; Pemberton and Shaw, 2012).

Indeed, by the early 1980s the economic and political context that framed regeneration activity in the UK, and England more specifically, had changed significantly. A global and national economic recession, coupled with the on-set of neo-liberalism led to a more competitive, entrepreneurial and multi-functional emphasis being developed in relation to rural areas, and with a widening of both economic and social policy in relation to rural regeneration, which encapsulated sectors as diverse as tourism, housing and community. As such, there was a broader conception of rural locality as a commodity and consisting of both agricultural and non-agricultural spatial practices. Following the election of the Labour government in 1997 and its commitment to devolution, new objects of governance for rural regeneration emerged that focused on consumption-based activities as part of developing a broader rural agenda (Woods, 2006). Arguably, the Rural White Paper of 2000 was the high point of such an approach. However, with the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease in 2001 there was some retrenchment back toward

Rural Regeneration Policy 45

agriculture in terms of the focus of rural regeneration policy (and akin to what has been reported more broadly in terms of rural policy), although it is notable that rural regeneration was still evident in the 2004 Review of the Rural White Paper. With the global economic crisis and financial austerity, rural regeneration activities became increasingly dependent upon the EU-funded Rural Development Programme for England (and their equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – see Chapter 6). There has been a move away from traditional property-led regeneration models (although these were somewhat less prevalent in many rural areas in any case) and a re-emphasis on community self-help and economic regeneration through new business creation. Indeed, ‘bottom up’ endogenous approaches have become increasingly synonymous with rural regeneration and with the state taking a much more passive role in both urban and rural regeneration. In conjunction with the move to city-regions and new forms of economic governance such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England, there has also been a re-iteration of thinking that first emerged in the 1920s in respect of the development of a discourse that promulgates how the rural and urban are interconnected with minimal differences (Woods, 2008). In such a context, it is interesting to note that common criticisms of both RDAs and LEPs relate to the regeneration needs of rural areas not sufficiently being recognized or differentiated (Harrison and Heley, 2015), and with rural regeneration activity being increasingly marginalized and subsumed within an urban growth agenda (Harrison, 2012). Both the 2010–2015 Coalition Government and the Conservative government (2015–) have been lacking in any explicit strategy to address rural concerns, and especially those that extend beyond agricultural interests (for example, see Harrison and Heley, 2015; Pemberton and Shaw, 2012; Shucksmith, 2008). Indeed, there has been a marginalisation of issues relating to the natural environment. It has also been noted how a more explicit recognition is required of both businesses of the rural and businesses in the rural in respect of policy interventions (Pemberton and Shaw, 2012). Such points are now considered further in the following chapter, and which explores the shifting structures and scales of governance of relevance to rural regeneration, and the relative prioritisation of different objects of governance for rural regeneration in the context – for example – of national government’s ambitions to retain power, demonstrate governing competence and secure political argument hegemony (Bulpitt, 1986a; 1986b).

Key Points 

Rural regeneration policy reflects shifts in the broader economic, political and social environment and the restructuring and rescaling of structures of rural governance.

46 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance



 





In the post-war productivist phase (1945 to mid- to late 1970s), rural regeneration – both materially and discursively – was less evident and with a primary focus around the agricultural economy given agriculturally dominant representations of the rural. Under neo-liberalism and the Thatcher and Major Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s, rural regeneration activity was increasingly directed toward facilitating consumption-based activities to address rural decline. Two major area-based rural regeneration initiatives were the Single Regeneration Budget programme and Rural Challenge. While highlighting the varying needs of rural areas and the need for partnership-based responses, they both promoted a spatially uneven approach through their competitive nature and with mixed success in securing private sector and community involvement. Issues also arose in terms of their ability to identify and address rural problems that were not spatially concentrated. The Rural White Paper produced by the Labour government in 2000 set out a range of regeneration activities to address rural problems. However, with the onset of Foot and Mouth disease in 2001 there was a retrenchment of rural regeneration policy back toward the needs of the agricultural sector. City-regional / sub-regional approaches – rather than regional approaches – have been promulgated more recently to secure urban growth and with a discourse that has minimised rural–urban differences. This has served to undermine a recognition of the regeneration needs of rural areas, and with EU-funded programmes – rather than national programmes – becoming increasingly important in addressing rural concerns.

Study Questions    

How have the key ‘objects’ of governance for rural regeneration policy in England evolved under successive national governments? Critically explore the key influences that have shaped rural regeneration policy in England since 1997? Discuss the key features associated with the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and the Rural Challenge Fund in the context of rural areas. How important has the EU been in shaping rural regeneration policy?

Further Reading / Websites of Relevance Michael Woods’ excellent edited collection published in 2008 provides a broad overview of rural policy under the New Labour government and contains some information relating to rural regeneration. 

Woods, M. (Ed.) (2008). New Labour’s countryside: rural policy in Britain since 1997. Bristol: Policy Press.

Rural Regeneration Policy 47

A number of websites are of relevance to securing further information on key rural regeneration initiatives that have been implemented since 1979 in England:

Evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) With reference to the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge undertook a comprehensive evaluation over an eight-year period (1996–2003). A number of issues are raised in relation to rural areas, which have been reported in this chapter. See: www.la ndecon.cam.ac.uk/research/real-estate-and-urban-analysis/urban-and-regional-an alysis/projects/evaluation-of-the-single-regeneration-budget-challange-fund.

Evaluation of Rural Challenge Evaluation of Rural Challenge was undertaken by the RDC and is detailed in the report below. 

Rural Development Commission (1999). Rural Challenge: lessons for the future. Salisbury: Rural Development Commission.

Further summary information on the evaluation of the Rural Challenge initiative is available from the following website: www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/rura l-challenge–the-concept-and-its-impact-156146055.html.

Commission for Rural Communities The Commission for Rural Communities’ (CRC) website was archived in 2013. However, a number of documents that were produced by the CRC are hosted by the Rural Services Network. See: www.rsnonline.org.uk/intelligence/comm ission-for-rural-communities.

Rural Development Commission The records of the Rural Development Commission (RDC) and its predecessors are available through the national archives website. See: http://discovery.nationa larchives.gov.uk/details/r/C72.

Centre for Rural Economy For those interested in EU funds and their relevance to rural development and rural regeneration, a number of reports have been produced by the Centre for Rural Economy at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. See: www.ncl.ac. uk/cre/publish/policynotes/.

48 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Rural Development Programme for England More information on the Rural Development Programme for England is available from the following website: www.gov.uk/rural-development-programme-forengland. In addition, the EU’s own website provides a considerable amount of information on the EUs rural development policy: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-devel opment-2014-2020/index_en.htm.

Department for Communities and Local Government The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) produced a number of documents that have set out the framework for rural regeneration in England. These include:  

DCLG (2008). Transforming places – changing lives: a framework for regeneration. DCLG: London. DCLG (2011a). Regeneration to enable growth: what Government is doing in support of community-led regeneration. DCLG: London.

Bibliography Armstrong, H. (1998). What future for regional policy in the UK? Political Quarterly, 69(3), pp.200–214. Bulpitt, J. (1986a). Continuity, autonomy and peripheralisation: the anatomy of the centre’s race statecraft in England. In: Z. Layton-Henry and P. Rich (Eds.), Race, Government and Politics in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp.17–44. Bulpitt, J. (1986b). The discipline of the new democracy: Mrs Thatcher’s domestic statecraft. Political Studies, 34(1), pp.19–39. Cloke, P. and Goodwin, M. (1992). Conceptualising countryside change: from postFordism to rural structured coherence. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(3), pp.321–336. Cloke, P. and Little, J. (Eds.) (2005). Contested countryside cultures: rurality and socio-cultural marginalisation. London: Routledge. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2010a). Recognising rural interests within Local Enterprise Partnerships. Gloucester: CRC. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2012). How are rural interests being recognised within Local Enterprise Partnerships? Available on-line at: www.rsnonline.org.uk/ images/files/crc-documents/How-are-rural-interestsbeing-recognised-within-Loca l-Enterprise-Partnerships.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Department for Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS) (2009). Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (2009). London: DBIS. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008). Transforming places – changing lives: a framework for regeneration. London: DCLG.

Rural Regeneration Policy 49

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2010a). Research into multiarea agreements: summary of key findings. London: DCLG. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011a). Regeneration to enable growth: what Government is doing in support of community-led regeneration. London: DCLG. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011b). A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act. London: DCLG. Department of the Environment (1995). Rural England: a nation committed to a living countryside. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2004). Review of the Rural White Paper – Our Countryside: the future. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2012a). The new rural policy functions within Government and the proposed abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities. Summary of comments received and Government response to consultation exercise. London: DEFRA. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2012b). Rural Statement 2012. London: DEFRA. Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (MAFF) (2000). Our countryside: the future. Cm 4909. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, pp.289–310. Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee (2000). Seventh Report on the Rural White Paper 2000. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm199900/cmselect/cmenvtra/32/3202.htm [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Furbey, R. (1999). Urban ‘regeneration’: reflections on a metaphor. Critical Social Policy, 19(4), pp.419–445. Glossop, C. (2009). Regenerating Cities. In P. Hackett (Ed.), Regeneration in a downturn: what needs to change?London: The Smith Institute, pp.62–67. Goodwin, M. (1998). The governance of rural areas: some emerging research issues and agendas. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), pp.5–12. Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. In: P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. London: Sage, pp.44–62. Hansard (1893). Commons debates: Daily Hansard December 15 1893 – Local government (England and Wales Bill, no.274), vol.19, c.1549. Available on-line at: https://api. parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1893/dec/15/local-government-england-a nd-wales-bill#S4V0019P0_18931215_HOC_325 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1907). Commons debates: Daily Hansard February 18 1907 – King’s Speech, vol.169, c.611. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/comm ons/1907/feb/18/kings-speech-motion-for-an-address#S4V0169P0_19070218_HOC_ 264 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1909). Lords Chamber: Finance Bill 22 November 1909, vol.4, c.731. Available online at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1909-11-22/debates/28b6ed9f-0b1f-462c-8da f-d675e1020314/FinanceBill [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1919). Commons sitting: Board of Agriculture February 18 1919, vol.112; c.737. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1919/feb/ 18/board-of-agriculture [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1924). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 12 March 1924 – Clause 1, vol.170, c.2411–2412. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/comm ons/1924/mar/12/clause-1-increase-of-amount-of-loans [Accessed 18 July 2018].

50 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Hansard (1926). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 24 June 1926 – Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, vol.197; c.625. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansa rd/commons/1926/jun/24/ministry-of-agriculture-and-fisheries [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1934). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 19 April 1934 – Amendment of Law, vol.288, c.1143. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/comm ons/1934/apr/19/amendment-of-law [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1981). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 21 May 1981 – Urban and Rural Communities (Social Imbalance), vol.5, c.132W. Available on-line at: https://api.pa rliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1981/may/21/urban-and-rural-communi ties-social#S6CV0005P0_19810521_CWA_77 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1991). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 10 July 1981 – Appropriation Number 2, Northern Ireland, vol.194, c.1010. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/ historic-hansard/commons/1991/jul/10/appropriation-no-2-northern-ireland# S6CV0194P0_19910710_HOC_328 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1997a). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 22 December 1997 – Withernsea and South-East Holderness, vol.303, cc.755–762. Available on-line at: https://api.parliam ent.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1997/dec/22/withernsea-and-south-east-holder ness#S6CV0303P0_19971222_HOC_385 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1998a). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 01 April 1998 – Official Report, Standing Committee E c 73, 29 January 1998, cited by Tim Yeo MP, Activities of Agencies in Rural Areas, vol.309, c.1276. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament. uk/historic-hansard/commons/1998/apr/01/activities-of-agencies-in-rural-areas# S6CV0309P0_19980401_HOC_359 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1999). Commons debates: Daily Hansard – Written Answers 10 March 1999, vol.327, cc.242–244 – Regeneration. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliam ent.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990310/text/90310w11.htm#90310w11.htm_ sbhd2 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (2000a). Commons debates: Daily Hansard – Written Answers 21 November 2000, vol.357, cc.115–6W – Countryside Agency budget. Available on-line at: http s://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001121/text/01121w05. htm#01121w05.html_sbhd0 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (2002). Commons debates: Daily Hansard – Written Answers 7 November 2002, vol.392, c.567W – Table 2.3 Funding commitments for rural programmes specified in the 2000 Rural White Paper. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021107/text/21107w32.htm#21107w32.html_sbhd0 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (2009a). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 24 March 2009 – Rural Economy, c.1WH. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmha nsrd/cm090324/halltext/90324h0001.htm#09032425000010 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (2009b). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 15 June 2009 – Rural Economy (Recession), c.85. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm 200809/cmhansrd/cm090615/debtext/90615-0014.htm#09061534000001 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (2012). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 17 April 2012 – Rural Communities, c.1077–1088. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cm hansrd/cm120426/debtext/120426-0001.htm#12042679001219 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Harrison, J. (2012). Life after regions? The evolution of city-regionalism in England. Regional Studies, 46(9), pp.1243–1259.

Rural Regeneration Policy 51

Harrison, J. and Heley, J. (2015). Governing beyond the metropolis: placing the rural in city-region development, Urban Studies, 52(6), pp.1113–1133. Haskins, C. (2003). Rural delivery review: a report on the delivery of government policies in rural England. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Her Majesty’s Government (2010). Local growth: realising every place’s potential. London: The Stationery Office. Her Majesty’s Treasury (2007). Sub national review of economic development and regeneration. London: HM Treasury. Jessop, B. (1990). State theory: putting capitalist states in their place. Oxford: Blackwell. Jessop, B. (1997). A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes. In: M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: regulating urban politics in a global economy. London: Sage, pp.51–73. Jones, O. and LittleJ. (2000). Rural Challenge(s): partnership and new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), pp.171–183. Lupton, R. and Fitzgerald, A. (2015). The coalition’s record on area regeneration and neighbourhood renewal 2010–2015. Available on-line at: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/ca se/spcc/WP19.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. McManus, P., Walmsley, J., Argent, N., Baum, S., Bourke, L., Martin, J., Pritchard, B. and Sorensen, T. (2012). Rural community and rural resilience: what is important to farmers in keeping their country towns alive? Journal of Rural Studies, 28(1), pp.20–29. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. (1993). Constructing the countryside. London: UCL Press. Martin, S., Tricker, M. and Bovaird, A. (1990). Rural development programmes – theory and practice, Regional Studies, 24(3), pp.268–277. Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: exploring the rural dimension, Local Government Studies 30(2), pp.156–181. Pemberton, S. and Shaw, D. (2012). New forms of sub-regional governance and implication for rural areas: evidence from England, Planning Practice and Research, 27(4), pp.441–458. Rhodes, J., Tyler, P. and Brennan, A. (2007). Evaluation of the single regeneration budget: a partnership for regeneration the final evaluation report. Cambridge: Department of Land Economy. Roberts, P. and Hart, T. (1996). Regional strategy and partnership in EU Programmes. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Rowe, F. (2011). Rural policy in Scotland and England: a comparative perspective. Edinburgh: Rural Policy Research Centre. Rural Development Commission (RDC) (1994). Rural development strategy for the 1990s. Salisbury: Rural Development Commission. Rural Development Commission (RDC) (1999). Rural Challenge: lessons for the future. Salisbury: Rural Development Commission. Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme, Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), pp.49–59. Shucksmith, M. (2008). New Labour’s countryside in international perspective. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.59–78. Tallon, A. (2010). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Routledge. Taylor, M. (2008). Living working countryside; the Taylor review of rural economy and affordable housing. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

52 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

The Stationery Office (2012) Government Response to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee Report of Session 2010–12: Regeneration. London: The Stationery Office, p.3. Wales Rural Observatory (2009) Deep rural localities. Cardiff: Wales Rural Observatory. Available on-line at: www.walesruralobservatory.org.uk/sites/default/files/DeepRura lReport_Oct09_0.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Ward, N. (2002). The implementation of the Rural Development Regulation in the UK. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Ward, N. (2006). Rural development and the economies of rural areas. In: J. Midgley (Ed.), A New Rural Agenda. London: IPPR, pp.46–57. Ward, N. (2008). Rethinking rural policy under New Labour. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.29–44. Ward, N. and McNicholas, K. (1998). Objective 5(b) of the structural funds and rural development in Britain, Regional Studies, 32(4), pp.369–375. Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. London: Sage. Woods, M. (2006). Redefining the rural question: the new politics of the rural and social policy, Social Policy and Administration, 40(6), pp.579–595. Woods, M. (Ed.) (2008). New Labour’s countryside: rural policy in Britain since 1997. Bristol: Policy Press. Woods, M. (2009). Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections, Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), pp.849–858. Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London: Routledge. Woodward, R. (1996). Deprivation and ‘the rural’: an investigation into contradictory discourses, Journal of Rural Studies, 12(1), pp.55–67.

3 RURAL REGENERATION GOVERNANCE

Introduction This chapter critically reviews a number of key governance structures for rural regeneration in the UK, and more specifically in England. However, rather than considering governance change in isolation, a number of theoretical frameworks are drawn upon in order to help structure the discussion. Consequently, the chapter explores the evolving objects, sites and scales of relevance to rural regeneration governance in England and how these are shaped or ‘crafted’ by wider sets of social, economic and political forces – including discourses and ideologies (for example, neo-liberalism). In this context, the rise of rural partnership working as a new mode of rural governance (Edwards, Goodwin, Pemberton and Woods, 2001) has become more evident. Such partnerships – and especially those which are community-based – are seen to have the capacity to lever in a range of resources from the public, private and not-for-profit sectors, to co-ordinate policy initiatives and agencies focused on delivering rural regeneration and to promote social inclusion (Osborne, Williamson and Beattie, 2004; Shucksmith, 2000). This is focused on more explicitly in the following chapter with reference to community regeneration. Nevertheless, the increasing emphasis on working in partnership highlights the ways in which different actors seek to shape particular objects and scales of governance for rural regeneration. To date, relatively little has been written on such issues. Brenner (2004, p.76) has drawn attention to the ways in which “historically specific configurations of state space are produced and incessantly reworked”. In other words, new geographies of the state, or ‘new state spaces’ are constantly being produced as part and parcel of the shifting nature of state institutions and political strategies. He has therefore called

54 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

for a greater focus on delineating the “processes behind the rescaling of the state, as well as the consequences of them” (Brenner, 2009, p.135). This point informs a focus within the chapter on the ways in which a number of key structures and scales for rural regeneration governance in England have evolved. Indeed, the chapter illustrates how the scaling of rural regeneration can be linked to the activities of governments that seek to privilege some interests over others, but also how the ‘crafting’ of scale itself is shaped by interests both within and beyond government (Jessop, 1997). As such, issues of scale and the rescaling of regeneration governance are important in illuminating the importance of politics and associated issues of power – and how outcomes may reflect the political strategies of the dominant forces (such as the state) prompting rescaling, as well as those contesting / resisting such moves (Cox, 2010).

The Strategic Relational Approach, Statecraft and Scalecraft The Strategic Relational Approach In its simplest form, the Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) considers the relationship between the economy and the (political) projects of the state respectively (Jessop, 2008; 1990). The SRA’s ‘theoretical linchpin’ is centred on the notion of how political strategies – and actors therein – influence state form and structure and how changes in state structures help to produce changes in political strategies (Brenner, 2004). In the context of rural regeneration, what this means is that it becomes possible to locate new forms and scales of rural regeneration governance – for example, the shift under successive governments from regional to sub-regional or local approaches (as highlighted in Chapter 2) – within wider sets of social and political forces that may mediate / influence the reconfiguration of state power. This is important given that Furbey (1999, p.440) suggests that regeneration’s strongest connections appear to be with both statist and individualistic traditions. Moreover, reference to the SRA helps us to understand how actors operating at specific scales and through specific strategies may shape new objects of governance for rural regeneration. There are three key points in relation the SRA. First, the state should be viewed in relational terms: the power of the state is the power of the social and political forces acting in and through the state – i.e. “the peopled state” (Jessop, 1990, pp.269–270). But the state is more permeable to certain interests than others and any restructuring of the state is therefore likely to impact on the shape and power of these forces over time and space. For example, the interests that gain access to any new institutions that are created for the governance of rural regeneration at the regional scale will frequently be different from those that can gain access at the local scale. This may subsequently impact on the regeneration policies or objects of governance pursued.

Rural Regeneration Governance 55

Second, the existence of the state as a distinct social relation does not guarantee the delivery of a particular set of activities: the coherence of the state is created through particular (hegemonic) projects and activities promoted by different social and political forces. Consequently, as structures for governing rural regeneration change, so too will the dominant social and political forces and the strategies that are pursued. Third, the state is ‘strategically’ and ‘spatially’ selective: certain types of political strategy are favoured by the state over others. As a result, particularly powerful (hegemonic) groups may exert more power than others and the state may therefore privilege some interests and collaborations for rural regeneration policy over others, some time horizons for rural regeneration policy over others, some spaces of intervention for rural regeneration (for example, regional or local) over others, and key objects of governance (both materially and discursively) for rural regeneration (adapted from Jessop, 1997, p.63). However, it must be noted that the structures governing rural regeneration policy, as well as the focus and objects of governance for rural regeneration policy may be informed by the interaction of both past and current forms of political activity (Jessop, 1990). From a methodological and practical perspective, the approach can be applied to help develop new insights into the changing nature of regeneration governance in the UK and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the discussion in this chapter is generally confined to England because the UK state continues to govern England in a highly centralised way, arguably in marked contrast to the devolution of authority to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that has occurred since 1997 (Pike and Tomaney, 2009).

Statecraft, Scalecraft and Rural Regeneration A concern with politics and the crafting of certain structures and scales for rural regeneration also leads into a broader consideration of scale and the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’. With reference to statecraft, the work of Bulpitt (1983; 1986a; 1986b) is of relevance. Bulpitt (1986b, p.21) defined statecraft as “the art of winning elections and achieving a necessary semblance of governing competence in office”. Similarly, Chakrabortty (2011) defines statecraft as the practice of using the levers of the state and of government to get things done and the ability to govern. Perhaps more pertinently, Fraser (2010, p.335) defines statecraft as “the craft that states practice when they act politically”. This draws our attention to the motives and behaviours of states and governments and how politics and power – as well as broader structural issues – are important in shaping behaviour (Buller and James, 2012). Bulpitt’s work focused on the successive Conservative governments that were elected into office in the UK during the 1980s and the context within which politicians operated. In particular, he highlighted how gaining and retaining power in British politics was related to four specific statecraft functions or tasks to be carried out throughout a statecraft cycle that spans the period between elections:

56 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

i) governing competence; ii) political argument hegemony; iii) party management; and iv) developing a winning electoral strategy (1986b, pp.21–22). While the task of ‘party management’ generally falls outside the interests of this chapter, in terms of governing competence, Bulpitt (1986b, p.22) notes how this revolves around policy choice and implementation, and with the promulgation of ideas and policy choices that can be achieved within the constraints of a political system. In so doing, it is envisaged that this will project a reputation of ‘governing competence’, and at the same time help to facilitate a ‘winning electoral strategy’ through a policy package that may be perceived as both effective and attractive. Tied to such tasks is the statecraft function of ‘political argument hegemony’, in terms of a “party’s arguments becoming generally accepted, or because its solutions to a particularly important problem seem more plausible than its opponents” (Bulpitt, 1986b, p.21). Nevertheless, equally important to statecraft, is the notion of ‘scalecraft’, defined by Fraser (2010, p.344) as the “fashioning and refashioning of geographic scale to suit particular needs”. Fraser notes that scalecraft can be seen as something broader than statecraft, and which is “not the preserve of political elites, rulers or governments … (but) can be a (more) bottom-up affair and in the toolkit of a wider array of agents” (2010, p.337). Hence a focus on scalecraft highlights that a range of actors – including states, social and political groups and individuals – may all be involved attempting to produce, restructure and re-scale rural regeneration governance. In so doing, they can seek to create competitive advantages or establish associations or connections to represent their interests. Nevertheless, if scale is viewed as a social product then deploying a new scalar discourse for rural regeneration, or crafting or establishing new scales of working for rural regeneration requires certain aptitudes, skills and / or experiences can entail failure, experimentation and learning (ibid., p.332; also see Jessop, 2001). As a political act, crafting new scales of working may be “tricky, messy and awkward … things are rarely easily produced” (Fraser, 2010, p.332). By drawing together these insights, it is clear that a number of studies have considered the processes of statecraft and / or scalecraft. However, they have done so in isolation of each other, and with statecraft and scalecraft being perceived as distinct and / or separate (see Fraser, 2010; Buller and James, 2012, as well as the work of Bulpitt, 1983; 1986a; 1986b). Indeed, little work to date has considered the ways in which they may be intimately connected. In this respect, the various statecraft functions that have been identified can all be linked to the rescaling of rural regeneration governance, as states seek to practice what they do partly through a scaling and rescaling of their activities. It is often through scalecraft that states seek to practice statecraft, and particularly in cases where – for example – the rescaling of rural regeneration governance is explicitly used as part of a broader political strategy. Different national governments may seek to reform governance structures for rural regeneration to deliver their policies and demonstrate the competence of their ideas. But the outcomes of such top-down practices cannot be guaranteed and the operation of what could be termed ‘statecraft through scalecraft’

Rural Regeneration Governance 57

is not a certain process. Consequently, the chapter explores how the restructuring of rural regeneration governance has involved both statecraft and scalecraft. Moreover, given that statecraft and scalecraft activities may combine in different ways at different times, the use of such concepts can help us to better understand how regeneration governance in rural areas has unfolded, and how they have provided opportunities for certain political interests (within and beyond) rural areas to pursue and implement new sets of regeneration policies at particular scales (and vice versa).

The Restructuring and Rescaling of Rural Regeneration Governance in England In this section, four specific entities that have had key responsibilities for rural regeneration governance in England are focused upon. Through the application of a statecraft / scalecraft lens, the influences – both political and economic – shaping the provenance, sustenance and (where relevant) abolition of such organisations are illustrated, as well as the ways in which such actions have led to the on-going restructuring and rescaling of rural regeneration governance in England more broadly. To undertake such an analysis, Hansard Proceedings of the House of Commons and House of Lords (1803 onwards) are again drawn upon to explore how strategies of statecraft and scalecraft are of relevance in shaping rural regeneration governance. In addition, a range of documents such as Government White Papers, policy documents, organisational strategies and academic books and papers are also used to shape the analysis. In so doing, the intention is to uncover and analyse particular scalar narratives and their implications for restructuring and rescaling governance.

Rural Development Commission (RDC) Originally named the ‘Development Commission’ (1910–1987), the Commission was established in England by the Liberal Government under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act 1909. From a statecraft perspective, it was an attempt by the Government at projecting governing competence through creating a new organisation responsive to the challenge of the agricultural depression, as well as helping to achieve its broader ambitions concerned with economic and social reform (Rogers, 1999). It was initially given responsibilities for administering a national Development Fund to benefit the rural economy of the whole of the UK. Five commissioners were appointed when it was set up under Royal Warrant. This was subsequently extended to eight commissioners when the Liberal Government was returned to power following the 1910 General Election. Such an increase reflected – at least in part – an attempt by the Government to secure its statecraft ambitions through crafting the work of the Development Commission at a national level in order to obtain political input across England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. In addition, the involvement of two commissioners – Daniel

58 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Hall and Thomas Middleton – both of whom had a background in agriculture, also reflected how the Commission was “entrenched in the establishment and supported by government departments, landed (and agricultural) interests … and other parts of the UK due to the funds being received” (Rogers, 1999, p.27). Hence grants were initially provided to facilitate the development of a number of primary rural industries such as farming, forestry and fisheries, as well as land reclamation, rural transport, harbours and ‘internal navigation’ (Gallent, Hamiduddin, Juntti, Kidd and Shaw, 2015, pp.44–45). Subsequently, between 1918 and 1939 80% of the Commission’s funds went into agriculture research, support for rural industries and support for rural development (through the establishment of Rural Community Councils and the National Council of Social Service). In addition, it was given additional responsibilities for training and support to rural craft-based industries although its main focus remained on agriculture (Rogers, 1999). Nevertheless, the influence of central government was never far away and with the setting up of the Development Commission being perceived as a first significant step toward state intervention in rural affairs (Gallent et al., 2015). In this respect, the Development Commission was a useful vehicle for the Conservative governments of the 1920s and 1930s to espouse a narrative of the rural as a space of agricultural production under threat from urbanisation (and therefore needing protection), and to therefore consolidate the relationship between those involved in farming and the Conservative Party. In turn, this provided the Conservative party with political argument hegemony in the rural and with the Labour Party being perceived as a threat to the countryside (Woods, 2008). Crucially, a key way that the Government attempted to secure its policy ambitions was through the Development Commission being given no executive function – it had to secure approval from the Treasury for its proposals. However, this set the basis for an awkward and frequently challenging relationship between the Treasury and the Development Commission over time, and reflecting the ‘messiness of scalecraft’ identified by Fraser (2010). Indeed, through the 1930s, Rogers (1999, p.49) notes how the “Treasury appeared to accept the operation of the Development Commission somewhat grudgingly”. By the 1950s, the Treasury openly “resented the spending department behaviour of the Commission”, and with skirmishes continuing for the rest of the decade despite the “Commission realising new approaches were required and that it would be prudent to give way in some areas” (ibid., p.65). Consequently, functions relating to agriculture and fisheries were transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1946 and 1955 respectively. In 1964, the Development Commission published a paper entitled ‘Prospects for Rural Development and Re-development’, arguing for a more co-ordinated rural policy and partially in response to the Government circumventing the Commission on developing a report exploring the impact of rural depopulation. This marked the beginning of a better relationship between the Development Commission and different parts of Government (Rogers, 1999, p.69). It led to a

Rural Regeneration Governance 59

new round of factory building by the Commission and the creation of three ‘Trigger Areas’ to target funds toward areas with the greatest social and economic needs. These were expanded into ‘Areas of Pull’ in 1970, ‘Special Investment Areas’ in 1975, ‘Pockets of Need’ in 1977 and ‘Rural Development Areas’ in 1984 (Clout, 1995). The Department of Environment replaced the Treasury as the sponsor of the Development Commission in 1971. In addition, a change of national Government (Conservative to Labour) in 1974 led to the activities of the Development Commission being rescaled, and with the devolving of its responsibilities to national bodies in Scotland and Wales. In England, the Development Commission also secured greater freedom from the Department of Environment; however, it was suggested that this was not least due to the Chairman and Chief Officer of the Development Commission having “political acumen and a sense of how government departments operated” (ibid., p.99). As such, those involved in the Commission instigated new attempts at scalecraft, and which were consistent with the Government’s own statecraft and scalecraft ambitions. In 1979, the Conservative government won the general election. Concerns were raised over the future of the Development Commission given the Conservative’s neoliberal, market-led (rather than state-led), competition-driven approach (Clout, 1995). The ideas of the existing Chair of the Development Commission – Lord Northfield – did not fit with the new national political regime and he was replaced by Nigel (Lord) Vinson. Vinson was “more in tune with the Government’s political ideologies and was known to the prime minister” (Rogers, 1999, p.102). Again, this illustrates both political, as well as economic imperatives influencing strategies of statecraft (and scalecraft). An Inter Departmental Review of the Development Commission reported in 1982. Rather than reducing the power of the Commission, Clout (1995, p.350) highlights how rural Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords reported favourably on the past activities of the Development Commission. It was therefore recommended that the Commission should have greater freedom of operation and take on an executive role. Nevertheless, a clause was inserted that allowed for the Secretary of State to direct the work of the Commission, and again highlighting how national governments may seek to secure their statecraft ambitions through shaping and managing the activities of others. A significant restructuring of the Development Commission took place in 1988 when it was amalgamated with the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CoSIRA), to form the Rural Development Commission (RDC). This is important in terms of what was to follow: by the early 1990s, rural regeneration was seen as a key responsibility for the RDC. However, with a greater emphasis emerging on the need to harness the private sector, as well as to work with voluntary and community groups through bottom-up approaches and local partnerships, its remit and role began to be challenged. Indeed, many new agencies now provided services in areas traditionally covered by the Commission (Martin, Tricker and Bovaird, 1990).

60 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

In the mid 1990s, the factory portfolio of the RDC was transferred to a new government agency – English Partnerships. The business advisory services provided by the Commission were also replicated by a new national advisory service that had been set up. Hence with increasing budgetary pressures, commissioners closed down their own business advice services in 1997/1998 (Rogers, 1999, p.127). The election of the Labour Government in 1997 compounded the pressures on the RDC. The Government instigated a new round of statecraft and scalecraft activities to illustrate governing competence and political argument hegemony (also see following section). Two key drivers were important in this respect. First, the Government’s regional project and an emphasis on devolution. Second, the importance of EU funding (for example, the European Regional Development Fund – ERDF) and the need for new regional structures of governance in England to capitalise on the availability of such resources (Woods, 2008). To deliver such ambitions, it was proposed that the regeneration work of the Commission should be transferred to new Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). Despite intense lobbying by the Commission, this had little effect and in December 1997, it was announced by the Government that RDAs would take on responsibilities for rural regeneration and with the Rural Development Commission now to operate in an advisory capacity on rural policy. Nevertheless, the Chair of the RDC – Lord Shuttleworth – concluded he could “not acquiesce in the break up of an organisation which had served rural England so well” and resigned in protest (Rogers, 1999, p.128). Thus, the Government was able to implement its statecraft ambitions through instigating new processes of scalecraft through the introduction of RDAs and the restructuring of the Commission. In this respect, the remainder of the RDC was merged with the Countryside Commission to create a new Countryside Agency in 1999, although there was a residual RDC in existence until June 2000 which dealt with pensions and audit-related issues.

Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) With the election of the Labour Government in 1997, devolution and rural policy agendas became entwined. Indeed, the 1997 RDA White Paper highlighted the “need to understand the particular needs of rural areas but to address them within an overall framework for the region as a whole” (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), 1997, p.24). Hence an emphasis on devolution led to the regional level in England becoming a key political and administrative space within which particular rural regeneration projects could be pursued. As such, there was a switch from the national and local scale to the regional scale in order to deliver the Government’s statecraft ambitions, and in particular to illustrate governing competence and to secure political argument hegemony.

Rural Regeneration Governance 61

The previous section has discussed how the move to regional intervention – and the introduction of nine new Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England from 1 April 1999 – culminated in the abolition of the RDC. In this respect, the emergence of RDAs reflected a desire by the Labour Government to develop regional economic policy tailored to the needs of different parts of the country and to reduce the gap between the most and least deprived areas: The Government are committed to pursuing policies that pursue jobs, growth, and competitiveness in a sustainable way … our proposal is to establish Regional Development Agencies in England from 1 April 1999 … (RDAs) will ensure that such policies and initiatives are taken forward in a way which takes account of all interests within regions. (Hansard, 1997b; Angela Eagle Labour MP, House of Commons debates, 16 December 1997) A regionally differentiated approach to rural regeneration was consistently espoused in respect of the Government’s rationale for introducing RDAs and to support efforts at showing governing competence for delivering regeneration in rural areas: For far too long, rural areas have been left out in the cold. We are going to bring them in and have a comprehensive approach to regeneration in both rural and urban areas. (Hansard, 1998b; Richard Caborn MP, House of Commons debates, 3 February 1998) and We will not impose a single blueprint on the English regions. The previous Government tried the prescriptive route, and it did not work; it just created resentment and fruitless competition between the different players. (Hansard, 1998c; Richard Caborn MP, Regional Development Agencies Bill 1998, House of Commons Debates, 14 January 1998) RDAs were therefore viewed by the Government as being able to take a coherent role in relation to rural regeneration and bring together a wide range of activities that were being carried out by different bodies. Five key functions were set out for RDAs, including economic development and (rural) regeneration. In addition, a ‘Clause 4’ was inserted into the Regional Development Bill “that specifically provides that RDAs objectives will apply equally to rural and non-rural areas … and which recognise the interdependence of town and country” (Hansard, 1998c; Richard Caborn MP, Regional Development Agencies Bill 1998, House of Commons, Debates, 14 January 1998).

62 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Nevertheless, Pearce et al. (2005, p.197) have highlighted how the public in England have less affinity with regional scales of working. Thus, in an effort to demonstrate governing competence and to sustain political argument hegemony, the Labour Government also “followed a more cautious path by boosting its own institutional capacity in an attempt to secure efficiency gains and greater policy effectiveness” (Woods, 2008, p.198). Such arguments reflect the uncertainty of using new structures and scales of working to deliver statecraft ambitions. Indeed, the crafting of the regional scale as a particular site of intervention reflected the experimentation and messiness associated with scalecraft practices, and with others questioning the value of moving to new regional structures and scales of working: We (have) looked in vain for a single sign that the Government appreciate the real fear—a widespread fear—that those RDAs will be urban-based and urban-focused, that they will have urban-dominated boards … the extent of the Government’s determination to prevent RDAs from having to consider the rural dimension was shown when they argued against and defeated an Opposition amendment that would have required the Secretary of State to consult “such persons as appear to him to represent rural interests in the agency’s area”. (Hansard, 1998a; Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 January 1998; c.73) (Tim Yeo, Conservative MP, House of Common Debates 1 April 1998) Notwithstanding such arguments, the announcement of a new Rural White Paper – and with the regional scale explicitly identified as being key to the delivery of rural regeneration policy – was a further effort made by the Labour Government at securing political argument hegemony: It took the Conservatives 16 years to produce a Rural White Paper, and 12 months later they produced a progress report that said that not much progress had been made. There was plenty of talk but no action, and no policy was implemented. Within three years, the Labour Government have implemented a series of proposals for change to meet the requirements. That is a far better response than one White Paper in 16 years under the previous Administration. (Hansard, 2000b; John Prescott, Secretary of State for the Environment, House of Commons Debates, 28 November 2000) With the 2000 Rural White Paper, it was noted that a key challenge for RDAs in relation to rural regeneration related to the co-ordination of a range of different funding regimes to best effect (DETR/MAFF, 2000). Furthermore, with reference to political argument hegemony, the Government continued to espouse the notion that the most appropriate way to deal with the challenges of rural areas was to tackle such challenges through a regional approach:

Rural Regeneration Governance 63

Just as the English countryside itself varies dramatically in its landscapes and character, so priorities and issues will vary strongly between and within regions … for this reason, the Government has given the Regional Development Agencies a strong rural focus, and reflected in their Regional Economic Strategies. (DETR/MAFF, 2000, p.7) But as discussed in the previous chapter, the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease (FMD) in 2001 was a key event which subsequently informed the re-crafting of structures and scales to deliver rural regeneration governance in England. Following the outbreak, the actions of one individual – Lord Haskins as the Rural Recovery Co-ordinator – were instrumental in shaping and reinforcing new crafting processes to deliver rural regeneration. For example, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), replaced the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) in 2001 given the latter’s perceived inability to respond to the needs of rural areas following the FMD outbreak (Ward, 2008). But DEFRA’s activities were also increasing regionalised. For example, with the Rural White Paper update of 2004 the Government reinforced its commitment to RDAs. In this respect, it accepted the findings of the Rural Task Force report (led by Haskins) and which argued that “regional bodies are in a good position to tailor national policies to the rural needs of their region … RDAs should play a key role in the devolved delivery of DEFRAs rural economic and social agenda … and should have the lead responsibility in co-ordinating public sector rural business support and advice” (DEFRA, 2001, para.10 and para.13). Thus, in the 2004 White Paper update, the Government stated that it had “decided to build on RDA’s existing responsibilities for economic regeneration and sustainable development across England” (DEFRA, 2004, pp.81–82). The White Paper accepted Haskins’ recommendations that responsibility for rural regeneration policy should be decentralised to regional bodies in order to bring this closer to local communities (and with some support from local authorities; Pearce et al., 2005, p.199). RDAs were therefore given additional responsibilities for managing the funding of national rural economic and social regeneration programmes (Gallent et al., 2015, p.199): The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, envisaged a great role for the RDAs, as do we … the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, repeated the calumny of my noble friend Lord Haskins that DEFRA was (also) overblown and inefficient. Most of those inefficiencies are already being addressed, but it is important that the core policy department is reduced in size and that the delivery section of the department is consequently brought closer to those who benefit from it. That is why part of the plan is to shift some of the delivery mechanisms out of the centre. That is certainly part of our approach and that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. (Hansard, 2004; Lord Whitty. Parliamentary Under-Secretary, House of Lords Debates 21 July 2004)

64 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Further responsibilities for delivering EU funding were given to the RDAs in 2007 as part of delivering a new Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE), and in order to ensure EU funding was joined up with other rural regeneration programmes (Rowe, 2011). Nevertheless, the emphasis on regional scales of working began to stall. On the one hand, the 2004 Rural Strategy suggested that new implementation arrangements could emerge with the creation of elected regional assemblies. But there was a rejection of a regional assembly in the North East of England following a referendum in 2004. The referendum related to the Labour Party’s original commitment in its party manifesto (1997) to allow people – region by region – to decide in a referendum whether they wanted directly elected regional government (Hewitt, 2011). Hence the rejection of the Regional Assembly in the North East of England effectively put an end to the democratic element of their regionalism project. Coupled with an increasing emphasis on city-regional development outside of London to promote economic prosperity (and as set out in the Sub National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration, HM Treasury, 2007), this meant that both ‘internal’ (Treasury-led) and ‘external’ (local referenda) influences shaped new practices of statecraft and scalecraft. As such, to demonstrate governing competence and political argument hegemony, the Government began to espouse a sub-regional agenda for delivering rural regeneration, as regional economic governance was perceived as having too crude a focus and being excessively top down. Hence given that many rural areas had felt ignored by the RDAs, pressure built for a more local focus (Gallent et al., 2015, pp.88–89). But regional arrangements remained in place until 2010 not least due to certain actors buying into the regional scale, or at least being pragmatic in respect of adopting their ways of working to this scale due to perceived benefits in terms of: i) access to funding and the ability to influence rural policy agendas (this was important for some local authorities and those in the not-for-profit sector); ii) for party political reasons; and iii) given that without a regional approach – which had a rural component – the rural could seize to be an object of governance (Hewitt, 2011, p.18). The 2010 general election – and with a Coalition government replacing the previous Labour administration – led to a rejection of the regional scale of intervention and an associated dismantling of regional governance and economic governance infrastructure, including RDAs. A combination of austerity and localism was used by the Coalition to justify a new round of scalecraft to deliver its statecraft ambitions, and with a particular emphasis on sub-regional and local scales of working to illustrate governing competence and to secure political argument hegemony: As described in Supporting Local Growth, the number one priority remains getting the deficit under control. But we also want to promote strong local economies, with thriving businesses and new jobs, in the North and South, village and city. (Government Response to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee Report of Session 2010–2012: Regeneration, The Stationery Office, 2012, p.3)

Rural Regeneration Governance 65

and Instead of seeking to engineer growth from Whitehall or through regional agencies, we are now putting power in the hands of local communities and businesses. (Summary of comments received and Government response to consultation exercise, DEFRA, 2012a, p.10) Subsequently, RDAs were abolished from April 2012. By this time, new sub-regional structures – Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) had been created by the Coalition Government. These are discussed further below.

Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) The Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) provides an excellent example of the temporality of scalecraft and the way in which the statecraft ambitions of central government can significantly impact on the ‘rupturing’ and ‘rescaling’ of rural regeneration governance. It was established in April 2005 and became an independent body on 1 October 2006 following the enactment of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006. The CRC inherited a number of its key roles from the Countryside Agency. The Countryside Agency itself had only been set up in 1999 following the abolition of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission. The Countryside Agency had been given a remit to enhance and conserve the countryside, as well as being an advocate for rural areas and to provide expertise, advice and information to the government on rural issues (Osborne et al., 2004). However, the actions of a key individual – Lord Haskins – were once again crucial in respect of the demise of the Countryside Agency and the subsequent emergence of the CRC. Indeed, the Labour Government during their first and second terms in office had increasingly used independent commissions or technical experts for advice, but who were selected on the basis of being sympathetic with Labour’s policy objectives (Ward, 2008). In this respect, Haskins – in his Rural Delivery Report – recommended that environmental, community and development concerns should be devolved to expert bodies (Gallent, Juntii, Kidd and Shaw, 2008, p.46). He therefore questioned the value of the Countryside Agency and suggested its role of rural champion and for integrating rural policy had been succeeded by the creation of DEFRA in 2001. Haskins argued that the Countryside Agency was over-centralised and was blurring the responsibilities for the delivery of rural policy (Haskins, 2003, p.47). He therefore suggested that its economic functions should be re-allocated to RDAs while its environmental functions should be merged with those of English Nature to create a new agency – Natural England (and which also had responsibilities for landscape management and countryside access).

66 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

However, Ward (2008, p.38) notes that the proposal to abolish the Countryside Agency and re-allocating its functions was “more about prejudice than analysis”. In addition, the on-going emphasis by the Government for using the regional scale to deliver its statecraft ambitions and the increasing demands for regional differentiation were also important in shaping its demise (Woods, 2008, pp.19–20). In the discussions that followed, the Government did not fully accept all of Haskins’ recommendations. Once again, this reflects the unpredictability and messiness of scalecraft, and indeed the importance of ‘internal’ influences within central government. Indeed, a number of senior civil servants in DEFRA persuaded the Secretary of State (Margaret Beckett) of the value of such activities (Woods, 2008, p.270). The Government was also aware of the political impact of the abolition of the Countryside Agency (House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2013, p.7). Hence the government stated its desire for the “continued need for a much smaller organisation providing independent national policy advice to government on issues affecting people in rural communities, and analysing and reporting on best practice in the delivery of the Government’s rural policies” (Hansard, 2004; Lord Whitty. Parliamentary Under-Secretary, House of Lords Debates 21 July 2004). This was subsequently set out in the 2004 Rural Strategy where the Government identified the need for a “slimmed down Countryside Agency to provide a challenge to Government and (provide) fresh thinking on rural solutions … (including) advocacy on behalf of rural people and businesses and those suffering disadvantage and monitoring results” (DEFRA, 2004, p.50). As a result, a new Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) was created in 2005 and became an independent body in 2006. From 1 October 2006, the CRC – as a new non-departmental public body – sought to provide evidencebased, impartial advice on rural issues, including rural regeneration, both to the government and across the wider public sector. It was given three key roles: 1. 2. 3.

Listening to and representing the views of rural communities Giving expert advice Acting as an independent watchdog

It had a particular focus on tacking disadvantage and rural areas experiencing underperformance, and with an emphasis on being an advocate for rural interests and for ensuring that the development and implementation of government policies considered the particular characteristics of rural areas (CRC, 2006). But similar to discussions on the abolition of RDAs, the election of the Coalition Government in 2010, and its promulgation of an austerity and localism agenda led to proposals to abolish the CRC. On 1 November 2011 the Coalition Government set out proposals that the CRC should be dismantled and its rural policy expertise consolidated within DEFRA. Statecraft arguments concerned with removing duplication, improving efficiency and securing efficient and affordable outcomes can be identified.

Rural Regeneration Governance 67

In particular, from a scalecraft perspective, the Government proposed the removal of one (national) non-departmental public body – the CRC – to be replaced by another also operating at a national level – a new Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU). This, it was proposed, should be located within DEFRA itself. It justified such an approach based on the “need to find new, more effective ways of ensuring that a wide range of rural voices are able to influence both the Unit’s priorities and policy development across Government” (DEFRA, 2012a, p.10). Nevertheless, of the 41 formal responses received on the proposals to abolish the CRC, only 12 were in favour of such a move, and with five of the 12 respondents setting out a number of conditions to such a move (DEFRA, 2012a, p.16). In contrast, many vociferously disagreed with such proposals: We consider CRC has been able to demonstrate a degree of independence that the RCPU will not enjoy … (we) believe that the position of Rural Advocate as an arms-length “critical friend” is an especially important one. (Cumbria Rural Forum, cited in DEFRA, 2012a, p.8) and Abolishing the CRC will deliver only modest savings … we believe that the removal of the CRC as an independent voice for rural areas is too great a price to pay. (Chief Economic Development Officers’ Society (CEDOS) and Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT), cited in DEFRA, 2012a, p.17) The CRC itself argued that “there continues to be a role for a small, independent body to provide an objective ‘watchdog’ view of developing policy across Government relating to rural communities …” (CRC, cited in DEFRA, 2012a, p.18). In response the Government dismissed such concerns and stated that “it was satisfied that the current and future development of the RCPU will meet the needs expressed by those who attached some conditions to their support for the proposed abolition of the CRC …” (DEFRA, 2012a, para.2.43). It also noted that it was satisfied that the new arrangements would ensure a high level of independent input and challenge to the way DEFRA undertook its rural policy functions (DEFRA, 2012a, para.2.44). In sum, it argued that “Ministers are satisfied that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to retain the CRC or establish a new publicly funded entity to carry out this function” (para.2.45). The emphasis on public funding is important in relation to the statement as such a move was justified on the basis of ‘efficiency’, ‘effectiveness’, ‘economy’ and ‘accountability’. Proposed savings were noted as being in the region of £600,000 per annum (DEFRA, 2012a, para.2.47). Subsequently, the Coalition Government abolished the CRC in 2013. Responsibilities for data gathering, rural proofing and rural advocacy were taken into DEFRA (Gallent et al., 2015, p.178). This left some questioning the extent

68 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

to which national service priorities were to be delivered in rural areas (Gallent et al., 2015). Moreover, what the abolition of the CRC arguably illustrates is how new attempts at scalecraft may only partially be based on previous approaches, and may not necessarily be informed through previous experiences / learning: The RCPU was set up to exercise functions which both the Haskins review and the set of ministers appointed in May 2010 had concluded were unnecessary and which DEFRA itself had spent the better part of a decade trying to make effective. This is an unpromising remit. It may in part explain the “Year Zero” stance written into the RCPU’s objectives published on 1 April 2011 and adopted by some RCPU officials in public, which appears to ignore the substantial amount of research, analysis and policy development work carried out in the previous decade. (written evidence submitted by Quantera Limited, House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2013, p.7) Finally, as an exercise in scalecraft to deliver statecraft, the removal of the CRC can be viewed as being crucial in the Government’s attempt to secure political argument hegemony on a wider set of priorities and in so doing serving to marginalize rural (regeneration) policy issues: We are concerned that DEFRAs RCPU may be starting to become an uncritical advocate of government manifesto commitments, and less of a supporter of appropriate solutions for rural areas. (written evidence submitted by Action with Communities in Rural England (House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2013, p.38)

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) The rejection of a Regional Assembly in the North East of England following the regional referendum in 2004 illustrated how the practice of scalecraft to deliver national government’s statecraft ambitions cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, earlier in this chapter it was noted how the rejection of regional assemblies coupled with a growing focus on cities and city regions as integral to economic growth in England led to a call for a more local focus. This resulted in new attempts at scalecraft for securing regeneration at the sub-regional level. In this respect, the Department of Transport and Industry (DTI), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and Treasury, as well as key ministers were instrumental in directing increased policy attention and investment priorities toward urban renaissance at the sub-regional scale (Ward, 2006, p.5). In turn, the Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration published in July 2007 (Her Majesty’s Treasury, 2007) set out the Government’s wish to develop flexible and non-prescriptive Multi Area Agreements (MAAs). MAAs were voluntary arrangements between central and local government and which allowed groups

Rural Regeneration Governance 69

of local authorities to work together in order to work across traditional administrative boundaries and to develop new approaches to secure economic development and regeneration. In return, central government promised greater levels of devolvement and budget responsibilities (Pemberton and Shaw, 2012, p.443). As such, they can be seen as a new attempt at illustrating governing competence, but through new scales of working. 16 MAAs were developed across England in total (see Figure 3.1). The sub-national review also noted that it would be possible for local authorities to establish statutory sub-regional arrangements for the pooling of responsibilities on a permanent basis (ibid.). This was important as over time the voluntaristic and sector-specific nature of MAAs proved difficult to implement. Consequently, two City Region Pilots were created through the 2009 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (DBIS, 2009). The Act also provided legislation for the creation of ‘MAAs with duties’ – more formal bodies that would allow areas to move beyond a simple agreement to deliver targets (DCLG, 2009, p.16). As such, the move to more formal arrangements illustrates how scalecraft activities are on-going and open to contestation and change. Nevertheless, the regional scale continued to be promoted as a key scale of intervention in terms of identifying priorities and opportunities for growth, and in particular in an attempt to generate new housing development. A Single Integrated Regional Strategy was introduced in order to support such ambitions. The Integrated Regional Strategy sought to bring together economic, social and environmental objectives and to generate clearer accountability arrangements. To deliver the Strategy, RDAs were to work with local authorities and other key stakeholders. The evolving regional governance arrangements and the move to city-regionalism in England also meant that rural areas were increasingly viewed by central government as ‘carriages’ or ‘appendages’ being pulled along by “the urban locomotive of economic competitiveness” (Shucksmith, 2008, p.64), and which would subsequently benefit from the ‘trickle down’ of interventions focused on city-regions (Ward, 2006). But such ideas have been criticized. For example, Pemberton and Shaw (2012, p.443) note how “urban areas are far more likely to gain the most from this type of approach … rural areas need to be viewed as autonomous in their own right”. On a positive note, an evaluation undertaken of MAAs in England and their ability to deliver rural regeneration highlighted that they had facilitated infrastructure development for rural regeneration far earlier than otherwise have been expected and had also provided more of an integrated approach to crossborder collaboration on rural regeneration issues. But it was also identified that MAAs had not necessarily focused on the specific challenges associated with delivering rural regeneration policy, and with metropolitan local authorities frequently appearing to exert more influence than their rural counterparts on the types of strategies and objects of governance to be pursued (Pemberton and Shaw, 2012, p.454).

FIGURE 3.1 Multi Area Agreements Source: DCLG, 2009; reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0 (Licence Number: 100018986 2009 02 002).

Rural Regeneration Governance 71

The 16 MAAs were subsequently superseded by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) following the 2010 general election. A combination of arguments based around the need for austerity (and a lack of value for money) and for enhanced democratic accountability meant that MAAs (as well as regional governance infrastructure such as RDAs) were withdrawn by the new Coalition government. Nevertheless, the sub-regional scale continued to be prioritized in order to deliver the Coalition’s statecraft ambitions around harnessing the private sector and reducing the size of the state. Hence a new round of scalecraft ensued whereby the Government invited local authorities and the private sector to work together to create 39 sub-regional Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), and which eventually covered the whole of England (see Figure 3.2). The LEPs attempted to reflect ‘real economic geographies’ and with the private sector taking the lead. Local authorities were also allowed to be members of more than one LEP (Gallent et al., 2015). In relation to rural regeneration, it was claimed that the creation of LEPs led to a re-privileging of urban cores at the expense of the rural (Gallent et al., 2015 pp.90–91). Certain groups such as the National Farmers Union (NFU), National Park Authorities and private sector food processors were perceived as representing rural interests and given seats on the Boards of LEPs. However, such groups are not necessarily reflective of the rural and hence there has been a patchy recognition of the importance of the rural in the work of some LEPs (House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2013, p.1). For example, the Countryside Landowners Association (CLA) argued that only around a fifth of LEPs explicitly recognised or referred to rural areas in their original objectives. The CRC produced several reports on the extent to which rural interests were reflected within LEPs, as well as the extent to which they focused on issues such as rural regeneration. In terms of governance, it called for a full range of rural interests to be represented in the work of LEPs due to variable engagement by different rural actors in LEP structures (CRC, 2010a, pp.4–5). Interestingly, from a statecraft perspective, the CRC also noted the need for the RCPU in DEFRA to become more actively involved in LEP working and to champion the needs of rural interests in rural-focused LEPs. However, there is some evidence that the Coalition government – and in particular the Treasury – perceived LEPs (and the abolition of RDAs) as being integral to a new approach involving a more ‘laissez faire’ less interventionist approach by the Government, and to secure resource efficiencies through embracing the private sector (rather than being state-driven). Consequently, there has been less emphasis on how LEPs should deliver policies for the rural. Indeed, the CRC highlighted the lack of clarity from the Coalition Government on how LEPs should work with other local initiatives such as Local Nature Partnerships and community regeneration programmes such as LEADER (CRC, 2012, p.9; also see next chapter). Furthermore, the CRC noted how there was little focus by the Coalition Government – and indeed by LEPs – on how its funding

FIGURE 3.2 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) Source: Department for Business, Information and Skills (2011); reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Rural Regeneration Governance 73

regimes may serve to marginalize micro and land-based businesses in the rural. Hence the CRC concluded that “there is a sense that LEPs reinforce current power structures which channel funding to big infrastructure projects and away from market towns” (CRC, 2012, p.9) and with the limited resources available to LEPs from the Government therefore being targeted toward urban areas. Arguably, this reflects the Coalition government’s (and its successor – the Conservative government elected into office in 2015) privileging of the urban and the notion of the rural as an appendage. In essence, efforts to illustrate governing competence and secure political argument hegemony through the introduction of new sub-regional arrangements such as LEPs were based more around the idea of connecting the rural to the urban, rather than the rural as an object of governance in itself. To summarise, as a new mechanism of scalecraft, LEPs can be viewed as a tool that the Government has used to support its statecraft ambitions for harnessing the private sector to re-stimulate the national economy, and with the urban – rather than the rural – being the crucial arena to achieve such objectives.

Summary Rather than setting out a descriptive and ‘stand alone’ account of the evolving governance structures for rural regeneration in England, this chapter has drawn on the SRA and the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’ to explore the ways in which four key entities of rural regeneration governance have been re-crafted and re-scaled; the influences that have shaped such processes, and the outcomes that have arisen as a result. In such a way, it is possible to provide an account which has a wider resonance for studies of rural regeneration elsewhere and to develop a more nuanced understanding of how and why different types of governance structures may emerge. A first key finding of the chapter relates to the importance of the state in restructuring and rescaling rural regeneration governance in England. The role of the state should not be under-estimated. In the UK, the state has continued to fix questions on who and what is to be governed and by what means (see Goodwin, 2008), and reflecting the importance of the SRA perspective. The election of the Labour government in 1997 heralded successive attempts at state-sponsored scalecraft of relevance to rural areas, and as an integral element of its ‘big tent’ / ‘one nation’ statecraft strategy. The importance of devolution and regionalisation also informed its approach and with the “institutional changes (that took place) utterly transforming the structures and institutions of rural policy” (Goodwin, 2008, p.45). But as already noted, scalecraft is not the preserve of government or political elites alone. It can involve a wider array of agents and actors and who can either help to facilitate or resist state-sponsored approaches. The subsequent emergence and abolition of three of the four entities of relevance to rural regeneration in England (the RDC, RDAs and the CRC) reflects the ‘messiness’ and uncertainty of scalecraft. Indeed, it highlights that there is a temporal aspect to scalecraft, and

74 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

which, at least in part, can be related to electoral cycles and the statecraft ambitions of successive national governments, as well as the extent to which such entities are supported by other non-state actors. A second broad message that emerges from the chapter relates to the specific influences that have shaped the restructuring and rescaling of rural regeneration governance. These can be classified as both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ influences and which can encapsulate social, economic and political forces. In terms of ‘internal’ influences, the actions of a number of government ministers have – at times – been instrumental in sustaining particular structures and scales of working – for example, in relation to RDAs, as well as in the creation of new structures of rural regeneration governance – i.e. the CRC. But equally, if not more important, have been ‘external’ drivers of change, and which have brought economic and social influences together. For instance, those outside of government as well as those within supported the sustenance of RDAs. But a desire for improved national competitiveness and the subsequent global financial crisis and public sector austerity were important factors – alongside a change in national government and their prevailing political ideology – which eventually led to the demise of RDAs. Beyond these influences, a third issue that the chapter also highlighted is the significance of technical advisors in re-shaping (although not necessarily re-scaling) rural regeneration governance structures. Lord Haskins’ recommendations for ‘rural recovery’ in the context of a major outbreak of FMD in England in 2001 were instrumental in shaping crafting processes. But in addition, the unpredictability of key events such as FMD needs to be recognised too. The outbreak of FMD was not planned but subsequently had a significant impact on restructuring and rescaling processes for rural regeneration governance in England, and arguably over an extended period of time. A fourth key finding relates to the degree of path-dependency evident in shaping rural regeneration governance and the extent to which learning based on previous experiences informs new attempts at crafting particular structures and scales of intervention. This appears – from the example of England – to be partial at best. Learning may be sporadic and incidental and the ‘rupture’ of existing arrangements and the introduction of new ones is often strongly ideological if reference is made to the experiences of the RDC, CRC, RDAs and LEPs. Fifth, it was evident from the chapter that projecting governing competence and achieving political argument hegemony for the rural were important features contributing to the government’s statecraft ambitions over time and indeed informed successive attempts at creating new structures of rural governance to deliver rural regeneration. For example, in relation to the RDC, its creation was part of the state’s broader ambitions concerned with securing economic and social reform across the UK and it also acted as a vehicle for the Conservative party to consolidate its position as the ‘party of the rural’ during the 1930s. The subsequent demise of the RDC was also

Rural Regeneration Governance 75

based around the Labour government’s desire to illustrate governing competence and political argument hegemony through an emphasis on new regional projects and the devolution of power, and which additionally informed the creation of RDAs. However, the lack of affinity of the public with regional scales of working also meant that the Labour government sought to increase its own institutional capacity. This was in an attempt to demonstrate governing and policy effectiveness through regional apparatus. But it also introduced new structures and scales of governance for rural regeneration at the sub-regional level over time as a response to internal (i.e. notably of the Treasury) and external forces in order to try and retain political argument hegemony. Finally, the introduction of LEPs and the demise of regional structures and scales of working under the national Coalition and Conservative governments has increasingly highlighted how rural ‘objects of governance’ may become marginalised through the strategic and spatial selectivity of the state. DEFRA’s active involvement in the work of LEPs has been queried (Gallent et al., 2015) and thus a further key lesson which emerges is that new attempts at scalecraft need to be considered carefully in respect of their rationale; their relationship to broader strategies of statecraft and the implications for rural areas. Put simply, it may be left to non-state actors to illustrate and justify the need for effective rural regeneration governance structures if the state’s national statecraft ambitions deem the rural to be unimportant or less crucial to achieving its overall objectives.

Key Points  



Rural regeneration governance can be shaped or ‘crafted’ by wider sets of social, economic and political forces – including discourses and ideologies. The Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) considers the relationship between the economy and the (political) projects of the state respectively. This means that it is possible to consider how the state may privilege certain interests and new structures and scales of working in respect of rural regeneration over others, including new ‘objects of governance’ for rural regeneration. The SRA’s concern with politics and the crafting of certain structures and scales for rural regeneration also leads into a broader consideration of scale and the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’. Statecraft includes achieving governing competence (effective policy choice and implementation) and political argument hegemony (solutions are more plausible than opponents) in order for governments to gain and retain power. Scalecraft involves the crafting of particular scales of working to suit particular needs and can involve those within and beyond formal government seeking to produce, restructure and re-scale rural regeneration governance.

76 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance









Statecraft and scalecraft activities may combine in different ways at different times. This helps us to identify the way in which regeneration governance in rural areas unfolds, and how it provides opportunities for certain political interests (within and beyond) rural areas to pursue and implement new sets of regeneration policies at particular scales (and vice versa). Four specific entities that have had key responsibilities for rural regeneration governance in England were focused upon in the chapter – the Rural Development Commission (RDC), Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). Through drawing upon the SRA and the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’ in relation to the RDC, RDAs, CRC and LEPs, it was highlighted that the state continues to play a crucial role in the restructuring and rescaling of rural regeneration governance in England. Successive governments have sought to demonstrate governing competence and political argument hegemony in respect of the governance of rural areas, and taking forward rural regeneration therein. In so doing they have employed strategies of scalecraft. However, the outcomes of scalecraft are not always certain given that there are both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ influences seeking to shape rural regeneration governance. This means that the outcomes of scalecraft for rural regeneration are uncertain and may be path dependent and subject to the influence of unplanned events (such as the outbreak of FMD in England in 2001). The recent demise of regional structures and scales of working in England has arguably diluted the focus on rural ‘objects of governance’ and highlighted the potential reliance on non-state actors to advocate the on-going need for specific structures of relevance to the delivery of rural regeneration.

Study Questions    

Explain the value of the Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) and the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’ in exploring the evolving objects, sites and scales of rural regeneration governance. Through drawing on the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’, discuss how key structures for rural regeneration governance in England have evolved over time. Critically discuss the key structures and scales of intervention in relation to rural regeneration governance in England since 1997? To what extent do you agree with the assertion that the state continues to play a crucial role in the restructuring and rescaling of rural regeneration governance in England? Please justify your response with reference to strategies of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’.

Rural Regeneration Governance 77

Further Reading / Websites of Relevance In relation to the Rural Development Commission (RDC), Alan Rogers’ book provides an excellent summary of the history of the RDC and the way in which it evolved over time: 

Rogers, A. (1999). The most revolutionary measure: a history of the rural development committee 1909–1999. Salisbury: RDC.

The records of the Rural Development Commission (RDC) and its predecessors are available through the national archives website. See: http://dis covery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C72. With reference to Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), Michael Woods’ edited collection published in 2008 again provides a good overview of the evolving nature of rural regeneration governance under the New Labour government and the implications for rural regeneration: 

Woods, M. (Ed.) (2008). New Labour’s countryside: rural policy in Britain since 1997. Bristol: Policy Press.

For the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), DEFRA’s paper on the summary of responses received to proposals to abolish the CRC, and the government’s response to its consultation exercise is very useful in summarising the key arguments, and the implications arising for rural regeneration governance therein: 

DEFRA (2012a). The new rural policy functions within Government and the proposed abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities. Summary of comments received and Government response to consultation exercise. London: DEFRA.

Finally, in terms of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and rural regeneration, two reports published by the CRC on how rural interests are reflected in the work of LEPs are most pertinent:  

Commission for Rural Communities (2012). How are rural interests being recognised within Local Enterprise Partnerships? Gloucester: CRC. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2010a). Recognising rural interests within Local Enterprise Partnerships. Gloucester: CRC.

These documents – as well as others – produced by the CRC are hosted by the Rural Services Network. See: www.rsnonline.org.uk/intelligence/comm ission-for-rural-communities.

78 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

For a broader discussion of the relevance of the SRA to explore regeneration governance, as well as the dialectical relationship between the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’ see: 

 

Pemberton, S. (2013). Rethinking Urban Regeneration? Insights into the future through use of the Strategic Relational Approach. In: J. Diamond and J. Liddle (Eds.), Looking for Consensus?: Civil society, social movements and crises for public management. London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.45–58. Pemberton, S. and Searle, G. (2016). Statecraft, scalecraft and urban planning: a comparative study of Birmingham, UK and Brisbane, Australia. European Planning Studies, 24(1), pp.76–95. Pemberton, S. (2016) Statecraft, scalecraft and local government reorganisation in Wales. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(7), pp.1306–1323.

Bibliography Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brenner, N. (2009). Open questions of state rescaling. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2(1), pp.123–139. Buller, J. and James, T.S. (2012). Statecraft and the assessment of national political leaders: the case of New Labour and Tony Blair. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14(4), pp.534–555. Bulpitt, J. (1983). Territory and power in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bulpitt, J. (1986a). Continuity, autonomy and peripheralisation: The anatomy of the centre’s race statecraft in England. In: Z. Layton-Henry and P. Rich (Eds.), Race, government and politics in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp.17–44. Bulpitt, J. (1986b). The discipline of the new democracy: Mrs Thatcher’s domestic statecraft. Political Studies, 34(1), pp.19–39. Chakrabortty, A. (2011). Whatever happened to statecraft? The Guardian, 25 July 2011. Available on-line at: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/25/what-happ ened-to-statecraft [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Clout, H. (1995). The Rural Development Commission, Norois, 42, pp.349–360. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2006). State of the countryside 2006. Gloucester: CRC. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2010a). Recognising rural interests within Local Enterprise Partnerships. Gloucester: CRC. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2012). How are rural interests being recognised within Local Enterprise Partnerships? Available on-line at: www.rsnonline.org.uk/ images/files/crc-documents/How-are-rural-interestsbeing-recognised-within-Loca l-Enterprise-Partnerships.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Cox, K. (2010). The problem of metropolitan governance and the politics of scale, Regional Studies, 44(2), pp.215–227.

Rural Regeneration Governance 79

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS) (2009). Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (2009). London: DBIS. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) (2011). Local enterprise partnerships. Available on-line at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploa ds/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252793/bis-11-768-local-enterprise-partner ships-boundary-map-august-. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2009). Policy document on options for Sub-Regional Cooperation in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. London: DCLG. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2001). The government response to the BSE Inquiry. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Department for Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2004). Review of the Rural White Paper – Our countryside: the future. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2012a). The new rural policy functions within Government and the proposed abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities. Summary of comments received and Government response to consultation exercise. London: DEFRA. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1997). Building partnerships for prosperity – sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment in the English regions. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (MAFF) (2000). Our countryside: the future. Cm 4909. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, pp.289–310. Fraser, A. (2010). The craft of scalar practices. Environment and Planning A, 42(2), pp.332–346. Furbey, R. (1999). Urban ‘regeneration’: reflections on a metaphor. Critical Social Policy, 19(4), pp. 419–445. Gallent, N., Hamiduddin, I., Juntti, M., Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2015). Introduction to rural planning: economies, communities and landscapes (2nd ed.). Oxford: Taylor and Francis. Gallent, N., Juntii, M., Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2008). Introduction to rural planning. London: Routledge. Goodwin, M. (2008). Rural governance, devolution and policy delivery. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.45–58. Hansard (1997b). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 16 December 1997 – Peripheral Areas (Economic Regeneration), vol.303, c.147W. Available on-line at: https://api.parliam ent.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1997/dec/16/peripheral-areas-economic-re generation#S6CV0303P0_19971216_CWA_387 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1998a). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 01 April 1998 – Official Report, Standing Committee E c 73, 29 January 1998, cited by Tim Yeo MP, Activities of Agencies in Rural Areas, vol.309; c.1276. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament. uk/historic-hansard/commons/1998/apr/01/activities-of-agencies-in-rural-areas# S6CV0309P0_19980401_HOC_359 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (1998b). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 3 February 1998 – Rural Development, vol.305, c.832. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/ commons/1998/feb/03/rural-development#S6CV0305P0_19980203_HOC_52 [Accessed 18 July 2018].

80 Framing Rural Regeneration and Governance

Hansard (1998c). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 14 January 1998 – Regional Development Agencies Bill, vol.304, c.377. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/ historic-hansard/commons/1998/jan/14/regional-development-agencies-bill# S6CV0304P0_19980114_HOC_316 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (2000b). Commons debates: Daily Hansard 28 November 2000 – Rural White Paper, vol.357, c.817. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/ commons/2000/nov/28/rural-white-paper#S6CV0357P0_20001128_HOC_163 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Hansard (2004). House of Lords debates: Daily Hansard 21 July 2004 – Rural Strategy 2004, vol.664, c.252. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/ jul/21/rural-strategy-2004#S5LV0664P0_20040721_HOL_184 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Haskins, C. (2003). Rural delivery review: a report on the delivery of government policies in rural England. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Her Majesty’s Treasury (2007). Sub national review of economic development and regeneration. London: HM Treasury. Hewitt, S. (2011). The impact of regionalisation on rural development in England. Paper presented to the Regional Studies Association International Conference. Theme – rurality/peripherality and regional development 18–20 April 2011, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2013). Sixth Report: Rural Communities. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/602/60213.htm#note349 [Accessed 18 June 2018]. Jessop, B. (1990). State theory: putting capitalist states in their place. Oxford: Blackwell. Jessop, B. (1997). A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes. In: M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: regulating urban politics in a global economy. London: Sage, pp.51–73. Jessop, B. (2001). Institutional (re)turns. Environment and Planning A, 33(7), pp.1213–1235. Jessop, B. (2008). State power: a Strategic Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. Martin, S., Tricker, M. and Bovaird, A. (1990). Rural development programmes – theory and practice. Regional Studies, 24(3), pp.268–277. Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30(2), pp.156–181. Pearce, G., Ayres, S. and Tricker, M. (2005). Decentralisation and devolution to the English regions: Assessing the implications for rural policy and delivery. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(2), pp.197–212. Pemberton, S. (2013). Rethinking urban regeneration? Insights into the future through use of the Strategic Relational Approach. In: J. Diamond and J. Liddle (Eds.), Looking for consensus?: Civil society, social movements and crises for public management. London: Emerald Group Publishing, pp.45–58. Pemberton, S. (2016). Statecraft, scalecraft and local government reorganisation in Wales. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(7), pp.1306–1323. Pemberton, S. and Searle, G. (2016). Statecraft, scalecraft and urban planning: a comparative study of Birmingham, UK and Brisbane, Australia. European Planning Studies, 24(1), pp.76–95. Pemberton, S. and Shaw, D. (2012). New forms of sub-regional governance and implication for rural areas: evidence from England. Planning Practice and Research, 27(4), pp.441–458. Pike, A. and Tomaney, J. (2009). The state and uneven development: the governance of economic development in England in the post-devolution UK. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2(1), pp.13–34.

Rural Regeneration Governance 81

Rogers, A. (1999). The most revolutionary measure: a history of the Rural Development Committee 1909–1999. Salisbury: Rural Development Commission. Rowe, F. (2011). Rural policy in Scotland and England: a comparative perspective. Edinburgh: Rural Policy Research Centre. Shucksmith, M. (2000). Exclusive countrysides? Social inclusion and regeneration in rural areas. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Shucksmith, M. (2008). New Labour’s countryside in international perspective. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.59–78. The Stationery Office (2012). Government response to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee report of session 2010–12: regeneration. London: The Stationery Office, p.3. Ward, N. (2006). Rural development and the economies of rural areas. In: J. Midgley (Ed.), A new rural agenda. London: IPPR, pp.46–57. Ward, N. (2008). Rethinking rural policy under New Labour. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.29–44. Woods, M. (Ed.) (2008). New Labour’s countryside: rural policy in Britain since 1997. Bristol: Policy Press.

PART II

Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

4 RURAL COMMUNITY REGENERATION

Introduction This chapter is the first of three that considers the key dimensions and spaces of rural regeneration. It focuses on change from within the rural and more specifically community-led approaches to rural regeneration. Traditional ‘top-down’ state-led models of rural development have often been unresponsive and not representative of the needs of local communities or local context (Woods, 2011). Hence since the early 1990s there has been a ‘turn to the community’ (Duffy and Hutchison, 1997) and an increasing importance placed on empowering rural communities to address their own needs through ‘bottom-up’ approaches (Ray, 2006). Such moves are part of a broader transition from state-led government to a wider system of rural governance involving a restructuring of the scales of state intervention and a wider range of public, private and third sector organisations involved in new governing arrangements (Goodwin, 1998). Consequently, the rise of rural partnership working as a new mode of rural governance (Edwards, Goodwin, Pemberton and Woods, 2001) is evident in terms of rural community regeneration. Community-based partnerships have been set up to involve local communities and other public, private and not-for-profit actors in order to enhance a ‘capacity to act’ and to support the co-ordination and effective delivery of local services (Osborne, Williamson and Beattie, 2004). But questions remain in respect of the autonomy and influence of such partnerships; the influence of the local community, as opposed to other actors; the differential involvement of local people in such structures and related issues of power (Scott, 2004; Edwards, Goodwin, Pemberton and Woods, 2000). Indeed, the ‘meta-governance’ of local community partnerships by local or national governments (see Furmankiewicz, Thompson and Zielinska, 2010) has been identified as frequently impinging on the

86 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

autonomy of community-led partnerships and their ability to deliver their own agenda, as opposed to those of partners. In the following chapter, three specific approaches to delivering rural community regeneration are discussed – the EU LEADER programme, the Market Towns Initiative (MTI) and (Rural) Neighbourhood Planning. European funded programmes such as LEADER have been instrumental in supporting rural community regeneration (Ward, 2006). Similarly, the MTI was a key place-based regeneration programme, which offered opportunities for the regeneration of rural market towns, as well as their wider hinterlands. More recently, Neighbourhood Planning has been increasingly important in England in supporting rural community regeneration, and particularly given the emphasis of successive national governments on delivering a new ‘localism’ to devolve power and improve accountability (DCLG, 2011a). However, some have argued that such a shift has been more concerned with the state devolving responsibility in the context of financial austerity (Bentley, Bailey and Shutt, 2010). Such issues are considered further below. The added value of this chapter beyond existing discussions of rural community regeneration has several dimensions. First, while considerable attention has focused on the LEADER programme over time (for example, see Furmankiewicz and Macken-Walsh, 2016; European Commission, 2014; Ray, 2000), less emphasis has been placed on the specific regeneration opportunities that the programme offers. Second, the MTI has also been broadly discussed and evaluated (see Morris, 2012; Ekogen, 2009; Countryside Agency, 2004) but hitherto there has been less focus on its role in rural community regeneration, nor on the lessons which emerged from implementation. Third, much attention has focused on the planning and ‘localist’ aspects of neighbourhood planning in England (see Gallent and Robinson, 2013; Bentley et al., 2010) but the opportunities and constraints of relevance to delivering rural community regeneration has largely been ignored. Finally, through a consideration of all three approaches, it is possible to draw out a number of broader points of relevance to rural community regeneration. These include the importance of territorial coverage, levels of community engagement and empowerment, the balance of power between different partners, the types of regeneration that have been taken forward and the allocation of resources.

Rural Community Regeneration and Rural Partnership Working Building on a seam of activity that originated in the 1950s involving new approaches to community development, more emphasis was placed from the early 1990s on empowering local communities to address their own needs through ‘bottom up’ (endogenous) rather than ‘top-down’ (exogenous) approaches (Shucksmith, 2000). This moved beyond viewing rural communities “as helpless victims whose woes can only be solved by others” (House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2013, p.3). The Cork Declaration from the European Conference on

Rural Community Regeneration 87

Rural Development in 1996 stated that rural policy “must be as decentralised as possible and based on partnership and co-operation between all levels concerned” (ibid., p.3; also see European Commission, 1997). In addition, the Conservative Rural White Paper of 1995 highlighted the importance of involving local people in the rural regeneration process (Department of the Environment, 1995). This was also a key strand taken forward through the Labour Government’s 2000 Rural White Paper (DETR and MAFF, 2000). Rural community regeneration can therefore take a variety of forms. It may range from i) consultation or engagement in rural community regeneration; ii) community involvement in the strategic planning and funding of local regeneration projects; and / or iii) full community ownership of local regeneration projects (Osborne et al., 2004). In this sense, community can signify both ‘communities of place’ and ‘communities of interest’ (ibid., pp.157–158). A critical discussion of what constitutes rural community regeneration draws attention to the relationship between local communities and others working within and beyond the local community. This also reflects recent critiques of adopting a binary ‘exogenous’ versus ‘endogenous’ approach to rural regeneration. In contrast, a ‘neo-endogenous’ approach has recently been espoused (Ray, 2006), which serves as an alternative perspective through which to study rural community regeneration as it highlights the importance of both exogenous and endogenous forces (Ray, 2006; Shucksmith, 2000; Lowe, Murdoch and Ward, 1995). Consequently, this enables an identification of the existing capacity of local communities to take forward rural regeneration, as well as the importance of working with others beyond the local area. Indeed, from a neo-endogenous rural perspective, it is argued that individuals can use their ‘extra-local’ skills, networks and knowledge to deliver rural community regeneration activities. The increasing importance placed on rural community regeneration also reflects a broader shift in the UK – and indeed in some other parts of Europe – from a system of rural government to one of rural governance (Bristow, Cowell and Marsden, 2001). A decline in the importance of local authorities (as a key mechanism of rural government), the increasing privatisation and deregulation of public services and an associated fragmentation of responsibilities and resources across a broader range of agencies has necessitated the construction of rural regeneration partnerships (Edwards et al., 2000). These have played a key role in the governance of rural areas of the UK and where “issues of community development, empowerment and rural regeneration are most obviously brought together” (Shucksmith, 2000, p.40). The process of partnership formation and institutional context is critical in shaping the extent to which partnerships are an empowerment mechanism for local people. Different types of rural regeneration partnership – for example, those that are facilitative and those that are more delivery-focused – have been set up, although very few delivery partnerships have emerged organically (Edwards et al., 2000). Instead, their funding outputs and requirements have often been driven

88 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

from above and with the state (in various forms – both through elected systems of local / regional government and unelected state-sponsored agencies) remaining the key funder of partnerships in rural areas (Edwards et al., 2001). Consequently, questions remain over the extent to which rural community regeneration involves the empowerment of local communities and the extent to which there is an equal ‘capacity to act’ across different rural areas. Furthermore, while traditionally ‘community self-help’ has characterised communities in the countryside, the actual involvement of community members in partnerships – as opposed to individuals being represented through community organisations (such as Young Farmers Clubs) has been mixed. This raises further queries over the extent of accountability, legitimacy and empowerment that such structures have provided (Edwards et al., 2001; 2000; Shucksmith, 2000). In essence, and summarising the literature on partnerships and community-led rural regeneration, the state has continued to act through partnerships in an attempt to ensure dominance of such governance arrangements and this has often led to rural governance operating in the shadow of rural government (Jessop, 2002; 1999; Goodwin, 1998). Indeed, rural community regeneration can be framed within a governmentality approach as it reflects the strategies employed by the state to render society governable (Edwards et al., 2001; Foucault, 1993). Non-state actors may become involved in state activities, but whose actions are frequently shaped by an ‘arms-length’ style of governing by the state. From a rural community regeneration perspective, critical questions have been raised in respect of the emergence of partnerships as a new form of rural governance and issues of involvement and engagement. In this respect a distinction can be made between issues of ‘power to’ and ‘power over’ (Shucksmith, 2008) and the different forms of rural community regeneration that may emerge. For example, regeneration in an area often involves no more than the inward movement of employment and not necessarily filled by local people. Moving beyond this, the regeneration of an area will bring other developments alongside jobs while regeneration for an area involves an integrated strategy contributing to the sustainable development of social, economic and cultural resources. However, arguably the most vital form is regeneration by an area, which involves the local community as full partners in any project rather than as recipients (Edwards et al., 2000, p.47). This context therefore provides the framework for analysing three different approaches to rural community regeneration that are discussed below, including issues of local autonomy, empowerment and engagement.

EU LEADER Programme The EU LEADER programme – Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de l’Economie Rurale (Links between Actions for the Development of the Rural Economy) – was launched as a European Community Initiative in 1991 (Ray, 2000). By 2014, around 2600 LEADER partnerships had been set up (European

Rural Community Regeneration 89

Commission, 2014). From the outset, LEADER was seen as a new form of endogenous rural regeneration and a response to top-down, state-led modernisation programmes. Two key principles underpinned the delivery of the programme: i) the principle of subsidiarity and decision-making taking place at a local level; and ii) working through partnership, involving local people plus representatives from other public, private and not-for-profit actors. The need for inter-territorial co-operation, the effective use of local assets and resources and the promotion of innovation and economic diversification is also stressed (Navarro, Woods and Cejudo, 2015). In turn, this has provided both territorial and functional representation of different interests (Furmankiewicz and Macken-Walsh, 2016), although they are frequently conflated with each other as territorial interests may often be defined by functional interests and vice versa (ibid.). This leads to questions of ‘whom represents whom?’ (Goodwin, 1998, p.8). During the first three rounds or iterations of LEADER (LEADER 1 1991–1993; LEADER II 1994–1999; LEADER + 2000–2006), the approach was premised on the creation of Local Action Groups (LAGs). These covered areas or regions of 30,000 to 150,000 people and corresponded to administrative boundaries within member states where possible. Each LAG was charged with creating a Local Development Strategy involving a wide range of interests, including local people. Applications for local projects that addressed the key rural regeneration and development priorities set out in a Development Strategy were subsequently encouraged, and with a LAG ‘decision-making committee’ (independent of the LAGs board of directors, which co-ordinates the work of the LAG on a day-to-day basis) subsequently adjudicating on which projects should receive funding (Furmankiewicz and Macken-Walsh, 2016). The guidance for who should be involved in LAGs was flexible in order to reflect the diversity of rural areas. However, the following were suggested:      

Professional organisations (e.g. farmers, non-farming professionals and microenterprises) Trade associations Citizens / residents / members of local organisations Local government and local political representatives Environmental associations Cultural and community service providers (for example, organisations such as women’s associations and those serving young people)(European Commission, 2006)

Importantly, it was highlighted how no more than 50% of the LAG decisionmaking committee should encapsulate ‘statutory sector’ representatives. Nevertheless, questions have been raised over the ambiguity of this definition and in certain parts of the EU this has led to more specific guidance on the proportions

90 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

who should be involved from different sectors. In such a way the intention has been to militate against certain partners dominating decision-making processes (Edwards et al., 2001). But in practice the involvement and influence of partners has been uneven and in many instances the statutory sector – such as local authorities – has predominated and with the involvement of local residents and those from the third sector often been tokenistic (Shucksmith, 2000). In addition, this has led to geographical variations in both the coverage and effectiveness of such programmes, and with certain areas having a greater ‘capacity to act’ than others. This means that some areas may lose out in terms of securing resources to deliver rural regeneration. From 2007, LEADER was integrated with other rural development measures in Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy through regional rural development plans (for example, the Rural Development Programme for England – RDPE 2007–2013). This, it is argued, has served to increase local bureaucracy and further dilute local participation and with LEADER increasingly becoming a ‘political, social and economic instrument’ (Esparcia, Noguera and Pitarch, 2000, cited in Navarro et al., 2015) with relatively few community members involved. Such challenges are on-going given the incorporation of LEADER within rural development programmes for each EU member state for the period 2014–2020. In some cases, this has led to LAGs being subsumed within formal local authority structures (Furmankiewicz and Macken-Walsh, 2016). From a rural community regeneration perspective, a review of the implementation of LEADER programmes across Europe reveals the following strengths and weaknesses of the approach: LEADER in Poland: In Poland, it was found that statutory sector representatives were over-represented on LAGs and with local government “overtly and unapologetically” dominating early LEADER partnerships (Furmankiewicz et al., 2010, p. 60). There has also been poor engagement from the private and third sector. This reflected a culture of dependency on statutory actors, a lack of time for participation (especially for those from the private sector) and a lack of experience and resources for private and third sector actors to participate. Tokenistic representation of local community members has also been reported. In turn, this has meant that infrastructure projects and the renovation of buildings, which have been frequently promulgated by statutory sector representatives, have been prioritised over other types of activities (Furmankiewicz and Macken-Walsh, 2016). LEADER in Germany: Bruckhiemer (2000) and Bocher (2008) have highlighted how local participation in LEADER programmes and the distribution of funding for local LEADER projects has been uneven and with the programme’s emphasis on innovation allowing LEADER to be captured by local elite groups. Bruckheimer (2000) also discusses how local elites have subsequently constrained more radical ideas for rural development and regeneration.

Rural Community Regeneration 91

LEADER in Spain: In Spain, Navarro et al. (2015) have illustrated how LEADER has contributed to a significant decentralisation of decision making and an increase in participation of those most marginalised. However, respondents who participated in the research also argued that some were now less involved in local decision-making and that there had been a reassertion of the importance of local government in LEADER structures. Esparcia et al. (2000) have noted how LEADER has been used by different public sector actors to legitimise other aspects of their activities through their participation in LAGs. As such, LEADER is perceived as offering a democratic mandate to pursue wider strategies for rural development and regeneration. More recent work by Esparcia et al. (2015, pp.40–41) also draws attention to issues of democratic accountability, and the fact that “LEADER is still not fully understood or accepted by civil servants or politicians within regional government”. LEADER in Italy: In Italy, Osti (2000) highlighted how local leadership was crucial in shaping the effectiveness of LEADER programmes and that such leadership was frequently driven through public sector partners. However, the extent to which LEADER is truly innovative has been queried, and particularly where public sector leaders have brought a pre-ordained agenda or preferred focus of activity to the LAG (ibid.). LEADER in Finland: In Finland, Pylkkänen and Hyyryläinen (2002) identify that LEADER has strengthened local community involvement in the rural community regeneration process, promoted a new identity for local areas and encouraged the formation of new social relationships within rural communities. LEADER in France: In France, the predominance of public sector partners is noted in the form of mayors, local councillors, other public agencies and other members of the ‘political elite’ (Buller, 2000). LEADER in Ireland: A number of studies have focused on the implementation of the LEADER programme in Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland, Storey (1999) suggested that those most marginalised in rural communities were often least empowered or engaged through the LEADER programme and that there were problematic relationships between the local and regional / national level. Scott (2004) noted a similar position in Northern Ireland and the disengagement of the farming community in LEADER programmes. LEADER in England, Wales and Scotland: In Scotland, Shucksmith (2000) has pointed out the dependence of LEADER on regional government actors and those with a greater capacity to act. In Wales, Navarro et al. (2015) illustrate that decentralised decision-making has become less important over time and with local government becoming increasingly important. The need for other partners to become involved such as new settlers, young farmers and other groups at risk of becoming socially excluded was also advocated in Wales and England (ibid.).

92 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Overall recommendations, which emerge from an evaluation of LEADER programmes across the EU, include:       

Clarity on LAG members representative status; To actively support and reinforce third and private sector organisations in rural areas to challenge traditional elites and to recognise their status as legitimate representatives on LAGs; To re-assert the participatory structures of LAGs in an effort to retain some degree of local autonomy, and especially where LAGs have been incorporated within formal local government structures; To provide greater flexibility for LEADER to support all types of businesses; To increase private sector representation in LAGs; To simplify procedures in an attempt to involve new actors in the LAG process; To target more funding on ‘deep rural’ areas that arguably may have the most problems. Source: Esparcia, Escribano and Serrano (2015)

Such recommendations therefore highlight issues relating to the power and engagement of local communities, which may often be lacking. It is also clear that there is frequently a dependence on other actors for support and for funding, reducing levels of local autonomy and the ability to secure social – as well as economic – regeneration. Furthermore, Shucksmith (2008) has noted how LEADER needs to be supported through vertical relations of governance as the harmonising and integration of different sectors and scales of governance from a vertical – as well as horizontal – perspective is crucial to its effectiveness. These points, as well as others, are considered in the case study below.

Case Study: Rural Community Regeneration in the England / Wales Borderland: The Importance of LEADER? Context Bettisfield Village Hall, located in the England / Wales borderland of the UK provides an excellent example of community-led rural regeneration. The Village Hall was originally built by the Hanmer Estate in the middle of the 1890s as a school for the children of Bettisfield. It remained a school until the 1960s, when dwindling numbers of students meant that it was no longer viable to keep the school open. At this point a Village Hall Committee that had been set up, which was considering the development of a plot of land adjacent to the school, approached the Hanmer Estate with a view to using the school as the Village Hall. Subsequently, the School was purchased from the Hanmer Estate through funds raised by residents of the village.

Rural Community Regeneration 93

However, over the years the Hall was used less and less and fell into a state of disrepair. The only major source of income for the Hall was a weekly whist drive, a yearly Christmas draw and an annual donation from Bettisfield Community Council. Such monies kept the Hall open and were just enough to cover costs of insurance and utility bills (based on Street, n.d.).

New activity At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of 2001, it was proposed that the Hall should close given lack of use and its increasingly poor condition. However, the proposal was rejected given that no other community facilities (such as a shop or public house) exist in the village, apart from the local church. Consequently, a new committee was formed, which embarked on a major programme of fund raising and activity. First, a voluntary clean up and redecoration of the interior of the Hall took place. In turn, a successful grant application was made to the local authority’s Rural Scheme to convert the old school playground into a Sensory Garden, offering a place of sanctuary, peace and relaxation. The donation of land surrounding the Hall led to a further application to the local authority for additional monies to provide a Children’s Play area and also for further decking for use adjacent to the Garden area. A Village Hall Lottery was

FIGURE 4.1 Bettisfield Village Hall Source: Author.

94 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

FIGURE 4.2 Bettisfield Village Hall in Context Source: Author.

also introduced to generate a regular source of monthly income – this produced around £600 per annum. In the years that followed, a successful application for national government funding in order to build a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) generated a further (and regular) stream of income for the Village Hall. Monies for refurbishing the kitchen, toilets and windows of the Hall were also secured from the EU LEADER programme. The refurbishment of the Hall and the development of other income generating activities in its grounds – as well as a series of other fundraising events held on an annual basis – have provided a steady income stream to provide for the upkeep of the facility. New clubs (such as a Short Mat Indoor Bowling Club) use the facility and pay for the rental of the Hall. Nevertheless, there have been on-going challenges. Maintenance costs – including a new heating system and emergency repairs to the roof of the building – have required the use of the Hall’s ‘Reserve Fund’. To this end, the Community Council has been a vitally important source of money in providing toward such costs, as well as in relation to the resurfacing of the Hall’s car park. The Hall is available to all residents of the village and surrounding areas, and can be hired for activities as diverse as adult parties, meeting and training courses and wedding receptions (the latter has involved the Hall Committee applying for a license in order for alcohol to be consumed on the premises; based on Street, n.d.).

Rural Community Regeneration 95

Discussion The case study provides a number of important insights into the key influences shaping effective rural community regeneration. These relate to the distinctive features of rural regeneration highlighted in Chapter 1. First, a reliance on volunteers. Without local people taking the initiative, little would have been achieved. In all likelihood, the Hall would probably have closed without the intervention of the new Village Hall committee. However, community intervention requires a suitable group of individuals who are able and willing to come forward, and who may be more difficult to find in rural areas given the paucity of human capital (see Osborne et al., 2004). Second, such volunteers are required to maintain the regeneration process and to develop new sources of income. In this respect, the ability to identify new sources of funding and to develop regular schemes of income was vital to the longer-term viability and sustainability of the Hall. But this is not always easy in rural areas given the complexity of funding sources and the absence of larger grant schemes that are often targeted toward urban areas (ibid.). A third – and related – point also relates to the actions of key actors. It was apparent from the case study that a small number of individuals within the community have been instrumental in leading the regeneration process. To this end, individuals reported how they had spent many hours working voluntarily and at no expense on Village Hall activities, and particularly in respect of developing and writing grant applications, maintaining the Village Hall and engaging in fund raising activities. Such actions therefore require a suitable group of individuals who have the inclination, the time, and the expertise to support the rural regeneration process. This can be difficult in a community where relatively few people live, and where the absence of concentrated poverty and deprivation can make it more difficult to justify the need for such activity. Fourth, local, national and EU funding – especially LEADER monies but matched by the local authority – were important in improving and maintaining the Hall. Without the support of the local authority, few of the early activities that helped to generate interest in the Hall, which subsequently provided a new stream of income, would have been developed. Equally, the support of the local authority’s Rural Development Officer was instrumental in providing information and advice on grant applications, as well as in relation to financial, legal and planning-related issues. But the relationship between local authorities and local communities in rural areas can be variable, and range from local empowerment to bureaucratic paternalism (Woods, 2005). From the case study, it was apparent that both national and European LEADER funding was also vital in ‘scaling up’ activities over time, which provided the basis for the creation of new income-generating measures. Notwithstanding this, the local Community Council played a critical role in stepping in when unforeseen problems emerged in relation to the ageing infrastructure of the Village Hall, which otherwise

96 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

could have led to its closure. Hence the ability to harness the resources of such organisations – and in the absence of resources which are often available from the private sector in an urban area – also differentiates the regeneration approach from elsewhere. In sum, a combination of human and financial resources – both local and extralocal – have been important in the rural community regeneration process. Support from the LEADER programme in the area was vital, but it was only one part of the story. People are also crucial: it is apparent that the process of rural community regeneration is one requiring constant renewal. New members from the local community are required to support and galvanise the regeneration process and new ways of generating income consistently emerge as a key challenge in respect of maintaining and developing local community infrastructure. This may be difficult to achieve, particularly if local people are reluctant or do not have the time to come forward, or if public sector funding (including officer support) is curtailed.

Market Towns Initiative The Market Towns Initiative (MTI) emerged out of the Conservative and Labour Government’s Rural White Papers of 1995 and 2000 respectively. The Rural White Paper of 2000 identified how “market towns play a critical role in helping rural communities to thrive and in regenerating deprived areas” (DETR / MAFF, 2000, p.74). The White Paper therefore promoted the importance of market towns as places to live and essential to the regeneration of rural England (Wheway, 2011). The MTI was developed by the Countryside Agency and operated throughout rural England from 2000 to 2005/2006, when the Countryside Agency was disbanded. As such, it was a ‘top-down’ devised programme and co-ordinated nationally but regionally organised and implemented locally. It was available to any rural town with a population of between 2,000 and 20,000 people. The primary focus of the MTI was to support local people to consider the strengths, weaknesses, and future demands and opportunities facing rural market towns (Morris, 2012). As a regeneration tool, the MTI was set up to improve the viability and vitality of towns – in the context of new patterns of consumption and a shift from a productivist countryside – through creating new job opportunities, new workspace, improved amenities and better transport facilities. In addition, the creation of new housing was seen as key to delivering regeneration. £32 million was allocated to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to support economic regeneration in market towns (and with each town having to find matched funding equivalent to their allocation), while £5 million was allocated to the Countryside Agency to facilitate ‘Market Towns Healthchecks’. Countryside Agency funding was also used to co-ordinate such analyses as well as the employment of project managers / officers to subsequently develop and implement projects.

Rural Community Regeneration 97

In total, around 240 towns took part in the programme, and in excess of the initial target of 100 participating towns (Morris, 2012). Local partnerships involving those from the public, private and voluntary sector were set up to implement activity. Such partnerships differed from town to town in terms of their size and composition, and with considerable variation existing in relation to the extent to which they encouraged participation from communities outside of the town. Those that did adopt a wider territorial remit in respect of their engagement and participation activities often invited rural parish councils to their meetings or to sit on their partnerships (Countryside Agency, 2004). Key concerns that were identified through the ‘Healthcheck’ process included the need to improve the public realm, to create affordable housing, to improve the quality of employment available, and to improve leisure and recreation facilities (especially for young people) and public transport (Morris, 2012, p.46). As a result, new infrastructure was created such as community arts centres and a variety of strategies were used to attract tourists and new residents into towns (Wheway, 2011, p.11). Nevertheless, the focus of the MTI narrowed over time to solely focus on projects with an economic benefit (Countryside Agency, 2004). This proved to be problematic for many, despite the Healthchecks and related Action Plans giving equal consideration to social, economic and environmental issues. As such, social or environmental projects were required to identify economic outputs (such as the number of jobs created) to secure funding (Countryside Agency, 2004, p.12). But on the other hand, towns that had prioritised community and social concerns were subsequently less susceptible to cuts in regeneration funding, which emerged with the global economic recession from 2008 onward (Ekogen, 2009). Beyond England, in Wales a similar Market Town Initiative operated between 1997 and 2000 to support local regeneration in small towns in rural Wales. Competitive grants of £90,000 over three years were awarded by the then Development Board for Rural Wales to ten towns through two rounds of awards (Edwards et al., 2000). In similarity to England, The Market Town Initiative envisaged that development in rural towns would benefit the wider rural area in which they were located (Wales Rural Observatory, 2007). It was delivered through local partnerships and with the formation of partnerships a pre-requisite for funding and with only one application accepted from each town in order to try and secure broader involvement and commitment. The requirement to work in partnership was also a management device used by the (then) Welsh Development Agency – a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation – to facilitate, fund, steer and regulate the initiative (Edwards et al., 2001, p.297). As such, this is a clear example of the governmentality approach to rural regeneration highlighted earlier in the chapter. Indeed, those towns that were unsuccessful with their first application were invited to bid in the second round, but on the basis of the specific guidance and involvement provided by the Welsh

98 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Development Agency. Subsequently, a ‘Community Regeneration Toolkit’ involving a wider range of policy interventions (see ‘lessons’ below) superseded the Market Towns Initiative in Wales. Lessons for rural regeneration that emerge from an evaluation of the MTI in England include: 









People: Succession planning for those involved is required, which may be a particular challenge in rural areas where there is a smaller pool of individuals to draw from and who may also be more widely dispersed. In addition, for those areas or initiatives appointing a ‘programme manager’ to take forward and co-ordinate rural regeneration activity, there is also a need for continuity to maintain momentum. Nevertheless, the evidence is mixed in respect of the effectiveness of such individuals: in some areas it was argued that little would have been achieved without the support of a programme or project manager. But in other areas, it was argued that this impinged on the ability of local communities to meet and address their own needs (Wade, 2012; Countryside Agency, 2004). Time: A key finding was the need for a sequential and long-term approach to rural community regeneration, and where ‘preparation’ (of governance structures), ‘diagnosis’ (of particular problems or issues) and ‘treatment’ (through the development of specific projects) is taken forward over time, rather than concurrently (as was the case with the MTI). In addition, there is a requirement to illustrate delivery ‘on the ground’ at an early stage (Morris, 2012; The Tavistock Institute, 2005). Governance – horizontal: There is a need to develop trust between those involved and clarity over what can be achieved and the governance processes required to deliver (which should be long-term and as inclusive as possible). Support for supervision / development officers is also required. Integration with other initiatives in the local area also needs to be focused upon (Morris, 2012; Wade, 2012). Governance – vertical: Evaluation revealed that there were difficulties in terms of local action plans shaping / influencing local delivery by higher tier authorities. Hence there is a need for a supportive policy context / strategic support for rural community regeneration, with clear lines of communication. This was often limited in respect of the MTI in England and due to changes in strategic regional regeneration policy, which progressively placed more emphasis on economic outputs (Morris, 2012; Countryside Agency, 2004). Remit: The limited ability for community place-based initiatives to address broader structural challenges in the economy or housing markets, such as a lack of affordable rural housing was a key finding. Such activities require broader joint interventions with public and private bodies (Morris, 2012; Wade, 2012).

Rural Community Regeneration 99



 

Territorial collaboration: Other key findings included the need for joining up settlements in rural areas to achieve economies of scale and to secure a better appreciation of how different communities complement / inter-relate or compete with their neighbours (Wade, 2012). Focus: the MTI revealed the need for a clear focus and set of activities set out in a Strategy / Action Plan, and the need to retain such a focus over time (Countryside Agency, 2004). Funding – the MTI evaluation identified the requirement for both revenue and capital funding – revenue funding is required for local engagement / development of appropriate governance structures and to support the on-going work of such structures. It is also required for training and support for those involved, and to appoint a Project or Development Officer (as required), as well as ‘buying in’ specialist support. Capital funding is additionally required to take forward infrastructure development, as appropriate (The Tavistock Institute, 2005).

Neighbourhood Planning Since the late 1960s, the concept of community-led planning (CLP) has become increasingly prominent in the UK (for example, see the Skeffington Report of 1969 emphasising citizen contributions), and especially within a context of increasing pressures on local authorities to provide public services and a recognition that local communities may often be best placed to look after their own affairs (Action with Communities in Rural England – ACRE, 2014). Hence there have been on-going concerns over failures in addressing the needs of local communities, and with issues of housing affordability being highlighted as a key issue to tackle (Commission for Rural Communities, 2010b). In part, this can be explained with reference to the way in which the English planning system has historically focused on ‘rural protectionism’ and the ‘rural idyll’, and with urban containment at its heart (see Hall, 1973). This is despite on-going trends of counter-urbanisation, and the associated socio-economic re-composition of rural communities (Sturzaker, 2011). With the global economic crisis from 2008, and the context of public sector retrenchment and ‘achieving more with less’, localism was increasingly promulgated in the UK by successive national governments along with a philosophy of greater empowerment for local communities and a move away from ‘Big Government to Big Society’ (Rowe, 2011). A change of government in England in 2010 (the election of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition) led to a new Localism Act receiving Royal Assent in 2011. This introduced powers that allowed communities to shape new development in their local areas by preparing Neighbourhood Plans, Neighbourhood Development Orders or Community Right to Build Orders. Under the powers, which came into effect in April 2012, communities are able to identify where they want new homes, shops and offices

100 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

to be built (and what they should look like); to identify which green spaces should be protected; and / or to grant planning permission for the new buildings they want to see (House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2013, p.54). In rural areas, the neighbourhood plan is led by the Parish Council (where such bodies exist) and must be in conformity with the principal authority’s Local Plan, as well as national planning policy. Once approved – following a local referendum and where the plan needs to gain majority support by over 50% of the local population – the neighbourhood plan is incorporated into the Local Plan. This provides the basis for planning decisions in the area that it covers (Brian Wilson Associates, 2011, p.2). In terms of the Localism Act, a number of new ‘community rights’ are important: Community Right to Challenge – this allows local groups to bid to run local services (for example, those provided by a local authority) where they think they can do so differently or better; Community Right to Bid or Buy – this provides local groups with a chance of acquiring and running community assets; Community Right to Build – this is a specific form of Neighbourhood Development Order that enables local people to bring forward small-scale, site-specific, community-led development without the need for planning permission. Community Right to Build Orders have a similar effect for a specific development proposal; Community Right to Plan – this involves the preparation of neighbourhood plans or Neighbourhood Development Orders to shape new development at the local level, and the interests reflected in the neighbourhood plan. While there has been much discussion of neighbourhood planning in the context of reforms to the planning system in England (for example, see Gallent and Robinson, 2013) and in relation to community empowerment more broadly, there has been relatively little focus placed to date on the implications of neighbourhood planning for rural community regeneration. This is important to acknowledge as Turley (2014) identified that around two-thirds of all neighbourhood plans in the first three years following the Localism Act in England had been developed in rural areas as opposed to urban areas. From the perspective of the Government, neighbourhood plans may help to facilitate rural regeneration in areas that are “in need of physical regeneration or lacking certain social infrastructure”. They can be used to “push for a greater level of economic and housing growth than sought in a local plan in order to benefit from the regenerative effects of development and incentives, such as new homes, new infrastructure and jobs creation” (DCLG, 2011a, p.16). Thus, neighbourhood planning intersects with rural community regeneration in a number of ways, including i) its role in shaping neo-endogenous rural community

Rural Community Regeneration 101

regeneration; ii) the nature and extent to which housing-led regeneration is required; and iii) the relative emphasis placed on physical or economic regeneration as opposed to social regeneration. Each is considered in turn. In terms of neo-endogenous rural community regeneration, neighbourhood planning can generate a ‘bottom-up’ debate of local needs and the type of regeneration required at the local level (Brian Wilson Associates, 2011, p.2). It can also help to engage local residents in the design of regeneration projects, which, according to the Government is required in order avoid “some of the disasters … where we haven’t” (DCLG, 2010b, p.3). Meaningful community participation in neighbourhood planning can additionally generate social value and is therefore a “preventative intervention that can be integral to community regeneration, both physical and social” (DCLG, 2010b, p.4). Nevertheless, it has been claimed that many communities lack the capacity, expertise and finance to deliver neighbourhood plans (House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2013, p.55). Areas of below average affluence are less likely to engage, creating a ‘new patchwork politics of place’ (Derounian, 2014; Turley, 2014) and with neighbourhood planning “the preserve of those communities with the greatest means … the process of neighbourhood planning is inaccessible to many of those who might benefit most, both in terms of long-term physical regeneration and the benefits it could bring in fostering a greater sense of community” (Hodder, 2013, p.18). In addition, in rural areas with a parish council, the council is automatically the lead body and any draft plan therefore requires the full approval of the full parish council. This raises questions over ‘elite capture’ and the dependence on local volunteers to take the neighbourhood planning process forward means that power is more likely to be located in the hands of older people given that they are more likely to be (parish) councillors or have the time, experience and inclination to become involved in neighbourhood planning processes. Indeed, there have been claims that the neighbourhood planning process in rural areas has been reliant on newcomers’ extra-local networks to drive the process forward. Concerns have therefore been expressed over the legacy of neighbourhood planning, including who is likely to benefit and the types of resources that are to be retained within the community. The importance placed on land use through neighbourhood plans is also of relevance in respect of the influence of landowners on what may or may not be possible from a regeneration perspective (Juppenlatz, 2015). Through a neo-endogenous lens, neighbourhood planning may be constrained by issues of ‘over-embeddedness’, and where incomers take over the neighbourhood planning process and limit the involvement of others (Juppenlatz, 2015). Beyond issues concerned with the unevenness of power within rural communities, questions can additionally be raised as to the sustainability of neighbourhood planning in the longer term (Derounian, 2014). With reference to housing-led regeneration, this is seen as the key focus for neighbourhood planning, and particularly as it can assess the amount and type of

102 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

housing to be provided within local rural communities, and where and how this is to be delivered (Brian Wilson Associates, 2011, p.2; also see case study below). It has been argued that neighbourhood planning in a rural context is different to that in an urban context due to a greater impetus for communities in rural areas “to want to protect the character of their towns and villages … and which prompts them to get involved to gain control over where new homes are built” (Renaisi, n.d.). In turn, this creates challenges for using neighbourhood plans to inform future regeneration plans as there is often more of a short-term outlook in rural areas concerned with capping rather than promoting housing-led regeneration (Juppenlatz, 2015). Housing-led regeneration through neighbourhood planning may also be inappropriate where demand for housing is weak, and a phased approach to using housing as a regeneration mechanism may be required as an alternative (Juppenlatz, 2015). If attention is placed on the extent to which neighbourhood planning focuses on different aspects of rural community regeneration, it is evident that a clear role exists for neighbourhood planning in respect of physical regeneration and the identification of particular (underused) sites for new infrastructure within the local community – including housing but also new employment and community infrastructure. As such, neighbourhood planning can ensure that new development is matched by the provision of other community infrastructure to cope with the increased needs of the community (Turley, 2014). Indeed, it is only the land-use policies that are tested at the examination stage (of plan proposals) and in relation to the community referendum on adopting the plan. In addition, neighbourhood planning can be used as a place-marketing tool for supporting physical and economic regeneration in a local area – for example, through improvements to the public realm (green routes etc.). From an economic perspective, neighbourhood planning can allocate land for the development of new units for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and also focus on the provision of high speed broadband in rural areas to facilitate home working. From a social regeneration perspective, a proportion of the enhanced value of new development – in the form of a ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ (CIL) can be passed directly to local communities to support social regeneration and the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure associated with addressing demands that new development places on an area (Turley, 2014). In this respect, a number of neighbourhood plans in England have specifically focused on protecting local services and shops. Hence on a positive note, neighbourhood planning can act as an integrative mechanism and take a ‘whole place’ approach to rural community regeneration rather than regeneration being piecemeal and site-specific. However, some have argued that neighbourhood plans have been too focused on ‘going for growth’ at the expense of social aspects of regeneration: a new way forward ‘might mean building a park rather than a science park’ (Centre for Cities, 2010a). Criticisms have also been raised that the CIL associated with new development within the neighbourhood plan has not been directly passed to local communities and hence

Rural Community Regeneration 103

neighbourhood planning may be less well positioned to meet social regeneration needs. Moreover, evidence from a number of neighbourhood plans that have been taken forward in rural areas suggests a heavy emphasis on physical and design-led aspects of neighbourhood planning at the expense of discussions on community issues and how they should be addressed in neighbourhood plan policies (Juppenlatz, 2015). Neither does neighbourhood planning operate on a ‘blank slate’ – the capacity to use neighbourhood planning to deliver social regeneration may be constrained by the legacy of previous regeneration interventions and existing physical infrastructure and land use policies that may limit opportunities for new development (Juppenlatz, 2015). To summarise, from a critique of the literature on neighbourhood planning and the implications for rural community regeneration, a number of further developments may be of use in securing social, as well as physical and economic regeneration. First, a new ‘Community Right to Claim’ may be of use to local communities in order for public sector property that has been derelict for at least 12 months to be taken over by the local parish council in order to create new regeneration opportunities (for example, new community facilities). Second, there should be greater certainty that CIL funds generated from the sale of land for new housing development approved as a result of the adoption of the neighbourhood plan are returned to the local community to reinvest (Derounian, 2014).

Rural Community Regeneration – Implications Reflecting upon the three broad approaches to rural community regeneration, a first key point that emerges relates to territorial coverage. It is important to consider the relationship between the territorial and functional representation of different interests involved in rural community regeneration governance structures and the territorial coverage of such projects or programmes. With reference to LEADER, MTI and neighbourhood planning, the coverage of such approaches frequently extended beyond a specific focus on a particular place, such as a village or market town and often included the wider rural hinterland. However, this creates challenges such as the extent to which funded activities take a wider territorial perspective or have a narrower focus on particular places. A further challenge relates to the extent to which a ‘place-first’ or ‘territory-first’ approach to regeneration is adopted (adapted from Harrison and Heley, 2015), and the degree to which projects link activity between places and their hinterlands. In turn, such differences inform the extent to which different territorial and functional interests may become involved in rural community regeneration, such as local farmers, young people living in the countryside etc. A second point relates to engagement in rural community regeneration. Across all three approaches, it was apparent that there were challenges in respect of engaging different interest groups in the regeneration process, and especially those more marginalised. A frequent issue which emerged from the evaluation of

104 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

LEADER, MTI and neighbourhood planning, was ‘elite capture’ (Juppenlatz, 2015) and problems of involving those who might benefit most. In this respect, several dichotomies emerged. First, it was often older people (including those who were retired) as well as middle class ‘newcomers’ who became involved in rural community regeneration. While this may lead to ‘over embeddedness’ in the local area and limiting the involvement of others, the respective involvement of such individuals brought significant ‘bridging capital’ to the process (see Putnam, 2000) through their ‘extra-local’ networks, and thereby driving forward rural community regeneration much quicker than what otherwise might have been the case. Nevertheless, a second dichotomy subsequently arises in relation to the sustainability of such programmes whereby there is a need for succession planning to maintain the sustainability of rural community regeneration. While this, in theory, could be supported by the continual in-migration of newcomers, the involvement of those already living in the area may provide a more sustainable and robust solution, albeit the need to work alongside those already involved. Third, with reference to empowerment, the extent to which this had been achieved in respect of the three approaches discussed in this chapter was variable. Given the recency of neighbourhood planning in England, evidence of local community empowerment in rural areas was still emerging, but was potentially restricted through the narrower focus around physical / housing regeneration. While the CIL associated with neighbourhood planning offers possibilities for taking forward wider social regeneration, the monies raised through the enhanced value of new housing development need to be directly passed to local communities in order to facilitate empowerment, which could also contribute to communities becoming involved in other ‘community rights’ (for example to deliver services). In terms of LEADER and the MTI, it was evident that many areas that had been in receipt of such monies had been heavily dependent on a ‘programme manager’ or ‘project development officer’ to take forward and co-ordinate regeneration activity. This had impinged variably on the degree to which the local community had become empowered: for some, the support of such individuals had been vital in the empowerment process, while for others it was argued that this had impinged on their ability to meet and address their own needs (Wade, 2012). Furthermore, questions can be raised over the ‘added value’ of the MTI and LEADER given that many of those involved were already empowered though their knowledge, experience and extra-local networks. Finally, discussions over empowerment also intersect with those relating to focus of activity, autonomy and the allocation of resources. The MTI clearly exemplified governmentality and the ‘arms-length’ action of the state in steering activity at the local level (Edwards et al., 2001). The narrowing of focus over time to projects with a specific economic benefit was reflected in the way that funding was allocated by the state in line with its ambitions for securing national economic prosperity (Countryside Agency, 2004). Equally, there is evidence that the innovation associated with the LEADER programme has been diluted over time and with greater state control, more

Rural Community Regeneration 105

reliance on public sector actors (funded by the state) at a local and regional level and a dilution of community involvement (Navarro et al., 2015). Thus, it becomes apparent that any focus on the ‘objects of governance’ for rural community regeneration needs to reflect on how these are inherently entwined with issues of funding and autonomy, which may also impinge on the extent of empowerment that might be achieved.

Summary Given the evidence presented in this chapter, it is difficult not to concur with Edwards (1998) that approaches to rural community regeneration in England have often simply involved the shifting of responsibilities between different organisations rather than the genuine empowerment of particular individuals. The state, as such, has retained control of rural regeneration through steering local structures for rural community regeneration in specific ways – for example, in terms of funding allocations and in terms of legislating for the specific involvement of different partners. While this is not necessarily a new finding in itself, the specific focus on three different programmes / initiatives that have not been widely focused upon to date – and in respect of the specific regeneration opportunities that they offer – reinforces the on-going importance of the state in shaping rural community regeneration. The evidence presented in this chapter also highlights the importance of extra-neighbourhood relations and connections in ‘getting things done’, and confirming the need for a ‘neo-endogenous’ approach for studying rural community regeneration. As such, rural community regeneration is a complex, time-consuming and difficult process, involving multiple stages and a significant commitment from those involved. This, in itself, may constrain the ability for wider engagement and involvement by a more diverse range of individuals and groups. In turn, this may also contribute to the unevenness of approaches and the coverage of rural community regeneration programmes across England and elsewhere.

Key Points  



Rural community regeneration can take a variety of forms and range from consultation or engagement through to full community ownership of local regeneration projects. Recently, there has been more emphasis on empowering local communities to address their own needs through ‘bottom up’ (endogenous) rather than ‘top-down’ (exogenous) approaches. A ‘neo-endogenous’ approach serves as an alternative perspective to study rural community regeneration as it highlights the importance of both exogenous and endogenous forces. The rise of rural partnership working as a new mode of rural governance is evident in terms of rural community regeneration. However, the state has continued to act through partnerships and this has often led to the ‘metagovernance’ of local community partnerships.

106 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration





 









The EU LEADER programme was a response to top-down, state-led modernisation programmes. In relation to rural community regeneration, issues have emerged in relation to power and the engagement of local communities, which may often be lacking. Rural community regeneration programmes such as LEADER are reliant on volunteers (which may be limited), the continual identification of funds to sustain regeneration (which may often be absent in rural areas), and the support of other public bodies (but which may skew power relations). Evaluation of The Market Town Initiative highlighted the importance of people and the need for succession planning, a sequential approach to rural community regeneration and the importance of social, as well as economic, regeneration. The regeneration aspects of neighbourhood planning have been less focused on to date. Neighbourhood planning intersects with rural community regeneration in a number of ways, including its role in shaping neo-endogenous rural community regeneration; the nature and extent to which housing-led regeneration is required; and the relative emphasis placed on physical or economic regeneration as opposed to social regeneration. Neighbourhood planning can act as an integrative mechanism and take a ‘whole place’ approach to rural community regeneration rather than regeneration being piecemeal and site-specific. However, neighbourhood plans may be too focused on ‘going for growth’ at the expense of social aspects of regeneration. Neighbourhood planning can generate a ‘bottom up’ debate of local needs and the type of local regeneration and help to engage local residents in the design of regeneration projects, generating social value. Neighbourhood planning can also assess the amount and type of housing to be provided within local rural communities, and where and how this is delivered. However, there may be more of a short-term outlook in rural areas concerned with capping rather than promoting housing-led regeneration. Many communities may lack the capacity, expertise and finance to deliver neighbourhood plans creating an unevenness of coverage. Neighbourhood planning may also be inaccessible to many of those who might benefit the most and be susceptible to ‘elite capture’. In addition, it may be constrained by issues of ‘overembeddedness’, where incomers take over the neighbourhood planning process. Territorial coverage of rural community regeneration, issues of engagement and empowerment and the focus of activity, autonomy and the allocation of resources intersect in different ways to shape the nature of rural community regeneration.

Study Questions  

What are the challenges and opportunities of relevance to the delivery of rural community regeneration? How important is partnership working for rural community regeneration and to what extent are the actions of local actors autonomous?

Rural Community Regeneration 107

  

What is ‘elite capture’ and how may this shape rural community regeneration in both positive and negative ways? Critically discuss the extent to which rural community regeneration is an inherently uneven process? How do the ‘objects of governance’ for rural community regeneration reflect the importance of territorial coverage and issues of resource allocation?

Group Activity  

You live in a small rural community. How would you identify the kinds of projects or activities that may be of relevance to the regeneration of a small rural community? What kinds of services or facilities could be used? By whom? Who would be involved in providing such services / facilities? How would you measure the success of your actions?

Further Reading / Websites of Relevance For a broad discussion of neo-endogenous approaches to rural development and regeneration – see Ray (2006): 

Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. In: P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney (Eds.), The Handbook of Rural Studies. London: Sage, pp.278–291.

In relation to rural partnership working and its role in rural community regeneration – as well as issues of governmentality – the work of Edwards et al. (2001; 2000) is of use:  

Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2000). Partnership Working in Rural Regeneration: Governance and Empowerment. Bristol: Policy Press. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, pp.289–310.

For an overview of LEADER across Europe and its effectiveness, see Furmankiewicz and Macken-Walsh (2016) and Navarro et al. (2015):  

Furmankiewicz, M. and Macken-Walsh (2016). Government within governance? Polish rural development partnerships through the lens of functional representation. Journal of Rural Studies, 46, pp.12–22. Navarro, F.A., Woods, M. and Cejudo, E. (2015). The LEADER initiative has been a victim of its own success. The decline of the bottom-up approach in rural development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2), pp.270–288.

108 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

The work of Morris (2012) and The Countryside Agency (2004) provides an excellent summary of its role in delivering rural regeneration:  

Morris, G. (2012). Leading communities: community-led development in England’s small towns: the Market Towns Initiative. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 11, December 2012. Countryside Agency (2004). Assessment of the Market Towns Initiative: a summary. Cheltenham: The Countryside Agency.

In terms of neighbourhood planning and discussions of (rural) regeneration, the work of the Centre for Cities is a useful entry point: 

Centre for Cities (2010a). Press Release. Centre for Cities sets out an ambitious new approach to regeneration in cities and neighbourhoods facing decline. 14 December 2010.

Finally, the Locality website (national network for community-led organisations) also provides an excellent set of resources on neighbourhood planning, and with some broader references to its role in delivering regeneration. See: http:// locality.org.uk/projects/building-community/.

Bibliography Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) (2014). Community planning. Available on-line at: www.acre.org.uk/cms/resources/policy-papers/new-acre-comm unity-planning-ppp-rgb-2014.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Bentley, G., Bailey, D., and Shutt, J. (2010). From RDAS to LEPs: a new localism? Case examples of West Midlands and Yorkshire. Local Economy, 25(7), pp.535–557. Böcher, M. (2008). Regional governance and rural development in Germany: the implementation of LEADER+. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(4), pp.372–388. Buller, H. (2000). Re-creating rural territories: LEADER in France. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (2), pp.190–199. Brian Wilson Associates (2011). Neighbourhood planning: what do rural communities think? Available on-line at: www.rsnonline.org.uk/images/meetings/rsn-agms/main-m eeting19March2012/Neighbourhood%20Planning%20Survey%20Dec%2011%20Brian% 20Wilson.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Bristow, G., Cowell, R. and Marsden, T. (2001). Tensions, limits and potentials: evaluating rural development policies in Scotland. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8(3), pp.235–252. Bruckhiemer, K. (2000). LEADER in Germany and the discourse of autonomous regional development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), pp. 219–227. Centre for Cities (2010a). Press Release. Centre for Cities sets out an ambitious new approach to regeneration in cities and neighbourhoods facing decline. 14 December 2010. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2010b). State of the Countryside 2010. Gloucester: CRC.

Rural Community Regeneration 109

Countryside Agency (2004). Assessment of the Market Towns Initiative: a summary. Cheltenham: The Countryside Agency. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2010b). What works in neighbourhood-level regeneration? The views of key stakeholders in the New Deal for Communities Programme. London: DCLG. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011a). Regeneration to enable growth: what Government is doing in support of community-led regeneration. London: DCLG. Department of the Environment (1995). Rural England: a nation committed to a living countryside. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (MAFF) (2000). Our countryside: the future. Cm.4909. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Derounian, J. (2014). Now you see it … now you don’t: a review of rural community organising in England. Working Paper 116. University of Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre. Duffy, K. and Hutchinson, J. (1997). Urban policy and the turn to community. Town Planning Review, 68(5), pp.547–562. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2000). Partnership working in rural regeneration: governance and empowerment. Bristol: Policy Press. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, pp.289–310. Ekogen (2009). Evaluation of the Market Towns Initiative. Available on-line at: www. tourisminsights.info/ONLINEPUB/MARKET%20TOWNS/MARKET%20TOWN% 20PDFS/EKOGEN%20(2010),%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Market%20Towns% 20Initiative,%20Ekosgen,%20Sheffield.pdf?.pdf?.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Esparcia, J., Escribano, J. and Serrano, J. (2015). From development to power relations and territorial governance: Increasing the leadership role of LEADER Local Action Groups in Spain. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, pp.29–42. Esparcia, J., Noguera, J. and Pitarch, M. (2000). LEADER en España: desarrollo rural, poder, legitimación, aprendisaje y nuevas estructuras. Documentos De Analisis Geografico, 37, pp.95–113. European Commission (1997). Cork Declaration from the European Conference on Rural Development (1996). Available on-line at: www.terport.hu/webfm_send/545 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. European Commission (2006). The LEADER approach: a basic guide. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2014). Guidance on community-led local development for local actors, Brussels. Available on-line at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/p ublications/guidelines/2014/guidance-on-community-led-local-development-for-localactors [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Foucault, M. (1993). About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self (transcription of two lectures in Dartmouth on 17 and 24 November 1980). In: M. Blasius (Ed.), Political Theory, 21(2), pp.198–227. Furmankiewicz, M. and Macken-Walsh, A. (2016). Government within governance? Polish rural development partnerships through the lens of functional representation. Journal of Rural Studies, 46(8), pp.12–22. Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N. and Zielinska, M. (2010). Area-based partnerships in rural Poland: The post-accession experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(1), pp.52–62.

110 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Gallent, N. and Robinson, S. (2013). Neighbourhood planning: communities, networks and governance. Bristol: Policy Press. Goodwin, M. (1998). The governance of rural areas: some emerging research issues and agendas. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), pp.5–12. Hall, P. (1973). The containment of urban England: volume 1. London: Allen and Unwin. Harrison, J. and Heley, J. (2015). Governing beyond the metropolis: placing the rural in city-region development. Urban Studies, 52(6), pp.1113–1133. Hodder, S. (2013). Better places, better lives: making planning work for people. In: K. Shaw and J. Blackie (Eds.). New directions. Planning: beyond localism. Newcastle-uponTyne: University of Northumbria, pp.14–19. House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2013). Sixth report: rural communities. Available on-line at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/ cmselect/cmenvfru/602/60213.htm#note349 [Accessed 18 June 2018]. Jessop, B. (1999). The dynamics of partnership and governance failure. In: G. Stoker (Ed.), The new politics of local governance in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp.11–32. Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neo-liberalism and urban governance: a state theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), pp.452–472. Juppenlatz, E. (2015). Rural regeneration and localism. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Lowe, P., Murdoch, J. and Ward, N. (1995). Networks in rural development: beyond exogenous and endogenous models. In: J.D. van der Ploeg and G. van Dijk (Eds.), Beyond modernisation. The impact of endogenous rural development. Assen: Van Gorcum, pp. 87–105. Morris, G. (2012). Leading communities: community-led development in England’s small towns: the Market Towns Initiative. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 11, December 2012. Navarro, F.A., Woods, M. and Cejudo, E. (2015). The LEADER initiative has been a victim of its own success. the decline of the bottom-up approach in rural development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2), pp.270–288. Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30(2), pp.156–181. Osti, G. (2000). LEADER and partnerships: the case of Italy. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), pp.172–180. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Pylkkänen, P. and Hyyryläinen, T. (2002). Mainstreaming of the LEADER method into rural development policies in Finland. Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy, English Supplement, 4, pp.22–32. Ray, C. (2000). Endogenous socio-economic development in the European union — issues of evaluation. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(4), pp.447–458. Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. In: P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney (Eds.), The handbook of rural studies. London: Sage, pp.278–291. Renaisi (n.d.). Encouraging neighbourhood planning in deprived urban areas. Available on-line at: www.renaisi.com/neighbourhood-planning-deprived-areas/ [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Rowe, F. (2011). Rural policy in Scotland and England: a comparative perspective. Edinburgh: Rural Policy Research Centre.

Rural Community Regeneration 111

Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), pp.49–59. Shucksmith, M. (2000). Exclusive countrysides? Social inclusion and regeneration in rural areas. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Shucksmith, M. (2008). New Labour’s countryside in international perspective. In: M. Woods (Ed.), New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.59–78. Storey, D. (1999). Issues of integration, participation and empowerment in rural development: the case of LEADER in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(3), pp.307–315. Street, G. (n.d.) Bettisfield Village Hall regeneration. Available from the author. Sturzaker, J. (2011). Can community empowerment reduce opposition to housing? Evidence from rural England. Planning Practice and Research, 26(5), pp.555–570. The Tavistock Institute (2005). Evaluation of the Community Regeneration Toolkit. Available on-line at: www.tavinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Tavistock_Rep ort_Evaluation_Community_Regeneration_Toolkit_2005.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Turley (2014). Neighbourhood planning: plan and deliver?London: Turley, pp.1–50. Wade, C. (2012). Small towns at the centre of a rural revival. Presentation by Chris Wade, CEO of Action for Market Towns to Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group on Rural Policy, 6 June 2012; available on-line at: www.sruc.ac.uk/download/downloads/id/ 852/chris_wade.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Wales Rural Observatory (2007). Small and market towns in rural Wales and their hinterlands. Available on-line at: www.walesruralobservatory.org.uk/sites/default/files/Market% 2520Towns%2520report%2520final2.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Ward, N. (2006). Rural development and the economies of rural areas. In: J. Midgley (Ed.), A new rural agenda. London: IPPR, pp.46–57. Wheway, C.J. (2011). The transformation of English market towns: gentrification. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Leicester: University of Leicester. Available on-line at: https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/10321/1/2012WhewayCJphd. pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. London: Sage. Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London: Routledge.

5 THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN DELIVERING REGENERATION IN RURAL AREAS

Introduction The previous chapter explored the importance of community-led, ‘bottom-up’ approaches to delivering rural regeneration. In turn, this chapter develops such arguments through focusing on the importance of culture in the rural regeneration process. Ray (1999, p.263) defines culture as “a set of place-specific forms that can be used to animate and define development”. In this respect, he argues that there is a need to look within and beyond rural localities to mobilise local actors and cultural resources, as well as to ‘sell’ rural areas to those living beyond the rural. As far back as 1961, Raymond Williams noted that rural culture was an “expression of means and values” (2004, p.57; 1961), which can change over time. More recently, Panelli (2006) identified how the rural change literature includes a focus on how local cultural resources can be used to reconstruct rural spaces – for example, through food production or through mobilising cultural meanings and assets to facilitate rural regeneration. However, in contrast to the urban, there has been surprisingly little focus on the importance of culture in the rural regeneration process. In an urban context, culture has been used to consider the image and symbolism of cities and has emerged as a key feature of the post-modern city of consumption (Tallon, 2010, p.222). A key emphasis since the late 1990s has been on ‘high culture’ and ‘heritage tourism’, and with the use of high quality urban design to inform the development of theatres, art galleries, museums and concert venues, as well as craft industries (often in the form of social enterprises) alongside ‘popular culture’ (reflected in leisure and entertainment) to deliver urban regeneration (Tallon, 2010, pp.224– 225; Jones and Evans, 2008). In its broadest sense, culture has been perceived as a way of urban life rather than simply a product of consumption (Montgomery, 1995) and with arts and

The Role of Culture 113

cultural activities integral to the regeneration of the post-industrial city, and as alternatives to traditional industry and industrial development (Harvey, 2000). Utilising culture to deliver regeneration in urban areas has been taken forward through the development of waterfronts, the re-use of old buildings, through the creation of ‘international landmarks’ / ‘signature buildings’ (such as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain), and through the development of cultural ‘clusters’ or ‘quarters’ in the city, consisting of a mixture of activity, buildings, architecture, spaces, events (including festivals and carnivals) and cultural meanings conducive to cultural consumption and production (Miles and Paddison, 2005). Different forms of culture may also be apparent in different types of urban areas. Drawing upon the work of Richard Florida (2002), the importance of different types of urban culture associated with new ‘creative classes’ (for example, an alternative music scene) has been extensively discussed. Policy-makers have placed a particular emphasis on developing creative industries such as advertising, architecture, the arts and antiques market, crafts, product and fashion design, film, leisure software, the music industry, the performing arts, publishing and radio and television (Bassett et al., 2002). Nevertheless, there has been increasing critique of whether urban cultural policy should be delivered through flagship design-led cultural buildings focused on economic regeneration per se, as opposed to ‘bottom-up’, smaller scale vernacular approaches harnessing local culture and creativity as an end in itself (Tallon, 2010). In overall terms, using culture to deliver regeneration in the urban has been viewed as being of considerable importance to the diversification of local economies and cultural entrepreneurship, civic boosterism and improving the attractiveness of cities for securing new investment, the conservation and promotion of heritage, an acknowledgement of cultural diversity within cities and improving public social life and delivering a range of economic, environmental and community-related benefits. However, there are also a number of challenges. These include the exclusion of certain cultures at the expense of others; the masking of wider social and economic problems; the promotion of gentrification and the displacement of local residents (Oakley, 2015); the homogenisation of the urban cultural landscape; and the sustainability of ‘flagship’ projects (Tallon, 2010; Tallon, Bromley, Reynolds and Thomas, 2006). Such issues also demand further consideration in a rural context. From a rural perspective, while considerable attention has focused on the impacts of the out-migration of the young from many rural areas and processes of counterurbanisation and an ageing rural population (Milbourne, 2012; Day, 2011), less focus has been placed on how culture can be used to inform the regeneration of rural areas, as well as how the rural regeneration process can shape rural culture (Lysgaard, 2016). Of the work that has been undertaken, the predominant focus has been on the role of arts and crafts in shaping rural economic development and regeneration, particularly in the UK (Bell and Jayne, 2010; Paulsen and Staggs, 2005). In addition, in an Australian and Canadian context, there has been some work exploring the importance of rural festivals and events in facilitating rural regeneration (Gibson, 2002; Luckman, Gibson and Lea, 2009). The latter can encompass a variety of cultural practices and

114 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

activities and can serve as a means of fostering, maintaining and reproducing community identity, a sense of belonging and a cultural expression of (rural) place (Duxbury and Campbell, 2011). Consequently, the following section explores in more detail the importance of rural creative industries, their growth and development in the rural, the challenges that they face and their differential nature compared to those in the urban. Problematic representations of rural creativity are deliberated –and based upon ‘traditional’ forms of activity in the rural - as well as the need to consider the importance of non-economic instrumentalised accounts of culture within the rural regeneration process. The chapter subsequently problematises the relationship between culture and regeneration and highlights three different models through which culture is incorporated into the regeneration process. The implications for the nature of rural regeneration are explored through a focus on two rural areas in the UK: i) Herefordshire and ii) Shropshire (England). Subsequently, the chapter concludes by contending the increasing importance of culture to delivering sustainable rural regeneration.

Culture, Rural Regeneration and the Creative Economy From the early 1970s, processes of economic and social restructuring profoundly impacted upon both urban and rural areas. As a result, many rural spaces have increasingly become associated with processes of production and consumption, and consumption-based rural living (Fløysand and Jakobsen, 2007). As such, a new ‘rural development paradigm’ has emerged, emphasising a holistic approach to revitalising the rural and not just the agricultural or economic aspects of it (Van der Ploeg et al., 2000). Activities such as tourism, leisure and recreation are increasingly perceived as sitting alongside – or indeed often replacing – agricultural production (Wilson, 2010), and with the ambition of adding and retaining value for economies and livelihoods at the local level (Marsden, 2003). Such shifts have also led to farm diversification and the rise of various rural creative industries. In terms of regeneration, there has been considerable debate over the conflation of ‘culture’ and ‘creativity’. But a focus on creativity is useful in order to consider what constitutes creativity and how this may facilitate regeneration in the rural (Gibson, 2010). The majority of research that has been conducted to date on the creative industries has focused on urban areas and ‘edgy’ ‘or ‘buzzy’ neighbourhoods, considered to be the strongest attractors of creative industries and dominated by ‘creatives’ – where creative talent finds its inspiration in what Richard Florida defines as its ‘people climate’ (Bell and Jayne, 2010; Townsend, Wallace, Smart and Norman, 2016). In contrast, the rural has been neglected due to the perceived challenges of developing close knit networks of knowledge and resource exchange to support creative economies (Felton, Collis and Graham, 2010). Proximity, remoteness, peripherality and marginality are all claimed to be of relevance to the sustainability of rural creative industries (Lysgaard, 2016).

The Role of Culture 115

With reference to proximity, challenges that have been reported include the costs associated with bringing individuals (such as artists and performers) to cultural festivals and exhibitions, as well as accessing ‘gatekeepers’, such as policy-makers. In terms of remoteness, Gibson (2010, pp.3–4) identifies that this can lead to a lack of cultural stimulation, a wariness of newcomers and new ideas or knowledge, the out-migration of young people looking to improve their career chances, limited access to support services (such as business expertise and training) and high transport costs. Peripherality can also shape perceptions of rural areas as being culturally ‘arid’ and with the loss of talent and leadership to larger urban centres (ibid.). Community resources for supporting arts activity may also be limited in both monetary and human terms (fewer volunteers) and indeed, there may be a lack of acknowledgement of the importance of the arts to rural regeneration both by local people living in rural areas, as well as by policy-makers and funding organisations (Duxbury and Campbell, 2011). Some have therefore argued that the rural has been pushed into the “silent majority of non-creative places” (Rantisi, Leslie and Christopherson, 2006, p.1794). However, in the UK, the 2006 Rural Cultural Summit advocated the need to formulate a cultural strategy for rural England. Furthermore, the Creative Countryside Report published in 2006 (Experian and BOP Consulting, 2006) summarised that the 50 fastest growing rural districts in Britain had a higher share of creative and cultural employment (+5.5%) compared with the 50 slowest-growing rural districts (+4.6%). In addition, in the U.S. McGranahan and Wojan (2007) also identified a positive correlation between the creative and cultural sector’s share of employment in rural counties and employment growth in such areas. Consequently, Matarasso (2005) has argued that the remoteness of some rural areas allows them to develop different types of rural creativity and innovation. Anderson (2010) identifies that the rural can be represented, commodified and marketed through creative and tourism industries, including ‘slow tourism’ which is locally owned and involves local people, which is less consumerist and more individualised, open, spontaneous and experiential (Fullagar, Markwell and Wilson, 2012). In this context, it has been proposed that ‘cultural ecosystem services’ offer particular benefits to rural areas through acknowledging the spiritual and historic meaning that can be attached to nature and rural landscapes, which can provide the inspiration for creativity in local artists and using local identities to create new products (Gallent, Hamiduddin, Juntii, Kidd and Shaw, 2015). Similarly, Smith and Phillips (2001) discuss the ‘greentrification of the rural’ and how the rural provides the basis for new forms of rural creativity based around the conversion of barns, rural tourism, landscape art, touring theatres and producing and consuming rural food and drink, often through local food and drinks festivals. Gibson (2010) notes that tourism – and cultural tourism in particular – can provide opportunities for creative producers through the ability to use remoteness, marginality and difference as a basis for a distinctive and successful industry. In the context of Australia, he cites the ways in which the history and culture of remote rural areas has been used to draw in tourists, as well as promoting the rural as a space

116 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

for musical experimentation to draw in metropolitan musicians enticed by the foregrounding of musical creativity. In other areas, locals have engaged in postcard production to fill a gap in the market given that larger (national) postcard companies had simply ignored particular rural places given their remoteness and smallness (ibid.). Bell and Jayne (2010, p.211) therefore highlight how a ‘creative industries’ development agenda has emerged in the rural in the UK (and particularly in England), and with different rural areas seeking to attract creative workers to develop creative industries as a rural regeneration tool. Indeed, it has been noted how place-marketing strategies have often been based around the rural idyll and lifestyle migration – rather than economic considerations per se – to facilitate the re-location of such workers and to develop new forms of rural creativity (Hoey, 2005). Such a perspective is confirmed in the Creative Countryside Report (Experian and BOP Consulting, 2006) and through the work of McGranahan and Wojan (2007) in the U.S., White (2010) in Ireland and Herslund (2012) in Denmark. All draw attention to urban dwellers that have moved to rural areas for access to outdoor amenities and activities, the quality of local schools and a more flexible everyday life. But there are variations between rural areas in respect of the proportions employed in creative industries based on accessibility and transport links, and with more remote and peripheral areas having lower shares of creative employment (Experian and BOP Consulting, 2006). Moreover, in Denmark, the challenges of commuting to urban areas has resulted in some setting up businesses in sectors new to the rural, such as advertising, business consulting and therapy (Herslund, 2012). Nevertheless, over the last 15 years it has been identified that the application of an urban creative industries agenda to the rural has predominated at the expense of a more rural-driven approach to rural creativity (Scott, Rowe and Pollock, 2018; Jayne, 2005; 2004). Lysgaard (2016, p.1) highlights how in urban contexts, “the numbers of citizens and the volume and variety of the cultural sector, other industries and services are important success criteria”. But in rural areas, such criteria may be more difficult to achieve given low population densities and the low variety and volume of cultural industries and services (ibid.). Similarly, Mahon et al. (2018) has explored artists’ livelihood experiences in rural areas of Wales and the challenges of achieving a livelihood in economic, professional and institutional terms. He highlights how there are trade-offs between exhibiting work and securing income (and particularly given the lack of critical mass of audiences and critics in the rural to generate impact for the artist’s work); challenges of ‘making ends meet’, the need for multiple forms of employment to remain in the rural, and an urban centric competitive-based perception of the arts in terms of an approach which promulgates the (limited) economic regeneration benefits to rural areas from rural creative industries, rather than one which stresses their importance to rural sustainability and well-being. As a result, there has often been a lack of an integrated approach to rural creativity, which harnesses the specificity of rural creativity. White (2010) therefore makes an important distinction between different types of creative industries in the rural – see Table 5.1 below – and how their needs should be addressed by public sector agencies.

The Role of Culture 117

TABLE 5.1 Creative Categories and Industries

Creative Category

Creative Industries

Creative Application: industries that develop products or services primarily based on meeting a market demand

           

Creative Expression: industries where products or services are developed for audiences with an expressive story in mind Creative Technology: industries that rely most on technology and digital media, particularly for their core functions

Art/Antiques trade Architecture Fashion Publishing Advertising Crafts Music, visual and performing arts Video, film and photography Radio and TV broadcasting Internet and software Digital media Design

Source: White (2010).

Indeed, heterogeneity in the spatiality and temporality of rural places means that material and discursive representations of rural creativity by ‘urban outsiders’ can be inaccurate, and lead to a ‘cultural cringe’ whereby a(n) (inappropriate) romantic, traditional and idyllic view of the countryside is perpetuated in the interests of development (Bell and Jayne, 2010). This can lead to a focus on traditional arts, craft and music (and embodying ‘traditional’ forms of production and consumption), which falsely reify creativity into a specific set of practices. The alternative – in some rural areas – has been to import models of creativity from the urban. Yet these too can miss the particularities that characterise the rural creative economy (ibid., p.215). Both strategies therefore fail to support other types of rural creativity that may be either economically important or which are conducive to other forms of social and community regeneration. From a policy perspective, White (2010) additionally argues that there is a need for a national perspective which acknowledges the inter-linkages between rural and urban areas given the relational characteristics of rural areas, and the ways in which creative industries may be territorially located in the rural but operate beyond (in terms of drawing resources; marketing and selling their products etc.). She also suggests that further networking opportunities within the rural should be prioritised for those individuals and companies looking to expand, to generate social and cultural interactions for innovation and to achieve economies of scale in respect of marketing and distribution (White 2010, p.86). This finding reflects the work of Roberts and Townsend (2016) who state that ‘creative practitioners’ are using digital technologies to overcome barriers to connectivity and to remain in rural locations. With regards to cultural interactions and economies of scale, in certain rural areas there have been deliberate attempts to cluster creative industries together alongside cultural services and cultural intermediaries rather than there being a singular focus on a specific sub-sector (such as film or media, which is frequently the case in the urban; Harvey, Hawkins and Thomas, 2012). Rural creative clusters can provide the

118 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

basis for creating mutual benefits between different creative industries, including informal education, marketing and business advice to remain ‘cutting edge’. Nevertheless, the development of different businesses over time can also lead to new tensions and challenges, including dissatisfaction with working conditions and branding (ibid., pp.532–537). Finally, and as alluded to above, while there has been increasing attention on the nature and sustainability of creative industries in the rural, less attention has focused on non-economic instrumentalised accounts concerned with cultural value, identity, social cohesion, participation and individual and community well-being (Lysgaard, 2016, p.2). In contrast to the urban, it has been argued that regeneration strategies based around culture should focus on how to strengthen local heritage, traditions, community practices and social networks. This will help to prioritise community building, social coherence, local identity and democracy rather than a focus on placemarketing and creative industries per se (ibid., p.11; also see Scott et al., 2018).

Culture and Regeneration; Culture-led Regeneration or Cultural Regeneration in the Rural? In their report on the importance of culture to delivering regeneration, Evans and Shaw (2004) use the UK Department of Community, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) (1998) definition of cultural activity, as follows: Activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent, and which have the potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property. These include the following key sectors: advertising, architecture, the art and antiques market, crafts, design, designer fashion, film, interactive leisure software, music, the performing arts, publishing software and television and radio. (DCMS Creative Industries Task Force, 1998, p.10) Once again this illustrates the emphasis on economic and entrepreneurial models of cultural and creative activity. But more importantly, they move on to identify three different models through which culture is incorporated into the regeneration process: i) culture and regeneration, ii) culture-led regeneration and iii) cultural regeneration. Each is discussed below. Culture and regeneration: This involves a regeneration project utilising culture in some way to contribute to the regeneration process but which is not fully integral to the regeneration project either at the design / master planning stage or in respect of the strategic development of the project. Utilisation of culture is often small-scale and can be retrospective. Examples include a public arts programme for a business park once the buildings have been designed or heritage regeneration tucked away in the corner of a reclaimed business site. In addition, residents and / or cultural organisations may become involved where there is a gap and make their own intervention.

The Role of Culture 119

Culture-led regeneration: this involves culture being a catalyst and engine of regeneration; for example, a regeneration project driven by an arts project or an area structured by an urban art project. Examples given include the re-use of a building or buildings for public or business use, the reclamation of open space or a programme of activity that is used to re-brand a place. Vickery (2007, pp.71–72) has extended this definition by identifying four distinct categories of culture-led regeneration: i)

ii)

iii)

iv)

Design led reconfiguration of a centre: creating physical change with some degree of permanence in the form of landmark buildings, facilities and new public spaces. The cultural content of this regeneration is primarily visual (good design), which in turn facilitates socio-cultural development (the development of new cultures, business or organisational cultures). Creativity-led social renewal: community-based activity with the intent of integrating ‘creativity’ into various public sector education, training, health and other services. Arts-led community development: the activity of professional or semiprofessional artists in a regeneration scheme, and whose work can motivate further regeneration initiatives. Arts-led civic development: involves the cultural infrastructure (both services and facilities) of a civic centre, and largely the ‘arts’ constituency (arts stakeholders), although also stimulates the expansion of that constituency, as well as encouraging visitors.

Cultural regeneration: this involves culture being fully integrated into an area strategy, where design, art, architecture, arts and cultural activity are indissoluble from a way of living, using and occupying social space. In essence, culture is incorporated with other activities in the environmental, social and economic sphere. Cultural planning, involving a territorial – rather than sectoral focus – facilitates the delivery of social and cultural developments and recognises their intrinsic value for regeneration (Garcia, 2004). The ways in which culture has been incorporated into the rural regeneration process can be explored with reference to the development of the Government’s Cultural Strategy in the UK, as well as the work of bodies such as the Arts Council for England, which is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries in England and the Rural Cultural Forum (RCF). The RCF – functioning as a cultural advocacy for rural communities and artists – has produced various discussion papers and proposal documents on the development of a national cultural strategy for England. As a result, a range of approaches for bringing culture and regeneration have been identified. For example, in relation to the RCF’s main campaign themes, it was argued that there should be more arts and cultural funding to support rural regeneration (culture-led regeneration), while it was also noted how there was a need to achieve better integration of arts and culture within rural regeneration policy agendas (cultural regeneration) (RCF, 2010, p.2). Similarly, the

120 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Arts Council for England (ACE) has highlighted the ways in which culture should be embedded within rural planning (ACE, 2014, p.19) and the role of culture in delivering economic growth (ACE, 2014, p.17) – reflective of both cultural and cultureled regeneration activity. The ACE also published information in 2015 relating to its investment in cultural activities in rural areas (culture and regeneration), identifying that around 18% of organisations funded through its 2015–2018 investment cycle were located in rural England (ACE, 2015). However, the challenges of delivering all three models of regeneration through culture in rural areas are also evident. In relation to culture and regeneration, the ACE (2015) noted that success rates for applicants in rural areas for funding to support arts and cultural activity are lower than for those in urban areas (46% compared to 52%), while the RCF identified that delivering rural cultural regeneration and culture-led regeneration has been problematic: rural communities would appear not to have benefited in any significant way from previous Government sponsored culture-led regeneration initiatives (RCF, 2010, p.1). Indeed, what emerges is a lack of explicit focus on the rural. As stated by ACE (2014): “there is no need for rurally specific programmes or investment by Arts Council England (as) our programmes and investment are already bringing significant benefit to rural” (ACE, 2014, p.21). Furthermore, in the UK Government’s 2016 Culture White Paper (DCMS, 2016), ‘rural’ is referred to on just three occasions. Nevertheless, it was identified that a ‘Great Place Scheme’ (see below) – which puts culture at the heart of local thinking and which seeks to maximise the impact of culture on the economy and local community – should be implemented in at least four different rural areas. In overall terms, in England (and arguably the UK more broadly) it is apparent that i) there is a lack of focus on the links between culture and regeneration in the rural, regardless of ‘regeneration’ model and ii) there is an emphasis on traditional forms of rural cultural production, supplemented in some instances by urban creativity models which have a predominant economic focus. Hence Oakley (2015) notes that regeneration has not figured consistently in debates on culture in rural areas “and that there is a less clear idea about what it means in a rural context” (Oakley, 2015, p.10). Moreover, she cautions that any attempt at using culture to deliver regeneration – through whichever model – needs to be mindful of the consequences for exacerbating gentrification and displacement, which can be a key challenge when delivering regeneration in the rural. Cruickshank (2018) goes further by claiming that culture-led regeneration may be irrelevant in many rural settings as there is an absence of cultural heritage in the first instance. Oakley (2015) therefore summarises by reaffirming the need to focus on elements of rural economy and society which move beyond ‘traditional’ elements of cultural production in the rural, such as arts and crafts or economically-focused (urban-driven) narratives and activities. Instead, she identifies the need for models which focus on alternative forms of cultural production, which embellish social and community infrastructures (Oakley, 2015).

The Role of Culture 121

Case Study 1: The Great Places Scheme and Rural Media Charity: Herefordshire, England In this section, examples are drawn from different areas of England to explore the ways in which culture and regeneration are being brought together, the forms of cultural and creative activity that are being developed at a local level, and the implications arising. The first programme – and associated case study – that is focused upon is the Great Places Scheme. The Great Places Scheme was one of the flagship measures set out in the UK Government’s Culture White Paper in 2016 (DCMS, 2016). Supported through funds from the National Lottery, the following aims were set out: i

ii

to ensure that investment in culture made by lottery, heritage and arts has the maximum positive impact on jobs, economic performance, educational attainment, community cohesion and health and wellbeing; to enable civic organisations and local businesses and communities to invest in and put culture at the heart of their thinking.

The scheme was initially piloted in 16 locations across England and with projects being supported for up to three years. Equivalent projects have been developed in Northern Ireland (four projects in total), Scotland (nine projects) and Wales (five projects). A key intention was to help communities to develop a ‘cultural vision’ and for culture to be integral within local authority plans and policies, thus exemplifying elements of cultural and culture-led regeneration. A range of activities were of relevance to each area, including:      

exploring new ways to include arts and heritage in the provision of local education or health services; research into the contribution made by arts and heritage to local economies; funding for people working in arts and heritage to build networks and increase their skills; exploring and piloting new ways of financing cultural organisations; encouraging the use of existing powers that allow communities to support their local culture, such as the Community Right to Bid (to deliver services) or listing local landmarks as Assets of Community Value; and development of local strategies that maximise the community benefit that local arts and heritage can deliver.

In rural areas of Northern Ireland and Scotland, the emphasis was on using the cultural and natural heritage of particular places to generate new forms of regeneration. For example, the Arney River Corridor project in Northern Ireland (£270,000 in total) has focused on securing social and economic regeneration

122 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

through culture-led activities including archaeological digs, summer schools, folklore and rural craft workshops, citizen science and arts activities. In England, four rural areas were selected for initial support (see Table 5.2 below; DCMS, 2016): TABLE 5.2 Great Place Projects in Rural Areas of England

Project

Amount of Funding

Details

Great Place: Lakes and Dales Project

£1,340,000

The Vital Valley Programme

£1,285,000

The Northern Heartlands Great Place Scheme

£1,489,200

Rural Media Charity (Herefordshire) – Great Place Project

£748,200

This project covers two local authorities (Craven and South Lakeland) and two national parks (the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District). Despite sharing magnificent landscapes, the area suffers from a net migration of young people. The investment is focused on retaining and attracting younger people to the area to influence, support and create a future economy. Together new ways of working, new business models and new creative businesses to benefit all members of their rural communities have been prioritised. The overall intention has been to improve access to heritage, culture and services. The Vital Valley programme has focused on establishing Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage site in Matlock, North Derbyshire as an attraction for visitors, embedding arts, culture and heritage locally and establishing a sense of pride in the area. Local artists and people have delivered such activities by working in partnership with cultural organisations, local authorities and businesses. The Northern Heartlands Great Place scheme has focused on a predominantly rural area, combining the catchments of the River Tees and the River Wear in South West Durham. The programme was aimed at strengthening arts, culture and heritage networks. Activities have included a project with Opera North to engage diverse community groups to develop a multimedia community opera inspired by local histories and storytelling. Rural Media Company has hosted events and activities in the rural setting of Herefordshire, England to engage with rural communities and develop their understanding of how culture can enrich the lives of people and families who live there. Working in partnership with award-winning artists and arts organisations, together with cultural organisations and networks, this project sought to transform the view of culture within communities (more details are provided below).

Source: Arts Council for England (2018).

The Role of Culture 123

An evaluation of the Great Places Scheme has yet to be undertaken. Nevertheless, two key issues relate to the implementation of the Great Places Scheme in rural areas. First, the ambition to secure other public and private sector investment for place making. This can be more problematic in rural areas where the range and scale of partners who are able to provide such investment is more limited (a minimum contribution of 10% cash matched funding is required – see Chapters 1 and 2). Second, the capacity within local rural communities to facilitate the delivery of the project may be more limited given the lack of a critical mass of volunteers (see Chapter 4). Broader issues of relevance to the implementation of projects funded through the Great Places Scheme in rural areas include:    

the types of governance structures set up in rural areas; their inclusivity and the extent to which culture has been embedded in the wider regeneration activities of partners; the effect of the scheme on the engagement of local volunteers, as well as the development of personal skills and capabilities; the extent to which inequalities in rural areas are identified and addressed through the Great Places Scheme; and the extent to which outcomes vary between different types of rural places (and within each devolved nation), and why this is the case.

Such issues are considered further in the context of one particular Great Places project located in a rural setting: Rural Media Charity, Herefordshire, England.

Rural Media Charity - ‘Herefordshire’s a Great Place’ (Herefordshire, England) The Rural Media Charity (www.ruralmedia.co.uk/about-us) works with communities, schools, groups and individuals in Herefordshire and beyond to create issue-driven films, heritage and digital arts projects that raise awareness, influence change and celebrate rural life. The intention of the Charity is for people to:       

engage with and gain a greater understanding of their communities; improve self-esteem and confidence; learn practical filmmaking and creative digital skills; share and tackle the problems of rural isolation; influence policy and help determine their own future; promote a better understanding of their culture, history and way of life; and actively participate in cultural production.

The Rural Media Charity is the lead agency and accountable body for delivering the Great Places project in Herefordshire, England. The project has sought to increase participation in the arts, culture and heritage through public events,

124 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

workshops, and conferences; explore and support new ideas through grant schemes; showcase and share cultural information through open data and a web portal; and build capacity and strengthen links between culture, health, and economy through innovative partnerships and working groups (Herefordshire Culture Partnership, 2017). Importantly – and reflecting a new model of rural regeneration in an era of austerity and public sector retrenchment in the UK – the Rural Media Charity team is working with the local authority (Herefordshire Council) and Herefordshire’s Cultural Partnership to support successful community takeovers of cultural and heritage assets, and with the tourism, education, health and wellbeing sectors to make sure culture and heritage play an integral role in the overall economic and social growth of the county. As stated in a local authority report: The project will directly benefit Herefordshire Council by aiding the transfer of surplus council land and assets to community groups therefore reducing cost to the council. (Written statement of a non-key decision Cabinet member contracts and assets, Herefordshire Council, 7 November 2017) Consequently, this exemplifies cultural regeneration and culture-led regeneration being taken forward simultaneously through a new community-led culture / asset-based model of rural regeneration. However, on a note of caution, it has been noted how the transfer of cultural and heritage assets needs to be brought about through genuine partnerships “and(is) not just (about the local authority) ‘dumping’ expensive assets” (Great Place Herefordshire tweet 19 June 2018; https:// twitter.com/greatplace_hfds?lang=en [Accessed 19 June 2018]). Other challenges that have emerged in relation to the delivery of the Great Places project in Herefordshire include the need for intergenerational working to offset the shortage of skills and capacity in the voluntary sector in rural areas, finding resources to pay for those who cannot afford to volunteer in the rural, providing more flexible and varied opportunities for individuals to volunteer in culture-led regeneration schemes; a further consideration of where local churches fit into the rural cultural landscape to facilitate regeneration; and developing collaborative approaches conducive to involving young people in culture-led and cultural regeneration strategies in rural localities. These findings are partially reflected in terms of Herefordshire Culture Partnership’s (2017) development of a broader cultural strategy. In summary, this highlights how the Great Places project in the county will help to raise Hereford’s profile nationally and internationally as a place to live, work and visit and to build a stronger and more visible creative economy supported by the development and retention of creative and entrepreneurial talent (Herefordshire Culture Partnership, 2017). Furthermore, reference to “long-established businesses of traditional cider-making and food production sitting alongside some of the world’s most advanced cyber-security and hi-tech firms” (Creative Associates, 2017, p.4) highlights how those involved with the Culture

The Role of Culture 125

Partnership and the Great Places project are also attempting to harness the particularities of the rural creative economy in Herefordshire and not just traditional forms of rural arts and heritage. This has been supplemented in some instances by urban creativity models based on fashion, design or media per se (Oakley, 2015). In overall terms, the emphasis is on culture-led and cultural regeneration strategies drawing on local rural particularity as well as a wider approach promoting social and community wellbeing. For example, attention is being placed on developing opportunities for digital participation to help those living in the most isolated rural areas to access cultural activities and thereby moving away from traditional ‘hub and spoke’ models that have been previously been adopted in the rural. Activities funded through the Great Places project have also focused on how culture contributes to health and to show how place and culture can actively contribute to personal and community wellbeing (Herefordshire Culture Partnership, 2017).

Case Study 2: Unpacking Urban-based Depictions of the Rural Creative Economy: Shropshire, England Bell and Jayne’s earlier work in Shropshire, England (undertaken 2004 and published in 2010; Bell and Jayne 2010, pp.216–218) highlighted a number of important findings which critically unpacked urban-based depictions of the rural creative economy, namely: 





the need to acknowledge how different rural places may shape levels of creativity based on their aesthetic characteristics, rather than the presence of other ‘creative individuals’ (as argued in the context of urban quarters of cities, for example); the importance of craft, arts, music and antiques as drivers of the rural creative economy numerically but survival rates being highest in sectors less recognised by policy-makers as symbolically important to the rural, such as publishing and architecture; and other assumptions about creative business needs derived from the urban being less evident, such as the need for broadband connectivity and the importance of local networks.

A key question of relevance is whether such findings are still of relevance in the UK and in rural settings such as Shropshire, as well as the degree to which there is an emphasis on the features of rural places in shaping rural creativity; the extent to which alternative (and new) models of rural creativity are being promulgated, and the implications for the ways in which culture and regeneration can be brought together in inclusionary ways to generate individual and community well-being and to address the problems of particular areas and groups hitherto less recognised.

126 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

What emerges in the context of Shropshire is a variable approach to the rural creative economy. In 2009, a new cultural strategy was produced entitled ‘Evolution, Revolution and Innovation’, and focused on Shropshire as well as the neighbouring local authority area of Telford and Wrekin (Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Council, 2009). Seven key objectives were set out in the strategy: Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7:

Improve Health and Wellbeing Think Green and Live Green Provide Cultural and Creative Learning Achieve Regeneration and Economic Sustainability Build on Our Sense of Place and Sense of Identity Connect People, Places and Organisations Prove the Value of Culture

On a positive note, the importance of the features of rural places in shaping levels of rural creativity was reflected under several objectives. For example, in relation to Objective 4, the emphasis was on developing cultural entrepreneurialism by providing support to, and promotion for, local independent cultural sector businesses and market towns. The latter were seen as providing the context for informing new forms of rural creativity and to diversify the local economy. Moreover, a range of rural multi-use centres located in such towns were noted – through the use of culture - as providing a number of valuable services to rural areas, and acting as hubs of sustainable activity. Such centres included the Shropshire Hills Discovery Centre which contains a gallery, crafts showcase, local history centre, library, café, gift shop and information centre (see Figure 5.1) and SpArC in Bishop’s Castle, a sport and arts centre that combines a range of facilities including a theatre, swimming pool, squash courts and art exhibition space.

FIGURE 5.1 Shropshire Hills Discovery Centre Source: © Jaggery – geograph.org.uk/p/3343706 licensed for reuse under creative commons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0.

The Role of Culture 127

At least two different models bringing culture and regeneration were therefore of relevance, which were stated explicitly in the strategy:   

pioneering major culture-led regeneration projects; culture-in regeneration - ensuring that culture is embraced in all regeneration to help create culturally vibrant buildings and public spaces through public art; and consideration of additional visual arts, crafts and design exhibition spaces. Source: Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Council (2009, p.57)

Nevertheless, the strategy continued to emphasise ‘traditional’ forms of rural creativity, which were seen as symbolically important to the rural: “the sub-region has particular strengths in visual arts, crafts and design and a growing pattern of festivals” (Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Council, 2009, p.40). Arguably the limitations of such an approach led to an alternative ‘bottom-up’ business led approach to developing the creative industry in the area, and supported by the local authority. Thus, Creative Shropshire was set up in 2006 to “support those on the business side of the creative industry, rather than those involved in the arts”. It aims to:     

raise the profile of the sector both locally and regionally and to encourage businesses and organisations to automatically consider Shropshire based creative businesses when sourcing services and supplies; develop a reputation for Shropshire as a centre of excellence for creative talent; act as a collective voice for creative businesses in Shropshire to local, regional and national bodies; work toward securing the use of suitable workspace/business premises for its members where desired, including looking at the potential for sharing such facilities and equipment for the incubation of smaller businesses; and create more opportunities for inter-trading by raising awareness of resources, talent and services available locally. Source: Adapted from Creative Shropshire (www.creativeshropshire.org [Accessed 3 July 2018])

From a community well-being perspective, the South Shropshire LEADER Programme (see Chapter 4 for details on LEADER) has also prioritised activities that are community-led, which use culture in a variety of ways to deliver both economic and non-economic activities of benefit to individuals and communities (see below). The approach also reflects the particularities of delivering regeneration through culture in a rural context, such as strengthening local heritage and promoting both traditional and alternative forms of rural creativity:  

restoration or enhancement of nature reserves, heritage features or countryside sites; visitor interpretation at natural, heritage and countryside sites;

128 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

      

heritage, wildlife and cultural tourism promotion; creation of village trails including path construction and interpretation relating to history and heritage of the area; installing and promoting cycle routes linking areas of heritage and culture with economic activities e.g. accommodation, village shops, cafes and pubs; research and development plans for local culture, heritage and environment, with the aim of regeneration to improve the local economy; enterprises based on experience of the natural world and countryside; conversion of heritage properties into a visitor attraction or essential service provider; and support for events and festivals which can attract visitors (e.g. music, arts and food and drink festivals). Source: Country Land and Business Association Limited (CLA) (2016)

In 2018, work on a new Culture Strategy for Shropshire was instigated. The aim was to provide the vision and ambition to support and strengthen Shropshire’s cultural sector and to direct new investment into cultural opportunities. The strategy adopted a broad view of culture and its role in regeneration, and incorporating both an economic and non-economic focus. For example, culture was defined as including a sense of identity, involving spiritual, intellectual and emotional characteristics and including traditions, beliefs and values (Shropshire Council, 2017a). A key intention was to increase and broaden participation in cultural activity and for culture to contribute to community and individual resilience and wellbeing. Indeed, the contribution of culture toward creating strong and resilient rural communities was perceived as being particularly important (ibid.). This has been reflected in recent cultural events held in Shropshire (such as ‘CultureFest’ – see Box 5.1) that have been used to bring people together, from different parts of the world, different local areas, different communities, and different age groups.

BOX 5.1 CULTURAL ACTIVITIES FOR DELIVERING SOCIAL INCLUSION: OSWESTRYCULTFEST OswestryCultFest celebrates the wide cultural diversity in Oswestry and the surrounding area – not only ‘mainstream’ culture but diversity which is less often celebrated such as alternative lifestyles, disability, sexual orientation, faiths and beliefs, ethnicity and age. The day is about highlighting some of the local minority cultures, enhancing their day-to-day visibility and inclusion – celebrating differences as a positive contribution to Oswestry’s vibrant community. Source: http://vcsvoice.org/2018/07/oswestry-culture-fest-book-a-stall/ [Accessed 18 July 2018].

The Role of Culture 129

However, it is unclear as of yet whether the strategy has adopted an approach to the rural creative economy which moves beyond symbolically important sectors such as the arts and crafts, as well as urban-based assumptions about creative business needs. For example, in terms of sectors to target, an early draft of the strategy simply highlighted the need to recognise “a wider range of activities contributing to rural creativity … reflecting the area’s culture in its broadest sense….including arts, museums and heritage, libraries, parks and open spaces and sports and leisure” (Shropshire Council, 2017a). In terms of urban-based assumptions, these are at least partially reflected in the Council’s 2017–21 Economic Growth Strategy. This identified the need to “ensure that mobile connectivity and broadband provision across Shropshire supports ambitions for growth and fulfils the requirements of how residents and employers choose to live and work” (Shropshire Council, 2017b, p.22).

Summary The role of culture in delivering rural regeneration is increasingly being recognised at a national and local level both within and beyond the UK. Cultural activities and rural creative enterprises are now perceived as integral to the transition and sustainability of rural communities in a variety of contexts (Duxbury and Campbell, 2011, pp.118–119). Creative economy opportunities are perceived as helping to address the out-migration of young people, which can have a considerable impact given that cultural industries have often had very little previous presence in such areas (Gibson and Kong, 2005). What also emerges from the chapter is the importance of i) taking a wider approach to rural creativity that considers other sectors beyond those traditionally seen as symbolic to the rural (for example, arts and craft, heritage and food); and ii) developing alternative non-economic perspectives on culture and creativity in delivering rural regeneration. Indeed, Gibson (2010) identifies that creativity also needs to be viewed as ‘something to do’ to bring people together for reasons other than promoting the creative industries per se. Hence rural creativity should be recognised in respect of its communitarian and social value to rural areas, and its role in sustaining and strengthening social networks, local culture and heritage and local identity. But there is also a need for caution and not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. For example, both of the case study areas discussed in this chapter are – on the whole – proximate to larger urban centres such as Birmingham and are certainly not as remote as other rural areas elsewhere in the UK. Issues concerned with peripherality and marginality were of relevance to some rural communities in both case study areas but on the whole there are opportunities for attracting different creative industries under the respective creative categories (i.e. ‘Application’ / ‘Expression’ / ‘Technology’) detailed by White (2010) earlier in the chapter. Clearly, this may not be the case in other rural areas of the UK and hence an emphasis on those creative sectors associated with ‘traditional’ symbolic perceptions of the rural maybe an appropriate strategy in some instances.

130 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Further points of relevance relate to the fact that culture can clearly inform the diversification of rural economies and that the differing features of rural places can, in themselves, serve as form of ‘rural boosterism’ and be used to secure new forms of investment. Through cultural events and festivals there is also an increasing acknowledgement of the cultural diversity which exists within rural areas and the differing needs of particular groups and areas. Finally, there is also a need to consider research methodologies for exploring the links between culture and regeneration and rural creativity. From the case studies of Herefordshire and Shropshire it remains apparent that rural creativity can take place in a variety of different places – some explicit and apparent, but also in more remote rural locations without obvious rural clusters. As a result, there is also a need to rethink the methodologies that are employed to explore rural creativity – for example, in-depth local ethnographies, diversity sampling by place and by sector and through comprehensive snowballing – which may help to unearth different forms of culture and creativity in the rural (see Gibson, 2010 for a similar discussion in Australia).

Key Points  

 



 

In contrast to urban areas, there has been surprisingly little focus to date on the importance of culture for delivering rural regeneration. In urban areas, cultural regeneration has been taken forward in a number of ways, and with a particular emphasis on the development of ‘international landmarks’ / ‘signature buildings’, including theatres, museums, art galleries and concert venues. In addition, creative industries – ranging from arts and craft to media and publishing – are often seen as an integral element of delivering urban regeneration. There has been an increasing focus on how many rural spaces have become associated with processes of production and consumption, and the rise of creative industries in the rural. Proximity, remoteness, peripherality and marginality are all of relevance to the sustainability of rural creative industries. Nevertheless, such features may also be harnessed and commodified to develop different types of rural creativity and innovation. Heterogeneity in the spatiality and temporality of rural places means that material and discursive representations of rural creativity by “urban outsiders” can be inaccurate, and lead to a ‘cultural cringe’ whereby a romantic, traditional and often misleading view of the countryside is perpetuated. In addition, there has been less attention on non-economic instrumentalised accounts in rural areas concerned with cultural value, identity, social cohesion, participation and individual and community well-being. Three different models can frame how culture is incorporated into the regeneration process: i) culture and regeneration, ii) culture-led regeneration and iii) cultural regeneration.

The Role of Culture 131

 



  

While there is evidence that all three approaches have been used in national and local contexts for using culture to deliver regeneration, there has been a lack of explicit focus on the rural. Evidence from the rural case studies detailed in the chapter reveal a number of new insights into the relationship between culture and regeneration. In terms of the Great Places scheme, resource challenges – financial and human – are evident in terms of delivering regeneration through culture. This has led to new community-led culture / asset-based models of rural regeneration emerging. In Herefordshire (Case Study 1), attempts have been made to harness the particularities of the rural creative economy beyond traditional forms of rural arts and heritage and / or urban creativity models, as well as an approach that focuses more broadly on the role of culture in health and wellbeing. In Shropshire (Case Study 2), the extent to which local approaches to the rural creative economy are moving beyond a focus on traditional activities perceived as symbolically representing the rural, such as arts and crafts, is more variable. There is evidence of community-led (e.g. South Shropshire LEADER programme) and business-led, ‘bottom up’ approaches (e.g. Creative Shropshire) to rural creativity which have a wider remit / focus. In both case study areas, wider approaches promoting individual and community well-being through culture-led regeneration strategies are being promulgated.

Study Questions     

How can culture be used to deliver rural regeneration? What are the key challenges of using culture to deliver regeneration in a rural context? In the context of rural creativity, discuss what is meant by a ‘cultural cringe’ (Bell and Jayne, 2010)? Critically assess the implications of applying the three different models of how culture is incorporated into the regeneration process to rural areas. “Non-economic instrumentalised accounts of creativity in rural spaces need to have equal value to those focused on delivering economic regeneration”. Discuss.

Further Reading / Websites of Relevance Bell and Jayne’s (2010) paper provides an excellent overview of research into rural creative industries and the key issues facing the rural creative sector: 

Bell, D. and Jayne, M. (2010). The creative countryside: policy and practice in the UK rural cultural economy. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, pp.209–218.

132 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Harvey et al. (2012) provide a good ethnography of a rural creative cluster as a counterpoint to the urban bias of work on creative clusters, and the challenges and opportunities of clustering in the rural: 

Harvey, D.C., Hawkins, H. and Thomas, N.J. (2012). Thinking creative clusters beyond the city: people, places and networks. Geoforum, 43, pp.529–539.

Lysgaard (2016) discusses how cultural policies in the context of small rural communities may be more embedded in heritage and tradition based on ideas of participation, mobilisation and social coherence: 

Lysgaard, H.K. (2016). The ‘actually existing’ cultural policy and culture-led strategies of rural places and small towns. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, pp.1–11.

Karen Scott et al. (2018) importantly highlight how notions of rural cultural value remain largely within an (economic) instrumentalist discourse, and offer an alternative consideration of the value of culture in conceptions of a ‘good life’: 

Scott, K., Rowe, F. and Pollock, V. (2018). Creating the good life? A wellbeing perspective on cultural value in rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 59, pp.173–182.

Gibson (2010) provides an overview of the challenges and opportunities facing rural creative industries in the ‘margins’: 

Gibson, C. (2010). Guest editorial – creative geographies: tales from the ‘margins’. Australian Geographer, 41(1), pp.1–10.

Graeme Evans and Phyllida Shaw’s report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2004) sets out the different models of how culture can be incorporated in the regeneration process: 

Evans, G. and Shaw, P. (2004). The contribution of culture to regeneration in the UK: A review of the evidence. A report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. London: London Metropolitan University.

A number of websites are also of relevance to securing further information on how culture has been incorporated into rural regeneration: In respect of the UK Government’s Culture White Paper see: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/510798/DCMS_The_Culture_White_Paper__3_.pdf.

The Role of Culture 133

For a position statement on the work of the Arts Council England in respect of their work in rural areas (April 2014) see: www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/ files/download-file/Position_statement-The_Arts_Council_and_communities_ living_in_rural_England_April_14.pdf. In relation to the Arts Council for England’s analysis of investment in rural areas, as well as a discussion of cultural participation and audiences see: www.artscouncil. org.uk/sites/default/files/download-file/Rural_evidence_and_data_review.pdf. In respect of a Rural Cultural Strategy for England, see the work of the (now defunct) Rural Cultural Forum: www.ruralculture.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/03/ISRfinal_2012.pdf. Proposal document (2010) available at: www.ruralculture.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2010/07/RCS_web.pdf. For details of the pilot Great Place Scheme (flagship programme to deliver the UK Government’s Culture White Paper) see: www.greatplacescheme.org.uk.

Bibliography Anderson, L. (2010). Magic light, silver city: the business of culture in Broken Hill. Australian Geographer, 41(1), pp.71–85. Arts Council England (ACE) (2014). Arts Council England and communities living in rural England – a position statement. Available on-line at: www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/defa ult/files/download-file/Position_statement-The_Arts_Council_and_communities_ living_in_rural_England_April_14.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Arts Council England (ACE) (2015). Rural evidence and data review. Analysis of Arts Council England investment, arts and cultural participation and audiences. Available online at: www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/Rural_evidence_and_data_ review. pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Arts Council England (ACE) (2018). Great Place Scheme – successful applicants. Available on-line at: www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-file/170316%20Great %20Place%20successful%20applicants_v3.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2018]. Bassett, K., Griffiths, R. and Smith, I. (2002). Testing governance: partnerships, planning and conflict in waterfront regeneration. Urban Studies, 39(10), pp.1757–1775. Bell, D. and Jayne, M. (2010). The creative countryside: policy and practice in the UK rural cultural economy. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), pp.209–218. Country Land and Business Association Limited (CLA) (2016). Southern Shropshire LEADER Programme. Available on-line at: www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/Priority %205.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Creative Associates (2017). Looking to Herefordshire’s creative and cultural future. Available on-line at: www.herefordshireculturalpartnership.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ The-FINAL-Herefordshire-Cultural-Strategy-Report-Create-Associates-2017.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Cruickshank, J. (2018). Is culture-led redevelopment relevant for rural planners? The risk of adopting urban theories in rural settings. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 24(3), pp.331–349. Day, G. (2011). The Englishing of rural Wales? Migration, conflict and integration in community life. In: P. Milbourne (Ed.), Rural Wales in the twenty-first century: society, economy and environment. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp.23–45.

134 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Department for Community, Media and Sport (DCMS) (2016). Culture white paper. London: DCMS. Department for Community, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Creative Industries Taskforce (1998). Creative Industries: Mapping Document. London: DCMS. Duxbury, N. and Campbell, H. (2011). Developing and revitalising rural communities through arts and culture. Small Cities Imprint, 3(1), pp.111–122. Evans, G. and Shaw, P. (2004). The contribution of culture to regeneration in the UK: A review of the evidence. A report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. London: London Metropolitan University. Experian and BOP Consulting (2006). Creative countryside – creative industries driving new rural economies, a multi-client study. London: Experian and BOP Consulting. Felton, E., Collis, C. and Graham, P. (2010). Making connections: creative industries networks in outer-suburban locations. Australian Geographer, 41(1), pp.57–70. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Fløysand, A. and Jakobsen, S.E. (2007). Commodification of rural places: a narrative of social fields, rural development and football. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, pp.206–221. Fullagar, S., Markwell, K. and Wilson, E. (Eds.) (2012). Slow tourism: experiences and mobilities. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Gallent, N., Hamiduddin, I., Juntti, M., Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2015). Introduction to rural planning: economies, communities and landscapes (2nd ed.). Oxford: Taylor and Francis. Garcia, B. (2004). Urban regeneration, arts programming and major events: Glasgow 1990, Sydney 2000 and Barcelona 2004. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1), pp.103–118. Gibson, C. (2002). Rural transformation and cultural industries: popular music on the New South Wales far north coast. Australian Geographical Studies, 40(3), pp.337–356. Gibson, C. (2010). Guest editorial – creative geographies: tales from the ‘margins’. Australian Geographer, 41(1), pp.1–10. Gibson, C. and Kong, L. (2005). Cultural economy: a critical review. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), pp. 541–561. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of capital: toward a critical geography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Harvey, D.C., Hawkins, H. and Thomas, N.J. (2012). Thinking creative clusters beyond the city: People, places and networks. Geoforum, 43(3), pp.529–539. Herefordshire Council (2017). Written statement of a non-key decision Cabinet member contracts and assets. Herefordshire Council, 7 November 2017. Available on-line at: https://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/documents/d4816/Printed%20decision% 20Herefordshires%20a%20Great%20Place%20Scheme%20Match%20Funding.pdf?T=5 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Herefordshire Culture Partnership (2017). Strategy document: Herefordshire: a great place. Hereford: Herefordshire Culture Partnership. Herslund, L. (2012). the rural creative class: counterurbanisation and entrepreneurship in the Danish countryside. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(2), pp.235–255. Hoey, B. (2005). From pi to pie: moral narratives of noneconomic migration and starting over in the postindustrial Midwest. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(5), pp.586–624. Jayne, M. (2004). Culture that works? Creative industries development in a working-class city. Capital and Class, 84(Winter), pp.199–210.

The Role of Culture 135

Jayne, M. (2005). Creative industries: the regional dimension? Environment and Planning C. Government and Policy, 23(4), pp.537–556. Jones, P. and Evans, G. (2008). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Sage. Luckman, S., Gibson, C. and Lea, T. (2009). Mosquitos in the mix: How transferable is creative thinking? Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 30(1), pp.70–85. Lysgaard, H.K. (2016). The ‘actually existing’ cultural policy and culture-led strategies of rural places and small towns. Journal of Rural Studies, 44(1), pp.1–11. McGranahan, D.A. and Wojan, T.R. (2007). Recasting the creative class to examine growth processes in rural and urban counties. Regional Studies, 41(2), pp.197–216. Mahon, M., McGrath, B., Laiore, L., Collins, P. (2018). Artists as workers in the rural; precarious livelihoods, sustaining rural futures. Journal of Rural Studies, published online 13 April 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.04.001. Marsden, T. (2003). The condition of rural sustainability. European perspectives on rural development. Assen, Netherlands: Royal van Gorcum. Matarasso, F. (2005). Arts in rural England: why the arts are at the heart of rural life. Report for Arts Council England. London: Arts Council England. Milbourne, P. (2012). Growing old in rural places. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(4), pp.315–317. Miles, S. and Paddison, R. (2005). Introduction: the rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), pp.833–839. Montgomery, J. (1995). The story of Temple Bar: creating Dublin’s cultural quarter. Planning Practice and Research, 10(2), pp.135–172. Oakley, K. (2015). Creating space: a re-evaluation of the role of culture in regeneration. Research Report. Available on-line at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/88559/3/AHRC_Cultura l_Value_KO%20Final.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Panelli, R. (2006). Rural Society. In: P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies. London: Sage, pp.63–90. Paulsen, K. and Staggs, K. (2005). Constraint and reproduction in an amateur craft institution: the conservative logic of the county fair. Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research on Culture, the Media and the Arts, 33(2), pp.134–155. Rantisi, N., Leslie, D. and Christopherson, S. (2006). Guest editorial. Placing the creative economy: scale, politics, and the material. Environment and Planning C, 38(10), pp.1789–1797. Ray, C. (1999). Endogenous development in the era of reflexive modernity. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(3), pp.257–267. Roberts, E. and Townsend, L. (2016). The contribution of the creative economy to the resilience of rural communities: exploring cultural and digital capital. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2), pp.197–219. Rural Cultural Forum (RCF) (2010). Creative rural communities report. Proposal for a Rural Cultural Strategy. Rural Cultural Forum. Available on-line at: www.ruralculture. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/RCS_web.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Scott, K., Rowe, F. and Pollock, V. (2018). Creating the good life? A wellbeing perspective on cultural value in rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 59, pp.173–182. Shropshire Council (2017a). A Cultural Strategy for Shropshire Consultants Brief for the Development of an “Evidence Base”. Available on-line at: https://shropshire.gov.uk/m edia/6794/shropshire-cultural-strategy-consultancy-brief.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Shropshire Council (2017b). 2017–21 Economic Growth Strategy. Shrewsbury: Shropshire Council. Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Council (2009). Evolution, revolution and innovation. Shrewsbury: Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Council.

136 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Smith, D. and Phillips, D.A. (2001). Rural representations of greentrified Pennine rurality. Journal of Rural Studies, 17(4), pp.457–469. Tallon, A. (2010). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Routledge. Tallon, A., Bromley, R.D.F., Reynolds, B. and Thomas, C.J. (2006). Developing leisure and cultural attractions in the regional city centres: a policy perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(3), pp.351–370. Townsend, L., Wallace, C., Smart, A. and Norman, T. (2016). Building virtual bridges: how rural micro-enterprises develop social capital in online and face-to-face settings. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(1), pp.29–47. Van der Ploeg, J.D.et al. (2000). Rural development: from practices and policies toward theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), pp.391–408. Vickery, J. (2007). The emergence of culture-led regeneration: a policy concept and its discontents. Available on-line at: www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/research/publications/ centrepubs/ccps.paper9.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. White, P. (2010). Creative industries in a rural region: Creative West: the creative sector in the Western Region of Ireland. Creative Industries Journal, 3(1), pp.79–88. Williams, R. (1961). The long revolution. London: Pelican. Williams, R. (2004). The anxious city: English urbanism in the twentieth city. London: Routledge. Wilson, G.A. (2010). Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(3), pp.364–381.

6 DEVOLUTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND RURAL REGENERATION

Introduction Devolution in the United Kingdom refers to the statutory granting of powers from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the respective parliaments and assemblies that have been set up in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as their executive bodies. In addition, it also refers to city-level Combined Authorities that have been set up in a number of areas of England, as well as the creation of the Greater London Authority (GLA). While there is a long history of demands for home rule in different parts of the United Kingdom, this chapter focuses on the impact of the creation of devolved institutions on rural regeneration in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England since 1997. The Labour government of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair was elected into power in 1997 with a promise of creating new devolved institutions with executive bodies, subject to a ‘yes’ vote in Scotland, Wales and London (in respect of the creation of the GLA), and as part of driving the peace process forward in Northern Ireland. Consequently, in Scotland, a Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government have been created; in Wales, devolution has led to the establishment of a National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Government, while in Northern Ireland there is a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. In the context of England, a directly elected administrative authority for London was created – the GLA, along with eight Regional Assemblies that were subsequently disbanded. However, since 2009 a number of combined authorities have been created outside Greater London, which have focused on issues such as regeneration, economic development and transport.

138 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

A study of devolution in the UK reveals that it has been introduced in a relatively piecemeal manner, with reforms addressed to different purposes in separate parts of the UK, and with a subsequent differentiation in institutional governance arrangements (and associated executive, legislative and financial powers) that drew upon distinctive administrative practices that had previously accumulated in each territory (Pemberton and Lloyd, 2008). But for the purpose of this chapter, the key issue relates to the fact that the statutory responsibility for rural regeneration generally rests with each of the devolved administrations, although in England such matters are generally decided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Moreover, as a result of the UK model of devolution being permissive of divergence in policy design and implementation (Jeffrey, 2007), rural regeneration has been socially constructed and implemented differently across the devolved UK. Yet, there has been little focus on evolving rural governance and policy delivery under devolution, let alone a focus on the nature of rural regeneration. A study of rural regeneration in a devolved UK is important given the emphasis on local empowerment (Chapter 4) and the Europeanisation of rural regeneration policy and associated funding streams (Chapter 2). This chapter therefore explores the extent to which rural regeneration policies (and associated governance structures) differ across the UK. To begin, the chapter revisits the strategic-relational theoretical framework set out in Chapter 3 and considers its relevance for studying the nature of rural regeneration under devolution. In turn, a number of related concepts focused on the ‘hollowing out’ and ‘filling in’ of the nation state (Goodwin et al., 2012; Goodwin et al., 2005) are set out in order to provide a framework for analysis. The analysis specifically focuses on rural regeneration policy since 1997 and the extent of divergence (or convergence) in terms of the focus of rural regeneration activity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England over time. With the exception of England (which has already been covered to a significant extent in Chapter 2), a focus is also placed on a key rural regeneration programme in each devolved territory, and the lessons that emerge from each. A concluding section subsequently explores the practical, as well as broader theoretical implications that emerge, including the extent to which there is now an institutional structure in the UK that promotes a very different understanding of the rural and rural regeneration policy.

Revisiting the Strategic Relational Approach and the ‘Hollowing Out’ and ‘Filling In’ of the State: Implications for Rural Regeneration In Chapter 3, it was highlighted how the Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) considered the relationship between the economy and the (political) projects of the state respectively (Jessop, 2008; 1990). Goodwin et al. (2012, p.9) identify how it is the “most appropriate conceptual framework for understanding current state

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 139

restructuring (and including devolution) … because of its emphasis on state strategy, on state personnel and on the link between state form and state strategy”. In simple terms, what this means is that devolved state spaces are being continually transformed in the UK as a result of the dialectic between state structure and state strategy. The SRA also highlights that the state itself has no power and needs to be viewed in relational terms. The power of the state relates to those who have access to institutions of the state, which may be territorially and scalar dependent. As such, different actors in different parts of the UK may have differential abilities to act in and through the devolved institutions of the state. They may also be able to pursue their interests in relation to rural regeneration activity (for example, a focus on inward investment, or community-led regeneration) through shaping the devolved institutions of the state in particular ways in order to generate particular strategies that are conducive to their interests. Thus, with devolution in the UK being incremental, piecemeal and differentiated, it is inevitable that there will be temporal and spatial differences in the nature of rural regeneration policies that emerge. Such policies may also be ‘path-dependent’, that is they may be shaped by previous attempts / initiatives to deliver rural regeneration and which may work to either facilitate or hinder current approaches. The SRA additionally identifies how the coherence of rural regeneration activity in areas such as Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland is shaped by the particular (hegemonic) projects and activities promoted by different actors. Crucially, as devolved structures change or evolve over time (such as the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Government), so too will the dominant actors and the strategies for rural regeneration being pursued. This leads into a focus on the importance of processes of the ‘hollowing out’ and ‘filling in’ of the state (Jessop, 2008; Goodwin et al., 2005; Jessop, 1990). Jessop (2008) has argued that the national state has been increasingly ‘hollowed out’ under neo-liberal market-led regimes, and with devolution reflective of the ‘hollowing out’ of national state functions – upwards (for example, to the EU through the internationalisation of policy regimes), downwards (for example, to new devolved institutions through the de-nationalisation of the state) and outwards (for example, through a wider range of non-state actors becoming involved in rural regeneration). However, Jones et al. (2005) identify that a focus on devolution also highlights an alternative perspective involving the state being ‘filled in’ by new institutions and structures operating at a sub-national scale, which may occur unevenly across the United Kingdom. Shaw and Mackinnon (2011) highlight two forms of ‘filling in’ – structural and relational. Structural filling in refers to the establishment of new organisational forms of governance and engagement (for example, for rural regeneration) and the reconfiguration of those already in existence. On the other hand, relational filling in highlights how new or reconfigured arrangements for rural regeneration operate and how they may inform / be informed by individuals and organisations within such arrangements, as well as those elsewhere. Hence ‘hollowing out’ and

140 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

‘filling in’ need to be considered together – they may be dialectical and recurrent and operate simultaneously at the same scales of governance, as well as at different scales and over different time periods (Goodwin et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2009). Such issues are explored further in this chapter. The work of Shaw et al. (2009) is also of relevance to understanding the differential nature of rural regeneration in a devolved UK. They argue that there has been – to varying degrees – evidence of institutional, policy and strategy isomorphism since devolution was introduced in the UK in 1998 with the creation – for example, of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This describes the tendency of key actors to make governance and policy arrangements increasingly similar while attempting to change them (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Again, such issues are considered further in the following sections in order to understand the extent to which approaches to rural regeneration have diverged or converged. Finally, one additional – and increasingly relevant – point that this chapter will consider is the relevance of the ‘impedimenta state’ (Jones, 2010). In the context of rural regeneration, this describes the way in which the multiplicity of strategies and projects which have been taken forward over time within each devolved territory – and at a variety of spatial scales – have become increasingly incompatible and indeed even irrational and / or contradictory. As such, questions are raised over the extent to which devolution has ‘run its course’ in respect of the ability of devolved administrations to innovate and develop locally specific responses reflecting the regeneration needs of rural communities.

Rural Regeneration Policy in a Devolved United Kingdom The SRA’s stress on political strategies and state projects draws attention to their respective importance in shaping different ‘objects of governance’ for rural regeneration. Thus, in Northern Ireland, there has been over 40 years of centralised public service delivery as a result of distinctive political and community instabilities. In comparison with the other devolved regions, the design and implementation of regeneration policy has been a fractured process with significant delays before and following devolution in implementing regeneration initiatives and a distinctive approach to rural regeneration in Northern Ireland (Adamson, 2010, p.20; also see Muir, 2014). With reference to the process of devolution, The Northern Ireland Act 1998 which emerged following the Good Friday Agreement led to the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and which assumed control for a number of policy areas. The executive body of the Assembly – The Northern Ireland Executive – became responsible for policy delivery, including agriculture and rural development and regeneration (Rural Policy Centre, 2015, p.7). In turn, the implementation of rural regeneration activity has been through the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD).

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 141

Hence political and constitutional factors have combined with economic efficiency concerns to inform the development of a state project concerned with balancing sectarian interests, and with “any actions on one side of the sectarian divide having to be replicated on the other … and with Assembly politicians (being) perceived by officials to be more interested in ensuring resources for their community rather than supporting responses to objective need” (Adamson, 2010, p.20). As a result, Adamson (2010) has claimed that poverty and sectarianism combine to make regeneration in Northern Ireland doubly difficult compared with anywhere else in the UK (Adamson, 2010, p.21). Coupled to the above, there has also been a concern by the state on modernising public services and securing institutional and service integration to address perceived inefficiencies in the public sector and layers of bureaucracy (Pemberton et al., 2015). This has culminated with the Review of Public Administration (RPA), which led to a reduction in the number of local authorities from 26 to 11 in 2015, as well as strengthening the power of local government through the decentralisation of a number of services (Rural Policy Centre, 2015, p.10). Thus, a wider set of partners are now involved in rural regeneration but with the predominance of agriculture as a key object of governance remaining – and supported through the 2014–2020 Rural Development Programme for Northern Ireland (see Table 6.1 and below). In Scotland, the 1995 Rural White Paper for Scotland (Scottish Office, 1995) was the first comprehensive and integrated review of policy produced for rural Scotland (Bidwell and Downie, 1996). It focused particularly on greater community involvement in rural issues and also led to an emphasis on partnership working to deliver rural regeneration (Osborne et al. 2004, p.7). Subsequently, support for devolution in a referendum held in late 1997 led to the creation of a Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. The initial emphasis was around securing social justice and social inclusion, and closing the gap between the most and least deprived communities. Such ambitions were reflected in a key document – ‘Social Justice: A Scotland Where Everyone Matters’ (Scottish Executive, 1999). This document was also the origin for much of the (rural) regeneration activity that has subsequently taken place in Scotland (Adamson, 2010). Since 2000, a series of vision statements and strategies for rural regeneration have been produced, such as ‘Rural Scotland – A New Approach’ (Scottish Executive, 2003; 2000) and ‘Rural Scotland: Better, Still, Naturally’ (Scottish Executive, 2007). The latter document adopted an integrated approach to rural regeneration, including a focus on rural economy, strengthening rural services, building more resilient communities, addressing population change and protecting natural and cultural assets (Scottish Executive, 2007). In terms of state projects and political strategies, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was first elected as a minority government in Scotland in 2007 and then as a majority government in 2011. Through various commissions the SNP has reiterated a national centre-left-focused state project around securing equality, fairness and social justice, rather than the English model of a market-led, laissez

Policies

1998–2005

Period

Countryside Alliance March 1997 – highlights rural not just agricultural / environmental. 2000 Rural White Paper – the high point of a wider approach to rural policy? Over time, increasing emphasis on rural proofing and mainstreaming. A wider than farming approach but Haskins Report and Modernising Service Delivery a missed opportunity?

England

TABLE 6.1 Devolution and Rural Policy / Governance

New social inclusion / social justice agenda – with a focus on young, elderly, low income households – for example, see “Social Justice: A Scotland Where Everyone Matters” (Scottish Executive, 1999) and “Rural Scotland: A New Approach” (Scottish Government, 2000). Land reform legislation 2003 (and further legislation in 2016). Rural Development Programme (RDP) – delivery plan for Scottish rural policy. Crofting still a unique place within RDP.

Scotland

Initially no distinctive approach. Rural as a space in crisis. No integrated rural policy document. Emphasis on agriculture – e.g. 2001 “Farming for the Future” and highlighted in first RDP for Wales. Communities First launched as a flagship regeneration strategy and with some focus on rural areas.

Wales

Cultural and political dominance of agriculture. Sectarian overtones and balancing the sectarian divide. Fragmented rural regeneration policy but first 2001–2006 RDP for Northern Ireland launched.

Northern Ireland

England

Devolution and rural policy agendas intertwined. Switch from national/local scale to regional. Rural Development Commission and Countryside Commission abolished. Focus of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) – economic; Countryside Agency – social. Agricultural crisis and outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease but RDAs not Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) lead. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs replaces MAFF. Further restructuring 2005 – Commission for Rural Communities as ‘rural advocate’ replaces Countryside Agency on social/ community issues; Natural England replaces Countryside Agency on environmental issues.

Period

Politics, Governance and Scale

Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) created.

Wales Political mobilisation of Welsh farmers. Farming crisis seen as a rural crisis and therefore a national crisis. No alternative representation of the rural by Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government. A shift from rural to regional policy under a new Wales Spatial Plan. Rural Policy Unit created within the Welsh Assembly Government.

Scotland Liberal Democrats challenge rural as being peripheral and marginal. Rural Scotland seen as increasingly central to nationhood. Attack on landholders. Creation of Rural Partnerships.

Policies

2007–mid- 2010

Period

Place-based approaches to rural policy increasingly promulgated. Increasing emphasis on targets. Sub National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration (2007) – further emphasis on rural proofing through CRC and mainstreaming (DEFRA) continues. But criticisms of co-ordination and transparency of rural policy and challenges of delivery in remote rural areas. Rural policy increasingly marginalised – no national rural policy. Retrenchment from rural policy to agricultural policy? Rural ‘pleading’ discourse (deficit not asset-based approach to the rural). DEFRA increasingly side-tracked on issues of climate change and environmental issues? 2007–2013 Rural Development Programme for England increasingly important to wider rural development and regeneration – £3.7bn over seven years (over 80% of funds allocated to environmental land management).

England

Rural policy sectoral not place-based. Rural policy highly centralised. “Rural Scotland: Better Still Naturally” (Scottish Government, 2007) – new Rural Development Plan for Scotland. RDP increasingly important to delivering Scottish rural policy; focus on building resilient rural communities; challenges of population change; improving rural services; protecting natural and cultural assets; strengthening the rural economy. But lack of integrated approach and too much focus on agriculture and environment in RDP? Retrenchment to agricultural policy.

Scotland

RDP programme crucial to delivery of rural policy in Wales. Broad variety of objects of governance focused on agriculture to wider rural development. Limited commitment to rural proofing in Wales compared to England and Scotland. Less focus on rural areas in second tranche of Communities First.

Wales

2007–2013 Northern Ireland RDP is key aspect of rural policy – has 4 key axes: Competitiveness of Agriculture; Environment; Quality of Life in Rural Areas; LEADER. Grants for Rural Development cover agri-food processing and marketing; farm modernisation; rural borewells and ‘rural life’. Other EU programmes such as INTERREG and PEACE III (following PEACE II 2001–2006) include a number of measures relevant to rural regeneration including rural diversification and rural development.

Northern Ireland

Policies

Emphasis on rural economic growth (priority) / localism and engagement and quality of life. 2011 Rural Statement – limited – Economic development not identified as related to natural environment. Renewed emphasis on rural proofing. 2011 Environment White Paper introduces Local Nature Partnerships.

DEFRA as rural champion. But Department for Communities and Local Government becomes responsible for rural planning policy. RDA has responsibility for rural economic policy. LEADER increasingly important part of RDP.

Politics, Governance and Scale

Mid-2010 onward

England

Period

Different approach to localism in England – emphasis on reducing inequalities between places. Communities First now only focused on two rural ‘clusters’. ‘One Wales’ programme some importance for rural. But opportunities for selfdetermination of rural policy remain limited. Policies and programmes from EU assume a dominant role – majority of monies provided through such schemes.

2012 White Paper Action Plan (but not strategy). Focus on urban/ rural linkages and access to services. Key priority – to support transport infrastructure that links rural and urban areas and access to jobs and services. Agriculture seen as playing a larger part in Northern Ireland economy than it does in the case of the UK as a whole.

Northern Ireland Rural Network set up to help deliver RDP. 7 LEADER Action Groups in total.

Wales Rural Network set up to support delivery of RDP.

Minority nationalist government (Scottish National Party – SNP) Rural Development Council set up to support RDP. Little sub-regional delivery infrastructure beyond economic development. More sub-regional capacity identified as required. Rural regeneration incorporated within Single Outcome Agreements.

SNP put out a specific Farming Manifesto before the 2011 elections. SNP re-elected as a majority government in 2011. ‘Inquiry into the Future of Agricultural Support’ 2011. “Speak up for Rural Scotland” (RDC) conference. Government response: “Our Rural Future” –Key objects: infrastructure, land use, community participation, community enterprise, business and skills.

Northern Ireland

Wales

Scotland

Period

Northern Ireland 2007–2013 RDP continues, including the mainstreaming of the LEADER approach through Axis 4 of the RDP.

Wales RDP heavily weighted in respect of farming. Lack of mainstreaming of rural policy.

Scotland Localism takes a different form compared to elsewhere in UK – i.e. community ownership of land for rural development. Asset-based model of rural community development promoted. Community Capital approach promulgated. Food production at the heart of agricultural policy. Over-emphasis on agriculture / farming and landbased activities? Lack of integration of RDP with wider sectoral policies for rural areas? ‘Subsidy mentality’ as a consequence of EU policy? Scottish Enterprise focusing on high growth industries in central city-belt at expense of local rural economic development? Rural areas outside Highlands and Islands being neglected in policy? Rural policy subsidiary policy within each sector? Scottish Land Fund for rural community empowerment.

England

New policy for rural uplands (“Farming in the Uplands”). Farm and Forestry Improvement Scheme. Rural Economy Grant Scheme. 2011 Rural Economy Growth Review. City-regionalism (LEPs) and City Deal focuses on the urban? Failure to address rural-urban relations? Limited reference to rural in DEFRA plans. RDPE – still a major policy lever but not integrated into domestic English rural policy.

England

RDA and CRC abolished. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) introduced at a sub-regional scale, 5 sub-regional Rural Growth Networks also created. 48 Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) in existence overseen by Natural England but integration issues with work of LEPs? Neighbourhood planning introduced at a local scale. New Rural Communities Policy Unit created and located in DEFRA. But lacking rural applicability and independence? DEFRA uninterested in LEPs? DEFRA now leads RDPE.

Period

Politics, Governance and Scale

Northern Ireland DARD still key to delivery of rural policy in Northern Ireland.

Wales Department for Environment, Planning and Countryside replaced by Department for Agriculture and Rural Affairs; focus of new department is on increasing sustainability and profitability of farming, food and fisheries industries and to improve rural economy and champion rural life in Wales. Agricultural Policy Unit within Department for Agriculture and Rural Affairs. No minister for Rural Affairs in new Welsh Government – instead Environmental and Sustainable Development minister; this is perceived by some as relegating importance of agricultural issues.

Scotland Over 100 agencies working on rural development issues but no over-arching body. Rural issues beyond Highlands and Islands highlighted. Community Land Unit focuses on community empowerment for rural Scotland. Land Reform Review Group set up. Rural Parliament Management Group set up.

Politics, Governance and Scale

Policies

Future?

Period

Focus on environment, agriculture and wider approach to rural development? Re-focus on importance of rural areas to national economy? RDPE key to delivery of rural regeneration activities in England. Main focus is on LEPs being responsible for European (rural) funding.

England

Scottish Rural Parliament 2014 – emphasis on developing a stronger voice for rural areas and rural community empowerment.

Streamlined and more focused with RDP 2013 onwards. Community empowerment, renewal and resilience promulgated.

Scotland

Lack of a leadership in agricultural sector to face reality of CAP reform seen as the key rural problem.

Alignment of future rural policy with EU 2014–2020 RDP programmes / funds.

Wales

2014–2020 RDP closest approximation to strategic approach to rural regeneration in Northern Ireland and takes forward aspects of DARD’s Rural Strategy 2007–2013. 11 new ‘super councils’ created and LEADER programmes aligning with boundaries of new local authorities and working with such entities to deliver rural community regeneration.

Northern Ireland

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 149

faire approach to secure economic growth (Milne and Rankine, 2013). It has also emphasised the need for aligning local and national priorities for action through a National Performance Framework, which includes Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) – and a concordat (agreed in 2007) between central and local government. 32 Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) – one for each local authority area – were set up to help deliver SOAs at a local level, which encapsulate rural regeneration. Hence key objects of governance for rural regeneration in Scotland have been focused around land reform, addressing issues of peripherality, social inclusion and the empowerment of communities to secure rural community resilience (Skerratt, 2013). Crucially, the 2003 and 2016 Land Reform (Scotland) Acts (Scottish Government 2016; 2003) have provided the opportunity for local communities to buy land held by absentee landlords in rural areas, thereby freeing up the regeneration process and helping to empower communities to take control of local assets (Rowe 2011, p.8). In addition, a ‘community right to buy’ has been extended to the whole of Scotland. Nevertheless, while this change is aimed at making it easier for a wider range of local social and political actors to register an interest and exercise the right to buy land or property from (traditionally powerful) landowners, concerns remain over whether this will result in new forms of community empowerment and the extent to which rural regeneration arrangements are broadly reflective of all local actors and interests. Furthermore, although devolution provided Scotland with a high degree of autonomy in designing its rural regeneration policy, policy-making has remained relatively centralised with a strong sectoral bias toward agriculture and the environment, as opposed to being place-based. At best, there has been a refocusing of rural regeneration activity from the neighbourhood level to the local authority level (Skerratt, 2013). This arguably reflects the geography of the country and the low population densities prevalent. As such, agriculture is seen as crucial to the performance of rural areas. Such a focus has been reinforced through the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP). Successive iterations of the SRDP have placed agriculture at the heart of rural regeneration policy – and indeed rural policy more widely – and with the main emphasis on providing support to farmers. This has left limited scope for pursuing wider rural regeneration, and particularly as the integration of the SRDP with other sectors is less evident. In addition, it has been argued that the main rural development agencies such as Scottish Enterprise have increasingly focused on high growth opportunities in the central city-belt of the country and that rural areas outside of the Highlands and Islands have not received as much support (Rowe, 2011, p.9). Consequently, there have been calls for a more spatially differentiated approach – both territorial and sectoral – and involving a wider range of stakeholders for delivering rural regeneration. This also includes a greater consideration of the links between rural and urban areas. Indeed, since the publication of ‘Our

150 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Rural Future’ (Scottish Government, 2011), key rural regeneration priorities have broadened slightly to include a focus on shortages of rural housing and land for regeneration, further land reform, and strengthening the rights of communities to take control of local assets in order to generate income and employment opportunities (for example, through the Community Empowerment and Renewable Act, 2015; Scottish Government, 2015). There has also been an increasing focus on superfast broadband, niche tourism, renewable energy and multi-purpose forestry. However, the overall perception is that Scotland’s rural policies – and efforts at rural regeneration – are too sectoral given the reliance on EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Pillar II funds for supporting agriculture (Rowe, 2011, p.12; see Table 6.1). In Wales, devolution led to the National Assembly for Wales – with responsibilities for the administration and expenditure of the government’s budget for Wales – being created as a consequence of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Subsequently the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Welsh Government, 2006) led to the creation of an executive body – the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) – as well as giving the National Assembly some legislative powers. These powers have since been extended and with responsibilities for rural regeneration lying with WAG. A national state project concerned with securing integration and resource efficiencies has informed the basis of public sector reform in Wales, including the promotion of citizen-centred public services and closer engagement with local communities. Objects of governance for rural regeneration in Wales have reflected technocratic national concerns around efficient local service delivery. This may be difficult to achieve given that there are challenges of service delivery relating to remoteness and an increasingly ageing population in rural Wales. Indeed, 82% of the land area of Wales has been classified as rural, and with 79% of that 82% being ‘deep rural’, and where challenges of access to different services and facilities is often most acute (Wales Rural Observatory, 2009). In 2014, the Williams Commission on Public Service Governance and Delivery proposed a reduction in the number of local authorities in Wales to make savings across public sector budgets and to create strategic efficiencies in service delivery (Williams Commission, 2014). Further efforts at administrative reform have also been reflected in terms of the creation of statutory Public Service Boards made up of a collection of stakeholders seeking to improve the well-being of a local area, which are charged with helping to deliver seven national wellbeing goals defined under the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (Welsh Government, 2015). More specifically in terms of rural regeneration in Wales, the central thrust has continually predominated around agriculture. Nationally, this has been reflected in the Welsh Government’s Agricultural Policy Unit and across the country in respect of the reliance on successive Rural Development Plans for Wales. Again, given the importance of CAP funding for delivering such plans, the emphasis has been very much around food production, farming support and environmental

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 151

management. Hence an agriculturally dominated, centralised sectoral approach to rural regeneration is evident (see Table 6.1). With reference to England, this is the only area of the UK which does not have a devolved Parliament or Assembly. As discussed in Chapter 3, attempts at the devolution of some powers to regions came to an abrupt halt with the rejection of an elected regional assembly for the north east of England in 2004. Indeed, regional governing apparatus has disappeared – for example, there has been the abolition of regional development agencies (RDAs) and new Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) – with a primary economic function – have emerged at a sub-regional level. There have also been increasing freedoms and flexibilities provided to cities and city regions following the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (DBIS, 2009). This allowed the creation of ‘Combined Authorities’ covering multiple local authority areas. Such authorities have become responsible for the determination of some central government expenditure at a local level including transport and economic development and regeneration. This also reflects an emphasis on localism and community self-help (for example, with the DCLG, 2011; Localism Act, 2011) alongside priorities for securing economic and housing growth through an explicit neo-liberal economic agenda. Nevertheless, questions remain over the extent to which rural regeneration issues and interests are reflected in such governance arrangements (see Chapter 3). Thus, while the implications of changes in governance structures for rural regeneration policy have already been discussed extensively, it can be summarised that rural regeneration policy in England has a broader multi sectoral focus, is more focused around place and with an increasing emphasis on local approaches to delivering rural regeneration – outside of EU-funded LEADER arrangements – through neighbourhood plans (again see Chapter 2). Objects of governance for rural regeneration significantly widened following the publication of the Rural White Paper in 2000 (DETR/MAFF, 2000), and with such an approach supported by efforts focused on the mainstreaming and rural proofing of government policies. Hence there is arguably a ‘wider than farming approach’ although there has been a subsequent retrenchment toward agriculture, and with a national level approach to rural regeneration being absent (Table 6.1). Moreover, the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) is now the main lever that the national Government – through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) – can use to invest in and shape rural regeneration. Hence the possibility for supporting wider rural regeneration activities beyond agriculture and environmental public goods has become more limited over time. Table 6.1 and the preceding discussion highlight the temporal, structural and spatial variations in the nature of rural regeneration policy and governance across the different devolved territories of the UK. While devolution may be emblematic of the ‘hollowing out’ of the state, it is also evident that the state has also been ‘filled in’ by new institutions and structures operating at a sub-national scale. However, in the context of rural regeneration, there are variable geometries of

152 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

complexity and contingency associated with the twin process of hollowing out and filling in. As such, there has been multi scalar ‘filling in’ taking place. For example, in terms of structural filling in – and the establishment or reconfiguration of new organisational forms of governance and engagement for rural regeneration – there was substantial restructuring of rural regeneration policy and governance in the years following devolution. For example, in all four territories new organisational structures for delivering rural regeneration were created at a national level (such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – DEFRA in England and the Rural Policy Unit within the Welsh Assembly Government in Wales), but also subnationally too (for example, Rural Partnerships in Scotland and Regional Development Agencies in England). Nevertheless, while there have been attempts over time at the de-statisation of rural regeneration governance structures, such as the reliance on programmes such as LEADER and ‘bottom up’ rural regeneration (including the creation of a Rural Parliament in Scotland), there is also some evidence of the re-statisation of responsibilities for rural regeneration. In England, the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities led to DEFRA becoming the ‘rural champion’ while in Wales a Department for Agriculture and Rural Affairs within the Welsh Government was created to champion rural life and improve the rural economy. The consequences of structural filling in have been varied in terms of rural regeneration policy, as discussed above. For example, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rural regeneration policy is arguably more centralised, sectoral and agriculturally dominated than is the case in England (where there has been an attempt to create a more place-based and unified approach across central government departments through a focus on mainstreaming and rural proofing). Such variations may be reflective of the variegated nature of rural areas – for example, issues of land ownership are more evident in Scotland, as well as the importance of national political ideologies. With reference to the latter, sectarian overtones have influenced policy-making in Northern Ireland and with a focus on ensuring agricultural interests are balanced across different religious communities. In addition, the importance of agriculture within national governance frameworks and the prioritisation of agriculture and food production within the Rural Development Plans / Programmes (RDPs) for each devolved territory has often marginalised wider rural regeneration concerns. This is particularly the case in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Moreover, an interview conducted with a rural development officer in Wales exploring the ways in which rural regeneration policy was being implemented at a devolved level during the period of writing this book highlighted the pre-eminence of agriculture within rural regeneration policy, and the importance of EU funds therein: There is now a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform unit rather than a Rural Policy Unit in the Welsh Government … The farming lobby in Wales has a hell of

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 153

an influence. You have got your farming unions. And they have got the ear of the minister. And they have regular meetings. They are hugely influential. (Rural Development Officer, Local Authority 1 Wales, December 2015) and … nationally, the Government will be the key player in respect of agriculture. They will still decide what will happen with agriculture and the environment. There will be a lot more environmental stuff going on with the new RDP. But that will be centrally-led. (Rural Development Officer, Local Authority 1 Wales, December 2015) In terms of relational filling in – involving the extent to which new arrangements for rural regeneration across the UK are shaped from within each devolved territory, as well as from elsewhere – there is contradictory evidence. On the one hand, an increasing reliance on EU funding and RDPs has led to policy convergence for rural regeneration over time, and support for the assertion of institutional, policy and strategy isomorphism in the devolved UK (see Shaw et al., 2009). The 2014–2020 EU Rural Development Regulation – which provides the basis for the production of RDPs by each EU member state – highlights how there are six broad priorities for the EU on Rural Development (and which encapsulates rural regeneration), of which Member States must aim to meet at least four. This has meant an increasingly similar focus emerging between different RDP areas for governing and delivering rural regeneration. For example, even in England – and where a place-based approach to rural regeneration has developed alongside a focus on mainstreaming and rural proofing – the RDP is being used by DEFRA – like elsewhere – as a nationally focused programme to deliver competitiveness in the agricultural sector. Furthermore, more local investment in rural areas is delivered via LEADER, which is also the case in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. While similar structures and policies may be emerging across the devolved UK, the extent to which they have been informed from elsewhere is more open to question. UK-wide forums, such as the UK Rural Policy and Practitioners Group (RPPG) have brought organisations with rural interests across the UK together, to share knowledge and to discuss relevant rural issues. But the differing political contexts and emphases – for example, on an economic and localisation mix (England), social justice (Scotland and to a lesser extent, Wales) and / or addressing sectarian issues (Northern Ireland) has meant that differing structures and scales of rural governance have emerged over time, and impacted on relational filling in processes. Sub-regional structures such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) have become key delivery mechanisms for the new RDP in England, yet in Northern Ireland there is more focus on both the national and local level for delivery given the implementation of the

154 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Review of Public Administration (RPA) in 2015 and the local government structure created. Hence structural filling may impinge on the extent of relational filling in that takes place. This was summarised in Wales as follows: We are not particularly good at doing strategic co-operation projects. These are always the ‘add on’ at the end … we used to do a lot more with England. But they restructured. The RDAs were disbanded and everything was taken back centrally. I have no idea who is delivering it now. And I have no idea what is being covered. We don’t even look that way now. (Rural Development Officer, Local Authority 1 Wales, December 2015) and I lost touch when they started to reorganise the English counties. I don’t know who is in charge of the English programmes now … and I don’t need any more headaches. (Rural Development Manager, Local Authority 1 Wales, December 2015) A final – and related point – which therefore emerges in terms of the importance of EU funding and the extent of policy learning / institutional learning from elsewhere relates to the ‘impedimenta state’ (Jones, 2010). The evidence suggests that the ability of the devolved administrations in the UK to innovate and develop locally specific responses reflecting the regeneration needs of rural communities can be questioned. Indeed, through drawing on research conducted in Wales, two issues can be highlighted. First, a reliance on the RDPs and a single funding stream can impede the ability to fund and deliver a wider range of rural regeneration activities, which reflect local circumstances. Second, territorially specific, as well as pan-UK networks, may be undermined by their lack of autonomy and lack of resources: We used to have direction from the Welsh Government on rural issues. But now it is just hanging there. In Wales, they (the Government) just published the new Rural Development Plan for Wales. And that was it … they (Welsh Government) are so paranoid about anything going wrong with the RDP because it is linked to CAP payments. If the RDP screws up then all the CAP payments are screwed up too. So, it is serious stuff. But how can you develop a rural programme which is supposed to be innovative and risky into that kind of regime? (Rural Development Manager, Local Authority 1 Wales, December 2015) and The Wales Rural Network is a complete and utter waste of space. It is mandatory to have a rural network. But the rural network should not be attached to the managing

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 155

authority (Welsh Government). It is just another branch of Welsh Government. It has been a complete abomination. (Rural Development Officer, Local Authority 1 Wales, December 2015)

Rural Regeneration Programmes in the Devolved UK – Lessons from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland Having focused on the ways in which rural regeneration policy and governance have evolved in the UK over time, and the similarities and differences between each devolved territory, this section now considers a key rural regeneration-related programme in each devolved territory that has been developed since devolution was instigated (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; see Chapter 2 for England). In particular, the challenges of delivering such programmes are focused upon, as well as drawing out the wider lessons that emerge in a rural context.

Wales – Communities First Launched in 2001 as a response to a perceived failure of grant-aided regeneration projects in deprived areas, ‘Communities First’ was the partnership-based flagship Welsh Government Programme to tackle regeneration in the most disadvantaged areas of Wales. Communities First predominantly targeted areas within cities, coastal towns and the South Wales valleys communities, but with a number of rural areas also included within the programme. While it initially focused on the 100 most deprived wards across Wales, as identified by the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, it also focused on a number of additional pockets of deprivation at a sub-ward level and ‘communities of interest’, which encapsulated a number of rural areas and which were not geographically contiguous. In total, 149 areas of Wales were targeted through the Communities First programme following an initial round of designations in 2001 and a further round in 2007 (see Table 6.2). 66 (44%) of the areas were regarded as ‘valleys’, 57 (38%) were ‘urban’ and 26 (17%) were ‘rural’. The balance between different types of area varied between the two ‘rounds’ of designation. In 2001, the main emphasis was on the valleys whereas in the 2007 designation, urban areas were dominant. The coverage of rural areas was almost entirely due to the 2001 round (Welsh

TABLE 6.2 Classification of Communities First Areas

Designation Round

Valleys

Urban

Rural

Total

2001 2007 All

59 (47%) 7 (30%) 66 (44%)

42 (33%) 15 (65%) 57 (38%)

25 (20%) 1 (4%) 26 (17%)

126 23 149

Source: Welsh Government (2011).

156 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Government, 2011, p.16) and with such programmes predominantly located in Flintshire, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Powys. Rural communities were defined by the list of rural wards contained in the Wales Rural Development Plan (ibid.). Arguably, the lack of focus on rural areas reflected the fact that funding was targeted on the basis of need. Consequently, many rural areas were excluded given the lack of distinct spatial concentrations of deprived households in rural settings. While there are people experiencing poverty and deprivation throughout rural areas, they often live in close proximity to people with a far greater degree of affluence. Hence pockets of deprivation in rural areas frequently remain hidden given that the geographical units used to target funding (such as Communities First) cover larger administrative areas (National Assembly for Wales, 2017; Welsh Government Rural Development Sub-Committee, July 2008). Indeed, one rural partnership commented on Communities First as being a “very urban model of delivery, not necessarily suited to the needs of small villages” (Welsh Government, 2011, p.35). Hence predominantly rural local authorities’ share of Wales’ low-income households was higher than their share of the Wales Communities First budget (Response from Isle of Anglesey County Council in partnership with Mon Communities First to Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee, 2015). Around £43 million was spent on Communities First Partnerships in rural areas (17% of partnerships; 14% of spend), as opposed to £113 million in urban areas and £143 million in the valleys (Welsh Government, 2011, p.31). An evaluation of Communities First in 2011 by the Welsh Government identified that there was a tendency for rural areas to outperform other areas, and particularly since 2007 when worklessness rates across all area types rose as a consequence of the global economic recession (Welsh Government, 2011, p.52). Nevertheless, it was noted how ‘success’ “tends to mean different things in different areas … in a small rural area it is often mainly about addressing immediate environmental issues whereas in larger urban areas it can be about achieving a more holistic approach to address deep-seated and inter-linked issues” (ibid., p.105). In addition, the review of the programme found that there had been ‘programme creep’, given that the revision of the WIMD in 2005 led to a move to lower (sub-ward) level geographies and the addition of further areas in the 10% most deprived areas of Wales. In addition, the lack of ‘programme bending’, whereby mainstream funders change their ways of working to deliver more effective services in response to a better identification and understanding of needs developed by the local communities, was also noted as diluting the effectiveness of activities (Welsh Government, 2011, also see Hincks and Robson 2010, p.9). The programme was additionally criticised for an absence of national and local level baselines to monitor progress (Welsh Government, 2011). The Communities First programme was therefore refocused toward fewer, larger areas covering populations of between 10,000 and 15,000, known as ‘Communities First Clusters’. Such clusters, numbering 52 in total, were targeted on the most vulnerable living in the 10% most deprived areas in Wales

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 157

(according to the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2011). Each Cluster had a Lead Delivery Body (LDB) to engage local communities through a Community Involvement Plan, which was also responsible for managing and facilitating the delivery of local activities. The activities of each Cluster were based around a number of outcomes (Health and Well-being, Education and Skills and the Economy) detailed in a ‘Communities First Outcome Framework’, and which were formulated in order to provide a clearer view of what had been achieved by each Cluster. In essence, the restructuring of the programme from 2012 meant that fewer rural communities were covered in Wales. As such, existing programmes targeted on rural communities such as those in Powys (i.e. Communities First Bro Dyfi – Dyfi Valley and Oldford Estate) and Ceredigion (i.e. Tregaron Upland Villages) were no longer able to benefit from Communities First monies, although £650,000 of transition funding was made available across those areas leaving the programme (Shipton, 2013). In addition, other rural programmes in Gwynedd (Pen Llyn and Bowydd a Rhiw) and Flintshire (North Flintshire) were also excluded. The remaining rural Communities First programmes in Gwynedd (Talysarn) and Flintshire (Flint Rural) were therefore reorganised into more spatially coherent and larger areas covering populations of 8,774 and 9,280 respectively (Gwynedd County Council, 2012). But criticisms emerged in relation to the programme becoming increasingly ‘top heavy’ due to the emphasis on target setting and which arguably discouraged individuals from engaging (National Assembly for Wales 2017, p.14). In total, between 2001 and 2017, over £300 million (£30 million to £40 million per annum) was allocated to the Communities First Programme. However, in 2017 it was announced that the programme was to be discontinued. The key rationale for withdrawing support was that it had failed to significantly raise prosperity levels in the most disadvantaged areas of Wales, and with poverty rates remaining well above national averages (National Assembly for Wales, 2017). Many suggested that it had been doomed to fail from the outset given its focus on a small proportion of people on poverty-level incomes, and with employment and welfare reform measures (to address the structural drivers of poverty) being much more important in shaping poverty levels than any local initiative (Bevan Foundation, 2016). As a result, it was replaced from April 2018 with a new approach focusing on employment and early years interventions in an attempt to target the root causes of poverty (Shipton, 2017). In a rural context, the programme was compromised in terms of its ability to address issues such as too few jobs, seasonal employment and underemployment, a lack of benefit uptake and access to health-related local resources (such as fruit and vegetables nearby) (Bevan Foundation, 2016). Partnership working was also problematic given the dispersed nature of partners in rural areas (Adamson and Bromiley, 2013; Edwards et al., 2001). Others noted how the boundaries of Communities First programmes in rural areas excluded those

158 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

who were ‘hidden’ outside of such areas (National Assembly for Wales, 2015). Nevertheless, on a more positive note it was recognised that Communities First had helped over the years to facilitate trust in local rural services, as well as providing access to local services that otherwise would have been difficult to reach for those without private transport in rural areas (Bevan Foundation, 2016).

Scotland – People and Communities The ‘People and Communities Fund’ launched in Scotland in 2012 to help support the delivery of the Scottish Government’s 2011 Regeneration Strategy. £6 million per annum was made available between 2012 and 2015 to support community-led regeneration in Scotland, and with a particular focus on the most disadvantaged communities. These included ‘rural or fragile communities’ (Christie et al., 2017) and with an emphasis on making communities more resilient and sustainable through community involvement (Ekos and Avril Blamey Associates, 2017). The focus was primarily on improving employability and preventative actions, including training and up-skilling, volunteering and employability advice and funding for community facilities. Around 140 projects – a number of which were located in rural areas – were funded between 2012 and 2015, representing a total funding commitment of £16.721 million (Christie et al., 2017). Each project had to demonstrate the involvement of local people in both governance and delivery structures, and with ‘community anchor’ organisations having to show that they worked in partnership with the public, private and voluntary / third sector (Tabner, 2014). A review of the People and Communities Fund carried out for the Scottish Government highlighted a number of positive aspects of the programme in rural areas. Through drawing on three specific rural case studies, it was identified how resources had been used to support social enterprises in rural areas who were working with individuals with mental health or drug addiction problems, and whose needs would otherwise have remained hidden. Such individuals had been encouraged to undertake paid work placements which had strengthened their self-worth and esteem. Funding had also been used to support local community trusts with community transport and ‘handyman’ schemes in remote rural areas, which had provided “lifeline services to rural elderly and disabled people” (Ekos and Avril Blamey Associates, 2017, p.17). In overall terms, the approach was perceived as enhancing individual’s skills and capacities in rural communities, which had impacted positively on their ability to engage in the local community and to support community-led regeneration. However, the extent to which local individuals and other organisations were equally involved in the design, management and delivery of local services and activities (also known as ‘co-production’) was more variable. While one rural project had focused on involving and responding to the needs of the entire local community as a whole, others focused on the needs of a particular target group.

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 159

Therefore, a key message which emerged was for a more inclusive and broadranging approach to be developed which encapsulated a number of different ‘target groups’ and ‘people in need’ across entire rural communities (ibid., p.7). Compared to the Communities First programme in Wales (see above), the People and Communities initiative was also relatively modest in nature in terms of its duration and resources, and arguably reflected a declining focus on disadvantaged neighbourhoods in both urban and rural Scotland over time (Milne and Rankine 2013, p.5). It was also heavily oversubscribed meaning that an uneven geography of support emerged, and with many rural communities losing out given that concentrated poverty was less evident. Concerns were also raised that due to the requirement to work in partnership and the need to adhere to strict eligibility criteria, many rural community organisations had less influence in responding to local issues, and with public sector organisations using such funds to deliver their own priorities through ‘top down’ approaches (Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 2015). Following the launch of the Community Empowerment and Renewable Act (Scottish Government, 2015), the People and Communities fund (£10.75 million for 2016/2017) was subsequently integrated with two other programmes – the ‘Strengthening Communities Programme’ and the ‘Community Choices Fund’ – to become part of the Scottish Government’s ‘Empowering Communities Fund’. The overall intention was to ensure that communities had a stronger voice in the decisions that mattered to them (Ekos and Avril Blamey Associates, 2017) and to develop more resilient communities in Scotland. Both ambitions reflect the Scottish Government’s 2011 strategy – ‘Our Rural Future’ – which set out a vision for rural communities taking control of local assets and providing local services to generate income and employment (Skerratt, 2013). Nevertheless, the extent to which more empowered and resilient rural communities will be developed through such measures of support has been questioned. Steiner (2014) has challenged the notion that all rural communities can be equally empowered either through exogenous (external) or endogenous (internal) measures. In this respect, he has argued for the need to work with less-resourced communities, as traditional forms of community regeneration support – for example, through LEADER or People and Communities (in the context of Scotland) – tend to be allocated to more ‘capable’ communities. Thus, he charts the types of activities – for example, funding, support of a project manager, being part of a wider regional programme, development of social capital through community involvement and the development of new resources – required to progress from community engagement and participation to full community empowerment. As such, there is considerable validity in his statement that it is unrealistic to expect every rural community to be ready to do all of these things itself (ibid.).

160 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Northern Ireland - Rural Development Programme (RDP) Given the increasing importance of EU funding for rural development and regeneration, along with the fragmented nature of rural regeneration initiatives in Northern Ireland, the Rural Development Programme (RDP) is the closest approximation to a strategic approach to rural regeneration in this part of the UK (Muir, 2014). Funded largely through the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF), along with European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) monies, it has also been a key vehicle for taking forward the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development’s (DARD) rural strategy. There have been three successive RDPs for Northern Ireland covering the periods 2001–2006, 2007–2013 and 2014–2020. Therefore it is instructive to consider evaluations of previous programmes, and some of the lessons learned. The 2017–2013 RDP – managed by DARD – valued approximately £540 million and was constructed around four axes: i) to improve the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry; ii) to improve land management; iii) to improve quality of life in rural areas and encourage diversification of economic activity; and iv) to implement the LEADER approach (Shortall and Kelly, 2013). The delivery of the programme was through three groups. First, an external body to implement a number of farming-related measures; second, DARD ‘in house’ delivery to deliver a number of agriculture and land management schemes; and third, the LEADER structure (see Chapter 4) to implement broader social and quality of life issues (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2010). Evaluation of the 2007–2013 RDP programme highlighted a number of important issues. On a positive front, the programme was identified as having wide spatial impacts across Northern Ireland, including targeting of the most disadvantaged rural areas. It was also perceived as being better managed that the previous RDP programme (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2010). Specific measures were also included to take forward rural regeneration under the ‘quality of life’ axis, including integrated village initiatives to promote cross-community development and regeneration. Key impacts of the village initiative included physical improvements to rural villages, such as the improvement of walkways, signage and the enhancement of buildings and frontages; economic improvements through tourism activities and social and environmental improvements through village hall and community centre refurbishment in order to provide community facilities (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2016, p.226). However, a number of problems were also noted in respect of the implementation of the 2007–2013 programme. In a regeneration context, the speculative nature of applications under the LEADER axis was deemed to be problematic, and “clogged up the system and slowed down application processing times” (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2012, p.6). Consequently, it was identified that funds should be redirected to strategic projects “to enable local government to bring forward projects in

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 161

partnership to impact on a wider catchment area” (p.7). In the context of village renewal, this increased the number of initiatives taken forward from four in 2010 to 49 in 2012 (p.10), and 257 by the end of the programme. The population estimated to have benefitted was 232,485, representing 35% of the rural population (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2016). Nevertheless, some criticised this approach on the basis that it arguably compromised – at least to a degree – the emphasis on community-led, bottom-up responses to local issues (Northern Ireland Rural Development Council, 2014). Other problems identified in respect of the previous RDP in Northern Ireland included issues of securing match-funding in a rural context, the lack of pro-active targeting of women and young people to participate in the programme and tensions between farming and rural lobbies over the nature of rural regeneration activities to be prioritised (see Shortall and Kelly, 2013; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2010). In response, a number of possibilities for enhancing the RDP approach were identified including greater exploitation of rural–urban inter-linkages, improving co-ordination between government departments to address rural issues, and simplifying management and administrative procedures, including LEADER delivery structures and the quality of applications (for example, through the use of local ‘animateurs’) (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2016). In addition, the further prioritisation of ‘less favoured areas’ in the West of Northern Ireland was also noted, as well as improving links between farming and non-farming stakeholders (Northern Ireland Rural Development Council, 2014). The 2014–2020 RDP for Northern Ireland has attempted to integrate such ‘lessons’ and there is a continued focus on local regeneration via LEADER, and with an emphasis on improving access to basic services for more remote rural populations (around one third of the total rural population). Six priority areas are contained within the 2014–2020 RDP. These are focused on: i) innovation in agriculture and forestry; ii) improving the competitiveness of the agriculture sector and sustainable forestry; iii) enhancing food chains and the marketing of agricultural products; iv) ecosystem preservation and enhancement; v) securing resource efficiencies and mitigating climate change; and vi) social inclusion and local development in rural areas. In respect of the latter area, every rural resident in Northern Ireland is covered by a LEADER programme and with around £70 million available for local development activities in total (European Commission, 2015). Such funds are distributed across four key areas of activity, and with LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGs) responsible for the implementation of a number of activities:  

Rural Business Investment Scheme (£27 million): Support for investments in the creation and development of non-agricultural micro and small business activities. Rural Basic Services Scheme (£15 million): Support for investments in the setting up, improvement or expansion of local basic services for the rural population including leisure and culture, and related infrastructure.

162 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

 

Rural Broadband Scheme (£2 million): Support for community led broadband infrastructure, including its creation, improvement and expansion and provision of access to broadband and public e-government. Village Renewal Scheme (£8 million): Support for drawing up and updating of plans for the development of municipalities and villages in rural areas and their basic services, and also protection and management plans relating to areas of high nature value. Source: Northern Ireland Assembly Briefing Paper (2016, p.2)

Nevertheless, given that funding is being allocated in line with each of the six priority areas, it has been noted that there is a need to integrate farm and nonfarm activities (Northern Ireland Rural Development Council, 2014) as well as to integrate the local development strategies of LEADER programmes with the community planning activities of local authorities in Northern Ireland (ibid.).

Summary This chapter has highlighted the complexity of rural regeneration arrangements in the devolved UK. From a theoretical perspective, the chapter initially drew on the SRA to provide new insights into the complexity of ‘hollowing out’ and ‘filling in’ with respect to rural regeneration policy and governance in the UK. The use of the SRA framework highlighted how past, current and future forms of rural regeneration in the devolved UK – in terms of governance, policy and practice – can all be understood in the context of the changing nature of state institutions, as well as national and local political strategies. In so doing, it becomes possible to understand how new objects of governance for rural regeneration may emerge in particular places, at particular times and across varying territorial scales according to the predominant social and political forces at work. In Northern Ireland, the design and implementation of regeneration policy has been a fractured process. Political and constitutional factors have combined with economic efficiency concerns to inform the development of a state project concerned with balancing sectarian interests, as well as a concern by the state on modernising public services and securing institutional and service integration. A wider set of partners are now involved in rural regeneration but with the predominance of agriculture as a key object of governance remaining. In contrast in Scotland, successive governments have reiterated a national centreleft-focused state project around securing equality, fairness and social justice. Hence key objects of governance for rural regeneration have been focused around land reform, addressing issues of peripherality, social inclusion and increasingly the empowerment of communities to secure rural community resilience. However, policy-making has remained relatively centralised with a strong sectoral bias toward agriculture and the environment, as opposed to being place-based. This has left limited scope for pursuing wider rural regeneration.

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 163

In Wales, a national state project concerned with securing integration and resource efficiencies has informed the basis of public sector reform, including the promotion of citizen-centred public services and closer engagement with local communities. Objects of governance for rural regeneration in Wales have therefore reflected technocratic national concerns around efficient local service delivery. More specifically, the central thrust has continually predominated around agriculture, and with an agriculturally dominated, centralised sectoral approach to rural regeneration being evident. With reference to England, there has been a different approach involving an emphasis on localism and community self-help alongside priorities for securing economic and housing growth through an explicit neo-liberal economic agenda. In contrast to other parts of the UK, rural regeneration policy in England has a broader multi sectoral focus, has been more focused around place and with an increasing emphasis on local delivery. Nevertheless, in more recent times there has been a subsequent retrenchment toward agriculture, and with a national level approach to rural regeneration being absent. In overall terms, rural regeneration policy across the devolved UK reflects the variegated nature of rural areas, as well as the importance of national political strategies and funding regimes. Despite structural and relational filling in taking various forms and scales across each of the devolved territories, there is increasing evidence that rural regeneration policy is converging given the reliance on EU funds, and with signs of a retrenchment to an agriculturally dominated rural regeneration policy. How this may change in the context of the 2016 EU referendum in the UK will be considered further in the final chapter.

Key Points    



The statutory responsibility for rural regeneration rests with each of the devolved administrations, although in England such matters are decided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Rural regeneration has been socially constructed and implemented differently across the devolved UK. The strategic-relational theoretical framework - and a number of related concepts such as the ‘hollowing out’ and ‘filling in’ of the nation state - can be used for studying the nature of rural regeneration under devolution. The strategic-relational framework highlights how different actors in different parts of the UK have differential abilities to act in and through the devolved institutions of the state to pursue their interests in relation to rural regeneration activity. Evidence from all four areas of the UK reveals that multi scalar ‘filling in’ has taken place. New organisational structures for delivering rural regeneration have been created at a national level but also sub-nationally too. Furthermore, while there have been attempts over time at the de-statisation of rural

164 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration





 





regeneration governance structures, such as the reliance on programmes such as LEADER and ‘bottom up’ rural regeneration, there is also some evidence of the re-statisation of responsibilities for rural regeneration. The consequences of structural filling in have been varied in terms of rural regeneration policy. For example, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rural regeneration policy is arguably more centralised, sectoral and agriculturally dominated than is the case in England. Such variations are reflective of the variegated nature of rural areas – for example, issues of land ownership are more evident in Scotland, as well as the importance of national political ideologies. In terms of relational filling in, there is contradictory evidence. On the one hand, an increasing reliance on EU funding and RDPs has led to policy convergence for rural regeneration over time. But the differing political contexts and emphases – for example, on an economic and localisation mix (England) or social justice (Scotland and to a lesser extent, Wales) has meant that differing structures and scales of rural governance have emerged over time, and impacted on relational filling in processes. In terms of the ‘impedimenta state’, a reliance on the RDPs and a single funding stream has arguably impeded the ability to fund and deliver a wider range of rural regeneration activities reflecting local circumstances. Rural regeneration policies and programmes that have been taken forward in different devolved contexts highlight a number of common issues of concern. These include problems of securing area-based funding in rural settings where poverty or deprivation may be hidden, the unevenness of rural regeneration and the ability of communities to participate in regeneration activities, and tensions between farming and non-farming stakeholders in respect of key objects of governance to be prioritised. In Wales, the boundaries of Communities First programmes in rural areas have served to exclude some individuals experiencing poverty and deprivation but who lived in close proximity to those who were more affluent. Partnership working to deliver rural regeneration has also been difficult due to the dispersed nature of partners. A key lesson from the Communities First programme is that rural regeneration should be more focused on individuals or households experiencing deprivation rather than area-based approaches (see Hincks and Robson 2010, p.9). In Scotland, revenue funding to support vulnerable groups in rural communities (and as provided through the People and Communities programme) has been a critical aspect of the rural community regeneration process, and especially in the context of the withdrawal of public services in rural areas. However, there has been an uneven geography of empowerment of rural communities and consequently the longevity of rural regeneration is an important factor in shaping community engagement and empowerment.

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 165



In Northern Ireland, a key message from the RDP process has been the need to integrate local regeneration strategies with broader community planning approaches although tensions can emerge when developing strategic regeneration projects on the one hand and community-led, bottom-up regeneration schemes on the other. In addition, as Shortall and Kelly (2013, p.9) pertinently highlight, “social isolation, poverty, access to transport, educational, health and other public services are complex social problems and are not peculiar to rural areas. It is therefore unrealistic to expect a single programme – such as the RDP - to single-handedly address all these complex problems”.

Study Questions  

  

How has rural regeneration in each of the devolved territories changed over time? What new governance and policy structures of relevance to rural regeneration have been set up in each devolved territory, and to what extent have these been informed by national political contexts, the nature of rural areas across the UK and / or the availability of national and European funding? Does evidence exist of ‘impedimenta state’ in relation to rural regeneration, and the convergence of governance and policy structures for rural regeneration in a devolved UK? What lessons emerge from different rural regeneration policies and programmes that have been developed in the different devolved territories of the UK? In what ways might there be a refocusing around addressing the needs and opportunities of the wider rural economy and society in each devolved territory following the decision of the UK to leave the EU?

Further Reading / Websites of Relevance For a discussion of the devolution process more broadly in the UK and its variegated impacts, see Jeffrey (2007) and Goodwin et al. (2005):  

Jeffrey, C. (2007). The unfinished business of devolution: seven open questions. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), pp.92–108. Goodwin, M., Jones, M. and Jones, P. (2005). Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state. Regional Studies, 39(4), pp.421–436.

With reference to devolution and area-based regeneration, see Adamson (2010) and Milne and Rankine (2013): 

Adamson, D. (2010). The impact of devolution: area-based regeneration policies in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

166 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration



Milne, A. and Rankine, D. (2013). Reality, resources and resilience: regeneration in a recession. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

In relation to the strategic-relational framework, see Goodwin et al. (2012), as well as Jessop (2008; 1990):   

Goodwin, M., Jones, M. and Jones, R. (2012). Rescaling the state: devolution and the geographies of economic governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jessop, B. (2008). State power: a Strategic Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. Jessop, B. (1990). State theory: putting capitalist states in their place. Oxford: Blackwell.

With reference to structural and relational ‘filling in’, see Shaw and Mackinnon (2011), Shaw et al. (2009) and Jones et al. (2005):   

Shaw, J. and MacKinnon, D. (2011). Moving on with “filling in”? Some thoughts on state restructuring after devolution. Area, 43(1), pp.23–30. Shaw, J., MacKinnon, D. and Docherty, I. (2009). Divergence or convergence? Devolution and transport policy in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C, 27(3), pp.546–567. Jones, R., Goodwin, M., Jones, M. and Pett, K. (2005). Filling in the state: economic governance and the evolution of devolution in Wales. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, pp.337–360.

In relation to the ‘impedimenta state’, see Jones (2010):    

Jones, M. (2010). Impedimenta state: anatomies of neoliberal penality. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(4), pp.393–404. In relation to the nature of rural regeneration in a number of the devolved territories, see: Rowe, F. (2011). Rural policy in Scotland and England: a comparative perspective. Edinburgh: Rural Policy Research Centre. Muir, J. (2014). Regeneration and poverty in Northern Ireland: evidence and policy review. Sheffield: Centre for Regional, Economic and Social Research.

Also see the websites of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (England) and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) (Northern Ireland) respectively:

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 167

Scottish Government – www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration. Welsh Government – http://gov.wales/topics/environmentcountryside/farm ingandcountryside/cap/ruraldevelopment/wales-rural-development-programm e-2014-2020/external-scheme-documentation-2014-2020-rural-development/? lang=en. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (England) – www.gov. uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs. Department for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) (Northern Ireland) – www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-rural-development-programmenirdp-2007-2013-mid-term-evaluation-update.

Bibliography Adamson, D. (2010). The impact of devolution: area-based regeneration policies in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Adamson, D. and Bromiley, R. (2013). Community empowerment: learning from practice in community regeneration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(3), pp.190–202. Bevan Foundation (2016). Goodbye Communities First? Available on-line at: www.beva nfoundation.org/commentary/goodbye-communities-first/ [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Bidwell, L. and Downie, A. (1996). Local rural partnerships: issues for those involved in community work. Edinburgh: Community Learning. Christie, L., Gibb, K., McGregor, A. and McTier, A. (2017). Economic regeneration in Scotland past lessons; current practice; future challenges a report for what works Scotland. What works Scotland. Available on-line at: http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp -content/uploads/2017/08/WWSEconomicRegenerationinScotlandLessonsPracticeCha llenges.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Department for Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS) (2009). Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (2009). London: DBIS. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011b). A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act. London: DBIS. Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (MAFF) (2000). Our countryside: the future. Cm.4909. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 23, pp.111–136. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, pp.289–310. Ekos and Avril Blamey Associates (2017). Review of the community-led regeneration approach as delivered via the People and Communities Fund. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. European Commission (2015). Factsheet on 2014–2020 Rural Development Programme for Northern Ireland. Brussels: European Commission. Goodwin, M., Jones, M. and Jones, P. (2005). Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state. Regional Studies, 39(4), pp.421–436. Goodwin, M., Jones, M. and Jones, R. (2012). Rescaling the state: devolution and the geographies of economic governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

168 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Gwynedd County Council (2012). Communities First Programme – the future. Cabinet Report. Caernarfon: Gwynedd County Council. Hincks, S. and Robson, B. (2010). Regenerating communities first neighbourhoods in Wales. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Isle of Anglesey County Council (2015). Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee. Inquiry into: Poverty in Wales Strand 4.Response from: Isle of Anglesey County Council in partnership with Mon Communities First. Available on-line at: www.senedd.assembly.wales/documents/s36349/PIW%2015%20S4%20Anglesey% 20County%20Council%20in%20partnership%20with%20Mon%20Communities% 20First.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Jeffrey, C. (2007). The unfinished business of devolution: seven open questions. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), pp.92–108. Jessop, B. (1990). State theory: putting capitalist states in their place. Oxford: Blackwell. Jessop, B. (2008). State power: a Strategic Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. Jones, M. (2010). Impedimenta state: anatomies of neoliberal penality. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(4), pp.393–404. Jones, R., Goodwin, M., Jones, M. and Pett, K. (2005). Filling in the state: economic governance and the evolution of devolution in Wales. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(3), pp.337–360. Local Government and Regeneration Committee (2015). Delivery of regeneration in Scotland inquiry. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Milne, A. and Rankine, D. (2013). Reality, resources and resilience: regeneration in a recession. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Muir, J. (2014). Regeneration and poverty in Northern Ireland: evidence and policy review. Sheffield: Centre for Regional, Economic and Social Research. National Assembly for Wales (1998). Government of Wales Act (1998). Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales. National Assembly for Wales (2015). Inquiry into poverty in Wales: poverty and inequality. Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales. National Assembly for Wales (2017). Equality, local government and communities committee. Communities first. Lessons learnt. Full report. Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales. Northern Ireland Assembly (2016). NIRDP 2007–2013 – progress made since mid-term evaluation and overview of issues/difficulties with the Programme. Research and Information Service Briefing Paper (Paper 29/16; NIAR 37–16). Available on-line at: www.niassem bly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2016/agriculture/2916.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Northern Ireland Rural Development Council (2014). Rural Development Programme 2014– 2020 consultation. A response from the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council (RDC). Cookstown: RDC. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (2010). Mid-term evaluation of the mid-term evaluation of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme (NIRDP) 2007–2013. Final Report. Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Final Report. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (2012). Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme (NIRDP) 2007–2013 mid-term evaluation update. Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Final Report. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (2016). Ex-post evaluation of the 2007– 2013 Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme (NIRDP). Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Final Report.

Devolution in the UK and Rural Regeneration 169

Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30(2), pp.156–181. Pemberton, S. and Lloyd, M.G. (2008). Devolution, community planning and institutional de-congestion? Local Government Studies, 34(4), pp.437–451. Pemberton, S., Peel, D. and Lloyd, M.G. (2015). The ‘filling in’ of community-based planning in the devolved UK? The Geographical Journal, 181(1), pp.6–15. Rowe, F. (2011). Rural policy in Scotland and England: a comparative perspective. Edinburgh: Rural Policy Research Centre. Rural Policy Centre (2015). The structure of local government across the UK: differences and similarities. Policy Briefing (RPC PB 2015/01). Edinburgh: Rural Policy Centre. Scottish Executive (1999). Social justice: a Scotland where everyone matters. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Executive (2000). A new approach. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Executive (2003). The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003: community planning: statutory guidance. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Available on-line at: www.gov.scot/ Publications/2004/04/19168/35271 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Scottish Executive (2007). Rural Scotland: better, still, naturally. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Government (2003). Land Reform Act (Scotland). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government (2011). Our rural future. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government (2015). Community Empowerment and Renewable Act (2015). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government (2016). Land Reform Act (Scotland). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Office (1995). Rural white paper for Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Office. Shaw, J. and MacKinnon, D. (2011). Moving on with ‘filling in’? Some thoughts on state restructuring after devolution. Area, 43(1), pp.23–30. Shaw, J., MacKinnon, D. and Docherty, I. (2009). Divergence or convergence? Devolution and transport policy in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C, 27(3), pp.546–567. Shipton, M. (2017). Anti-poverty programme Communities First is killed off by Welsh Government. Available on-line at: www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/anti-poverty-p rogramme-communities-first-12604423 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Shortall, S. and Kelly, R. (2013). Reviewing the EU Rural Development Programme; available on-line at: www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/Documents/RaISe/knowledge_excha nge/briefing_papers/shortall_kelly120913.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Skerratt, S. (2013). Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: Evidence from community land ownership. Journal of Rural Studies, 31(1), pp.36–46. Tabner, K. (2014). A review of Scottish Government regeneration funds. SURF Scotland’s Independent Regeneration Network. Available on-line at: www.surf.scot/wp-content/uploa ds/2013/05/Final-version-funding-report-for-respondents.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Wales Rural Observatory (2009). Deep rural localities. Cardiff: Wales Rural Observatory. Available on-line at: www.walesruralobservatory.org.uk/sites/default/files/DeepRura lReport_Oct09_0.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Welsh Government (2006). Government of Wales Act (2006). Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government (2011). The evaluation of Communities First. Social Research. Number 16/2011. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government (2015). Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

170 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Welsh Government Rural Development Sub-Committee (2008). Poverty and deprivation in rural Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Williams Commission on Public Service, Governance and Delivery (2014). Full report. Available on-line at: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/improvingservices/public-service-go vernance-and-delivery/report/?lang=en [Accessed 18 July 2018].

7 CONCLUSION

Introduction To this point in the book, the focus has been on the emergence of rural regeneration in the UK, how it has evolved under devolution and how it has been differentially managed and governed. The provenance of rural regeneration policy set out in Chapter 2, and further elaborated in Chapter 4, identified how rural regeneration policy emerged from the shadow of urban regeneration in the UK – and particularly during the 1990s in respect of a move to involving local communities in the regeneration process (for example, through programmes such as the Single Regeneration Budget; see McAreavey, 2004). But the importance of Europe in shaping regeneration in a rural context was also discussed, including the importance of ‘neo-endogenous’ rural development (Ray, 1999) and delivered though programmes such as LEADER and the Rural Development Programme (RDP). Chapters 4 and 5 additionally highlighted the distinctiveness of rural regeneration in a number of ways – for example, in terms of how culture and regeneration have been brought together in rural contexts, and the importance of community-led bottom up approaches (such as LEADER) as an integral feature of rural regeneration. The latter is also reflective of ‘the new rural development paradigm’ (Van der Ploeg et al., 2000). This drew attention to a differentiated countryside and the differential resources which local areas could utilise to deliver rural regeneration through mobilising local and extra-local networks and actors. The importance of community-led approaches is therefore a distinguishing characteristic of rural regeneration. This cannot be under-estimated given “the effective cessation of regeneration as a form of state sponsored public policy” following the global financial crash of 2007/2008 and with public sector retrenchment under

172 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

the coalition Government in the UK from 2010 (Hall, 2016, p.1). As such, the era of the state underwriting regeneration activity – certainly in the context of the UK – has passed. Indeed, O’Brien and Matthews (2015) have argued that we have now entered a post-regeneration era. In so doing, they contend that the withdrawal of state funding for (urban) regeneration has led to the decentralising of responsibility and with an emphasis on communities delivering regeneration rather than it being a task for government. Given the tradition of community-led approaches to delivering regeneration in the rural, the lack of funding for rural regeneration and a traditional discourse of ‘community self-help’, a key question relates to how far rural regeneration can be solely delivered through such an approach (O’Brien and Matthews, 2015). Furthermore, the emphasis on focusing regeneration on areas of market opportunity by the UK government means that areas outside of London and the South East – including rural areas – run the risk of becoming increasingly marginalised (Hall, 2016). The overall impression is that of a selective prioritisation of urban areas over rural areas, and while rural–urban interdependencies are of relevance to sub-regional governance arrangements in England (i.e. LEPs), further questions arise as to the relative importance of the rural as we move forward. The “rural as an appendage to the locomotive of the urban” (Shucksmith, 2008, p.64) certainly appears to prevail in many areas of England. Nevertheless, the 2016 European Union referendum result in the UK focused attention on ‘left behind’ places sidelined in the post-regeneration era identified by O’Brien and Matthews (2015). Lupton and Crisp (2018) argue that this has created space for new thinking about the nature of regeneration required to address the challenges of those places and areas experiencing ongoing challenges of deprivation and disadvantage. This, in turn, may provide the opportunity to consider new ways of linking rural and urban regeneration together, although there is also a need to overcome perceptions of the rural idyll to highlight the distinctive regeneration needs of rural communities. For example, challenges of low-paid and seasonal work, access, poor infrastructure (virtual and structural) and the “absence of clusters or any sort of scale … compound the problem (of delivering rural regeneration)” (Paver, 2016). Improving digital connectivity in rural areas is perceived as one key policy response, yet “progress has been painfully slow” (ibid.). Moreover, given the increasing reliance on EU funds for rural regeneration – for example through the Rural Development Programme (RDP) – the impact of the EU referendum result in the UK may be far reaching in respect of addressing the regeneration needs of rural areas. The structure of the chapter reflects the above concerns. First, the implications of the EU referendum result are considered for rural regeneration in different parts of the UK. The rest of the chapter then utilises such arguments, as well as material from the preceding chapters of the book, in order to set out a number of propositions for rural regeneration as we move into the future, along with a discussion of the implications arising for theory, policy and practice.

Conclusion 173

The EU referendum and Rural Regeneration in the United Kingdom The links between devolved and national approaches to rural regeneration in the UK and the European context has been alluded to in previous chapters (for example, see Chapter 2 on the importance of Europe in shaping regeneration policy; Chapter 4 for a discussion of LEADER and Chapter 6 for devolved UK approaches). At a European level, there has been a shift away “from supporting sectoral policies (agriculture) to supporting more spatial (rural) policies” (Shortall, 2004, p.110; cited in Juppenlatz, 2015). This has been reflected in reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This was traditionally a sectoral policy focused around guaranteeing farm incomes (Juppenlatz, 2015) but which has been reformed over time in order to create arrangements for integrated rural development. Indeed Agenda 2000 – pivotal to CAP reform – set out a requirement for each EU member state to produce an integrated (spatial) Rural Development Programme (RDP) under ‘Pillar 2’ of the CAP, and to be delivered through partnership-based approaches, including community-led local development (CLLD) programmes such as LEADER. Box 7.1 summarises the focus of the 2014–2020 RDPs for each area of the UK. It is clear that the EU is a fundamental source of funding for regenerating rural areas through the RDP process.

BOX 7.1 SUMMARY OF 2014–20 RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN THE UK England: €4.056 billion is available for the period 2014–2020. The main objective is better management of natural resources and the wider adoption of farming practices which are climate friendly. There is a particular emphasis on Priority 4 (agriculture and forestry ecosystems). The five biggest RDP measures in budgetary terms are: €2.81 billion allocated for Measure 10: Agri-Environment Climate €354 million allocated for Measure 4: Productive and non-productive investments €221 million allocated for Measure 8: Forestry €174 million allocated for Measure 19: LEADER €89 million allocated for Measure 7: Basic services and village renewal Scotland: €1.52 billion is available for the period 2014–2020. A central priority of the Scottish RDP is restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry. Approximately 50% of the total funding is allocated to this priority. There is a particular emphasis on

174 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry. The four biggest RDP measures in budgetary terms are:

   

€ € € €

503 323 296 163

million million million million

allocated allocated allocated allocated

to to to to

Areas facing natural constraints Forestry Agri-environment-climate payments Investments in physical assets

Northern Ireland: €646.3 million is available for the period 2014–2020. The focus is mainly on preserving and enhancing ecosystems, local development in rural areas and increasing the competitiveness of the agri-food sector. There is also an emphasis on restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry, as well as the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and sustainable forestry. The four biggest RDP measures in budgetary terms are:

   

€ € € €

282.2 million allocated to investment in physical assets 1285 million allocated to Agri-environment-climate measures 72.8 million allocated to support for areas facing natural constraints 63.9 million allocated to support for LEADER local development

Wales: €972 million is available for the period 2014–2020. The focus is mainly on restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry and enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture and promoting innovative farm technologies and the sustainable management of forests. There is a particular emphasis on Priority 4 (restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry) and on Priority 6 (promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas). The four biggest RDP measures in budgetary terms (total public funding) are:

   

€ 247 million allocated to Measure 10 (Agri-Environment-Climate) € 236 million allocated to Measure 04 (Productive and non-productive investments) € 114 million allocated to Measure 16 (Co-operation) € 82 million allocated to Measure 1 (Knowledge transfer and information actions) Source: EU RDP Countryfile factsheets: UK (https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development2014-2020/country-files/uk_en [Accessed 10 July 2018])

Conclusion 175

But with the EU referendum result of 2016 (where 51.9% of those who participated in the referendum voted for the UK to leave the EU) – this may lead to the CAP no longer applying in the future, and with rural development funding for all four RDPs in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales being withdrawn, as well as funding for programmes such as LEADER (Dwyer, 2018). Given the retrenchment of public sector funding and state withdrawal from the regeneration process, this could have significant effects on rural areas of the UK – and over and beyond the impact on farming. Consequently, Shucksmith (2017) argues that new thinking is required for the UK’s rural areas regardless of the exact nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU in the future – not just in relation to agricultural and environmental policy – but also in relation to broader processes of rural development and regeneration. Indeed, in the post-referendum period, the importance of sustaining funding to deliver rural regeneration through the RDP and initiatives such as LEADER was raised. Drawing on experiences in Northern Ireland, Allen (2016) identified three key issues of relevance: 1.

2.

3.

Value of Rural Development Programmes (RDPs): A focus was placed on the impact of the UK referendum result on exchange rate fluctuations (Euro to £GBP), and how this can negatively impinge on the total budgets of RDP programmes. EU funding commitments to RDPs: Discussions took place over the need to ‘front load’ expenditure on the RDP in order to maximise the draw down of EU funds. There was evidence that the ‘spend profiles’ of the respective RDPs changed following the referendum. Nevertheless, the UK Government committed to guaranteeing funding for RDP projects within the lifetime of the RDP as long as they were deemed to be ‘value for money’ and in line with national strategic priorities. Uncertainty of funds and the implications for project development: Given uncertainties over funding, some commentators suggested that this was detrimentally impacting the number of projects seeking support through programmes such as LEADER, and especially as applicants have to source some element of match funding (and which is a key challenge for many organisations in rural areas given the limited ability to draw on a wide range of funds – see Chapter 1).

From a governance perspective, the result of the EU referendum in 2016 threw into sharp relief questions over the governance of rural regeneration at both a national and sub-national level. Questions have been raised as to whether new governance models are required, and whether new opportunities for collaboration, wider stakeholder involvement and the integration of expenditure and responsibility may emerge (Creamer et al., 2017, p.3).

176 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Given that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that has a land border with the EU (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), cross-border agreements for securing rural regeneration in border communities have become increasingly important with uncertainties over the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This is due to the recognition that rural regeneration is both relational and territorial – it is shaped by the mobilities of people, goods and services across space (and indeed across borders) – but which also has local territorial impacts. As such, rural communities in the border areas of Northern Ireland both shape, and are shaped by, broader relational processes but with individuals benefiting from employment and rural services on both sides of the border (Creamer et al. 2017, pp.7–8). From a policy perspective, the fact that the RDPs for different parts of the UK have had to align with broader development priorities for the EU also means that in theory there is the possibility for rural regeneration activity to be taken forward in a more nuanced way if the UK’s relationship with the EU changes. For example, the Welsh Government noted how “Wales can seize the opportunity to establish new ways of shaping the future in line with current best practice and (to) think inventively about new ways of doing things best suited to our needs” (Dwyer, 2018, p.2). Similarly, in Scotland, Bird (2017) identified that it is important to extend the focus beyond agriculture to other land uses (e.g. forestry) and the wider rural economy following the EU referendum result of 2016. Moreover, Shucksmith (2017, p.1) has stated how “rural policies in England have been ripe for reform for many years”. In turn, he has offered a number of future scenarios for rural areas in the UK. From a regeneration perspective, the most negative scenario involves lower rates of economic growth and taxation, less public monies being available to support rural regeneration, the loss of local services and employment and the lack of support for ‘bottom-up’ communityled initiatives. However, an alternative scenario is offered that involves rural businesses leading the economic recovery and with rural communities thriving due to the growth in employment opportunities and more effective joint working between governmental and non-governmental organisations operating at a local and national level. Arguably both scenarios reflect Hodge and Monk’s (2004) ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’ models of rural change, and the extent to which the rural economy is seen as ‘more than agriculture’, and with new sources of employment complimenting, extending and informing those in traditional land-based industries to promote the regeneration of rural areas. Shucksmith (2017) has also identified the need for new national and local level measures in the post-referendum period and regardless of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This includes the development of a national ‘Rural Industrial Strategy’ addressing skills and training, infrastructure etc., and with sub-national Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) addressing rural (regeneration) issues through funded Rural Action Plans. He also argued that a ‘Rural Communities Strategy’ should be developed in tandem with the rural industrial strategy to provide equal opportunities and fair outcomes for those living in rural areas compared to urban areas (for example, in relation

Conclusion 177

to services, and which acknowledges the increased costs of engaging with users and delivering rural services). Utilising local assets (natural and cultural), providing affordable rural housing and developing a more coherent approach to policy-making and implementation are also advocated. With post-referendum uncertainty, there is also the possibility to revisit the agriculture-rural nexus and to explore new possibilities for rural regeneration that involve the integration of agriculture with wider rural regeneration activity. In relation to Wales, Dwyer (2018, p.2) notes how any change in the UK’s relationship with the EU will be spatially differentiated across rural areas of the country and with the potential for sheep and beef producers to be hardest hit (in north and west Wales) while dairy, horticultural, mixed and other farm types (predominantly in south and east Wales) will potentially be subject to more diverse and positive impacts. In turn, she notes that investing in longer-term partnerships between government (agencies and policy-makers), Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), farmers, rural communities, food retailers, rural service providers, and commercial lenders are all required to promote the resilience of both Welsh agriculture and rural areas more generally, and to deliver stronger business networks and enterprise infrastructure across Wales (Dwyer, 2018, p.23).

Rural Regeneration – Propositions for the Future and the Implications for Theory, Policy and Practice In this section, four propositions for securing more progressive forms of rural regeneration as we move into the future are set out. These reflect upon findings reported elsewhere in the book, as well as drawing upon current activities that are emerging both within the United Kingdom and beyond. Where relevant, the implications for regeneration theory, policy and practice are also considered.

Proposition 1: Rural Regeneration as Community-led: Devolving Responsibility but Retaining Accountability In Chapter 1 and Chapter 4, rural regeneration was characterised as being communityled, and drawing upon local resources to capitalise on rural differences (Woods, 2005). The involvement of local communities in the regeneration process was argued to take a variety of forms, ranging from consultation or engagement through to full community co-production in the design and management of local regeneration projects. A number of important community regeneration programmes have emerged over the last 25 years in the UK, such as LEADER and the Market Towns Initiative. As a response to topdown state-led modernisation programmes, LEADER has been an increasingly important initiative in supporting local people to address the issues and challenges facing their rural communities (Ward, 2006). Nevertheless, challenges focused around the recruitment of volunteers, securing match funding to sustain rural regeneration (Osborne, Williamson and Beattie, 2004); and adopting a neo-endogenous (Ray,

178 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

1999) approach to secure the support of public and private sector bodies within and beyond the rural have all been highlighted (Shucksmith, 2008). The emergence of neighbourhood planning was also discussed in Chapter 4. As an ‘integrative’ measure, it was deemed to offer considerable potential in adopting a ‘whole place’ approach to rural community regeneration and to help engage residents in the design of rural regeneration projects. However, a key criticism of neighbourhood planning has been its focus on housing and economic issues, as opposed to social aspects of regeneration. Crucially, the extent to which neighbourhood planning can deliver change at a local level in the absence of wider support from national government has also been raised (Centre for Cities, 2010b). Furthermore, while neighbourhood planning has been viewed by government as a key instrument in devolving power and responsibility for delivering regeneration at a local level in England (DCLG, 2011b), some have questioned the extent to which national government has also used neighbourhood planning to devolve their responsibility for regeneration per se (see Bentley, Bailey and Shutt, 2010). Indeed, the withdrawal of state funding for regeneration has created an environment in which regeneration is not a task for government, but rather one for communities (O’Brien and Matthews, 2015). However, Phillipson (2017) argues that a reliance on local responses is simply not enough in the face of broader scale processes and policies that impact local economies. Indeed, a reliance on community self-help – a traditional feature of many rural communities – is very dependent on local capacity and may therefore widen inequalities between different rural places and lead to a ‘two-speed countryside’ (ibid.). Saccomani (2016) also refers to the ‘local trap’ and the need for public administrations to provide a greater commitment to addressing social exclusion and community cohesion in both urban and rural areas, which fundamentally means the greater availability and provision of resources to local areas. Hence a first key proposition for rural regeneration as we move into the future is that accountability for delivering rural regeneration should not be the sole preserve of localities. Rather, it should be a shared responsibility between national and local government, as well as local communities. In this respect, one example from outside of the UK is interesting to focus upon, namely the Rural Regeneration and Development Fund in the Republic of Ireland. Referred to as a “game changer for rural Ireland … (with) a massive increase in targeted investment in our rural towns, villages and rural communities” (Michael Ring, Minister for Rural and Community Development; cited in www.finegael.ie/e1-billion-rura l-regeneration-fund-new-money-will-transform-communities-ring/ [Accessed 12 July 2018]), the fund has been established under Ireland’s National Development Plan and aims to co-fund investment projects in towns and villages with a population of less than 10,000, as well as outlying areas. The objective of the fund is to generate coordinated, collaborative packages of action between different central government departments and agencies, local authorities and other public bodies to work with local communities to regenerate rural localities (Department of Rural and Community Development, 2018).

Conclusion 179

€315 million Euros have been allocated to the fund between 2019 and 2022, and with an overall budget of €1billion Euros over the period 2019 to 2027 (ibid.). Examples of projects identified as being suitably placed to benefit from such support included:   

Re-developing the historic and strategically located town of Boyle in County Roscommon, including the re-development of the core of the town. The creation of new tourism and visitor experiences – in conjunction with national and local partners – to deliver the ‘Visitor Resort Project’ in Ballymahon, Longford. The conversion of former peat railways and track ways into cross-country walking and cycling routes, as well as strengthening nearby rural villages and towns as hubs for tourism activity and local businesses in the midlands of the Republic of Ireland. Source: www.farmersjournal.ie/project-ireland-2040-1bn-for-ruralregeneration-348142 [Accessed 12 July 2018]

Two categories of project have initially been funded: ‘Ready-to-Go’ proposals (Category 1) and ‘Proposals with clear potential’ (Category 2), and with the latter projects approved in order to allow detailed development of proposals to be progressed. Proposals must also demonstrate a collaborative approach between two or more organisations (Department of Rural and Community Development, 2018). Consequently, the evidence suggests that the launch of the Rural Regeneration and Development Fund in the Republic of Ireland exemplifies a shared approach to delivering rural community regeneration, which brings national and local actors together and illustrating a firm commitment to regenerating rural areas by national government. Such an approach is currently absent in the UK. However, four issues are already apparent in respect of the fund, which need to be reflected upon First, allocations from the fund are to be made on a competitive basis, and based on quantifiable and measurable progress toward targets set out in the National Development Plan. This runs the risk of the benefits of such funding being unequal and increasing inequalities in the rural, and as discussed above and in terms of previous regeneration programmes such as those that were targeted on rural areas in the UK during the 1990s (for example, Rural Challenge). Second, a ‘management by (national) targets’ approach could restrict the flexibility of the rural regeneration process and constrain local innovation. Third, there is a requirement for some form of partner / local contribution to the funds made available from the Rural Regeneration and Development Fund (25% matched funding). Again, the provision of matched funding has previously been highlighted as problematic in many rural areas (see Osborne et al., 2004) and which may further exacerbate unevenness in respect of rural areas benefiting from new investment. Finally, it is instructive to note that a €2 billion Urban Regeneration Fund has also been launched

180 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

simultaneously in the Republic of Ireland, which will be invested in 41 population centres with a population of 10,000 or more. Questions therefore remain in respect of the prioritisation of the rural vis a vis urban areas.

Proposition 2: Rural Regeneration as a Spatial and Place-based Intervention to Address ‘Left Behind’ Places Beginning with the importance of the rural idyll, Chapter 1 identified how many rural areas are often seen as ‘problem free’ and with poverty being hidden. As a result, it is not surprising to note that UK government policies for regenerating the rural emerged over a longer period of time (compared to the urban) and were more piecemeal, short-term and spatially uneven (Chapter 2). Indeed, an emphasis on area-based targeting – through programmes such as the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and Rural Challenge – were recognised over time as being less successful in addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion given that such issues were less likely to be spatially concentrated in rural areas (Woodward, 1996). Moreover, while programmes such as Rural Challenge and SRB highlighted the varying needs of rural areas and the need for partnership-based responses, they both promoted a spatially uneven approach through their competitive nature. Applications were frequently constructed around schemes that were seen as more likely to ‘win’ rather than being focused on the most problematic issues. More recent community-led regeneration initiatives such as LEADER and the Market Towns Initiative have often had a wider territorial coverage which has extended beyond a particular place and encapsulated more extensive rural territories / hinterlands. While questions remain as to whether a ‘place-first’ or ‘territory first’ approach should be adopted to rural regeneration (see Harrison and Heley, 2015), at the very least such activities have highlighted the need for approaches which can help to join up settlements in rural areas to achieve economies of scale and to secure a better appreciation of how complimentary – rather than competitive-based – approaches can be developed to generate benefits across rural territories (Wade, 2012). However, and as discussed in the previous section, there are differences between rural communities in terms of their resources – both financial and human, as well as assets and networks (physical and virtual) that can be drawn upon to facilitate rural regeneration activity. Hence in Chapter 6, Steiner’s (2014) work in Scotland identified a need for national and local governments to work with less resourced rural communities, rather than more ‘capable’ communities. Consequently, there are on-going challenges of ensuring that different types of rural areas and communities are able to benefit from rural regeneration and in different ways. Therefore, a second proposition for rural regeneration moving forward is that strategies need to both focus on addressing the particularities of

Conclusion 181

rural spaces and places, as well as being more territorially extensive where required, and in order to generate shared outcomes. A more nuanced approach is needed which identifies areas or communities that require support but which have achieved less attention hitherto. Given that countering localised ‘market failure’ (through regeneration as an interventionist activity) has been displaced / replaced by a strategy focused on market opportunity in the UK, this is important. With increasing political attention on ‘left behind’ places following the global financial crash of 2007/2008 and the ‘post-regeneration’ austerity localism era in the UK from 2010 onward (O’Brien and Matthews, 2015), there is a need to consider more closely which rural areas have received less support or intervention to date, and what could or should be done in such areas. An interesting initiative that has been taken forward in one part of the UK – and which exemplifies a more nuanced approach for supporting areas that have received less financial support to date from government and nongovernmental organisations – is the Rural Futures Initiative in Wales. Rural Futures commenced in July 2017 and is a seven-year programme funded by the Big Lottery Fund. It operates in nine rural local authority areas of Wales; focuses on communities of less than 10,000 people and operates in areas that have not previously received Lottery funding. At the outset it is to support at least 20 rural communities – ten in an initial phase and ten in a second phase. A further ten communities may be included at a later stage. The programme builds upon an existing community-based organisation involved in rural development and regeneration activities – the Severn Wye Energy Agency and the Bro Partnership. The ethos is to utilise the knowledge of local people to identify rural challenges and to work with local communities and other partners to address such issues. The overall intentions are to: 

  

empower selected rural communities through tailored targeted support using a mix of established asset-based community development methods coupled with novel, creative approaches to map, identify and realise the potential of local assets. This will also include support through the award of micro-grants to develop capacity and ideas and proposals for projects and initiatives; support asset-based community-led initiatives and projects, seeking to maximise their effectiveness and impact through an enhanced understanding of the contributory issues and factors; provide specialist support to local agencies and organisations working with local communities to enable more effective, knowledge-based cooperative working; ensure robust objective evaluation to monitor the effectiveness of approaches and, equally importantly, to help communities evaluate progress of their initiatives and projects, themselves; and

182 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration



create a range of appropriate routes for dissemination of the findings to inform future policy, practice and intervention. This includes the development of a toolkit based on the programme. Source: www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/global content/programmes/wales/rural-programm e-community-grants [Accessed 12 July 2018]

Over and beyond the above priorities, a number of aspects relating to the approach will warrant further monitoring as the programme is implemented, and which are useful issues to consider in respect of the spatial distribution of rural regeneration activity. First, the programme is actually targeted on areas that have received some type of regeneration support hitherto and / or have some element of communitybased regeneration infrastructure: “We are acutely conscious that there are already hardworking and committed organisations and agencies working in the geographical areas in this programme” (see www.ruralfutures.wales/news.html [Accessed 12 July 2018]). Consequently it is simply focused on areas that have not received any previous lottery funding. Indeed, the programme aims to support existing work and programmes as and when required. In addition, the selection criteria involved the identification of places which would benefit from being involved in the Rural Futures Programme as well as wanting support from it. As a result, there was a requirement for a degree of community advocacy to secure funds from the programme, the support of local partners in the geographical selection of the proposed communities to receive support, and some idea of what types of activities would benefit from receipt of Rural Futures funding. While such aims are laudable, there is a requirement to monitor the extent to which rural areas which have particular needs – but which have no history at all of regeneration working or community regeneration infrastructure – are able to advocate their needs and be considered for future support. Second, a closer inspection of the first ten places to receive funding from the programme (see Box 7.2 below) highlights that at least one community will receive support in each of the rural local authority areas to be targeted through the programme. In addition, communities receiving funding in the second phase will be dependent in part on the findings which emerge from the first phase of the research. This means that while funding is not distributed through competitive means, there could still be a degree of selectivity in respect of future areas to receive funding. Moreover, it will be interesting to monitor the extent to which funding is distributed on the basis of need and on the basis of emerging findings, as opposed to equality in the geographical distribution of funding for future programmes. Finally, funding will be provided for a period of up to three years for each community in the first instance, with a subsequent tapering of funding. Again, lessons from previous programmes such as Communities First in Wales (see Chapter 6) highlight that it may take interventions several generations to make a real difference. Consequently, the ability of regeneration actors to sustain and develop activities initially supported through Rural Futures will be important and will need to be carefully monitored.

Conclusion 183

BOX 7.2 RURAL FUTURES: PHASE ONE  Talybolion area, Anglesey  Deiniolen area, Gwynedd  Bro Machno, Conwy  Rural Llangollen, Denbighshire  Glantwymyn area, North Powys  Sennybridge and the upper Usk valley, South Powys  Llandysul, Ceredigion  Llandovery and surroundings, Carmarthenshire  Kilgetty/Begelly, Pembrokeshire  Rural North East Monmouthshire Source: www.ruralfutures.wales/news.html [Accessed 12 July 2018]

Proposition 3: Existing and Emergent Forms of Governance Need to Recognise the Distinctive Regeneration Needs of Rural Communities In Chapter 1, it was highlighted through Halfacree’s (2006) three-fold model of rural space how evolving approaches to rural regeneration in the UK have prioritised differing aspects of ‘rural locality’, ‘representations of the rural’ and rural ‘everyday lives’. Different approaches to rural regeneration have – over time – reflected broader shifts in the economic, political and social environment and the restructuring and rescaling of structures of rural governance. Additionally, the use of the Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) discussed in Chapters 3 and 6 illustrated how the state may privilege certain interests and new structures and scales of working in respect of rural regeneration over others, including new ‘objects of governance’ for rural regeneration (Jessop, 2008). Strategies of ‘statecraft’ (Bulpitt, 1986a; 1986b; 1983) and ‘scalecraft’ – involving the crafting of particular scales of working to suit particular needs (Fraser, 2010) – were also noted as combining in different ways at different times to shape the way in which rural regeneration unfolded. They also provide the opportunity for certain political interests (within and beyond) rural areas to pursue and implement new sets of regeneration policies at particular scales (and vice versa). From the analysis of a number of key governance structures of relevance to rural regeneration in Chapter 3, as well as in relation to devolved governance structures and policies set out in Chapter 6, several important points emerged. These included i) the state continuing to play a crucial role in the restructuring and rescaling of rural regeneration governance in England; ii) multi scalar ‘filling in’ taking place involving the de-statisation of rural regeneration governance structures, such as the reliance on programmes such as LEADER and ‘bottom up’ rural regeneration, as well the re-statisation of responsibilities for rural regeneration through sub-regional entities such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs);

184 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

and iii) variation in the extent to which rural regeneration policy has focused in different parts of the UK on different issues – for example, on economic development or social justice. The ‘messiness’ and uncertainty of scalecraft was also referred to (Chapter 3) in respect of the emergence and abolition of three of the four entities of relevance to rural regeneration in England since 1997 (i.e. the Rural Development Commission, the Regional Development Agencies and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC). But statecraft was also important given the emergence of new structures and scales of governance for rural regeneration at the sub-regional level in England over time, and in order for successive Governments to try and retain political argument hegemony. Toward the end of Chapter 3, it was argued how the introduction of LEPs and the demise of regional structures and scales of working under the Coalition and Conservative governments in the United Kingdom since 2010 has increasingly marginalised rural ‘objects of governance’ Put simply, it was noted how it may be left to non-state actors to illustrate and justify the need for effective rural regeneration governance structures if the state’s national statecraft ambitions deem the rural to be unimportant or less crucial to achieving its overall objectives. Such concerns have persisted over time and inform a third proposition for the future of rural regeneration – for existing and emergent structures of governance of relevance to delivering rural regeneration to support the regeneration of neglected areas, and the distinctive needs of different rural communities. For example, in 2018, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) published the results of a survey with its local groups and members over the extent to which LEPs – as the key sub-regional governance structure operating between the national and local level in England and with responsibility for administering elements of the Rural Development Programme for England– were addressing the needs of rural areas. What emerged was a perception that LEPs were entrenching inequalities within and between English regions rather than removing them, as well as ignoring the economic, social and environmental needs of rural communities. Indeed, only 21% of LEPs which featured in the survey were perceived as aiding the development of affordable rural housing and just 14% were identified as working to address or improve rural transport (CPRE, 2018). Consequently, it was argued that the absence of investment in rural economies was exacerbating challenges of delivering rural regeneration, housing, sustainable transport, broadband connectivity etc. In terms of ‘objects of governance’, the CPRE report set out a requirement for LEPs to produce a Rural Inclusion Plan to support rural regeneration and “to (address the) imbalance of investment between rural and urban areas … and to help prevent rural communities from being left behind” (CPRE, 2018, pp.1–2). Such plans should additionally set out how agriculture and rural development fund monies are being spent and how the rural proofing of LEP investments is to be addressed, as well as the roll out of broadband connectivity in rural areas.

Conclusion 185

Other policy recommendations that were set out included prioritising sustainable public transport over road building projects in rural areas (and where public transport links are least developed) and distributing funding in a way that prioritised areas of need, rather than focusing primarily on areas of opportunity (CPRE, 2018). In such a way, this informs a third proposition: for regeneration governance structures to support the regeneration of neglected rural areas and the distinctive needs of different rural communities. This is in line with the findings of Powe and Pringle (2017) – as cited in the CPRE (2018) report – which note how small settlements are less likely to gain less attention politically, and reflecting the recursive relationships between the concepts of statecraft and scalecraft.

Proposition 4: Acknowledging Rural–Urban Interdependencies While Recognising that Rural Regeneration Is Different Chapters 2 and 6 discussed the evolution of rural regeneration policy in the UK. It was noted that even in the early 1920s (for example, with the Trade Facilities Bill of 1924), national government viewed the rural and urban as interconnected: the regeneration of rural areas was perceived as a pre-requisite to solving unemployment in cities. Over time, the perception of the rural and urban being entwined has persisted: for example, by the Labour government in the late 1990s when creating Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1997). Nevertheless, the Labour Government also recognised the need for different types of policy solutions in rural areas, and hence published separate rural and urban white papers in 1999 and 2000.. With the subsequent move away from regionalism in England and an emphasis on city regionalism / sub-regional scales of governance in England, policy discourses sought to minimise rural–urban differences. The creation of LEPs in England from 2010 onward prioritised the importance of linking regeneration activities in urban areas to their rural hinterlands. As a result, successive national governments have remained of the view that rural areas do not require specialist intervention and hence there has been the continuation of a discourse, which has sought to minimise rural–urban differences (Woods, 2008, p.7; see Chapter 2). However, concerns have persisted that the rural is perceived as an “appendage of the urban” by national government (Shucksmith, 2008, p.64). As such, the focus on the interdependencies between the rural and the urban have undermined the recognition of the distinctive regeneration needs of rural areas (Pemberton and Shaw, 2012). For example, the Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing in 2008 stated that Government policy was generally focusing on cities as the engines of economic growth and regeneration rather than rural areas (Taylor, 2008). The CRC (2012) also claimed that the emergence of LEPs had led to urban areas benefiting most and with an associated dilution in rural ‘objects of governance’.

186 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

A fourth proposition for the future of rural regeneration therefore entails the need to recognise the ways in which the rural and urban are inter-related, but also ensuring that the specific regeneration needs of rural areas are recognised and addressed. In this respect, the relationship between culture and regeneration discussed in Chapter 5 particularly exemplified some key differences between rural and urban areas. For example, it was noted how proximity, remoteness, peripherality and marginality were all of relevance to the sustainability of rural creative industries (Lysgaard, 2016). Furthermore, the need for non-economic instrumentalised accounts which also considered the importance of individual and community wellbeing in utilising culture to deliver rural regeneration (Scott, Rowe and Pollock, 2018; Lysgaard, 2016) was identified. More broadly, issues relating to proximity, remoteness, peripherality and marginality resonate with early discussions set out in Chapter 1 of the book, These referred to the spatiality of rural areas as a defining feature shaping rural regeneration, along with lower population densities, human and financial resource limitations (often as a result of a lack of economies of scale) and the specificity of governance structures, including the emphasis on ‘community-led’, bottom-up approaches (Osborne et al., 2004). Reflecting such particularities, it is argued that local assets are capitalised upon but with collaborative, rather than competitive-based approaches being promoted and developed in order to raise ‘capacities to act’ within and between different rural communities. In addition, while reference has already been made of the need in a post-referendum era for a new Rural Industrial Strategy and a Rural Communities Strategy encapsulating the whole of England (and arguably the UK), it is imperative that a nuanced and differentiated approach to rural policy both within and across rural areas in each of the devolved territories is prioritised. For example, in 2015, economic output from predominantly rural areas contributed 16.5% of output in England and was worth an estimated £237 billion. Rural businesses also accounted for 25% of all businesses in England in 2014/ 2015 and 30% of those in Scotland in 2016 (House of Commons Library, 2017). Hence an ongoing assessment of the impact of broader economic, political and social processes on different rural localities – economically, socially and environmentally – is required. The 2016 EU referendum also revealed that different parts of the UK face distinctive sets of challenges in the future. For example, in Scotland, the Scottish Government identified that the country faces a distinctive set of demographic challenges compared to the rest of the UK and with “remote and rural communities experiencing or at risk of depopulation needing to attract and retain all their residents (including migrants) in order to maintain livelihoods and economies” (Scottish Government, 2017, p.19). Moreover, it has been noted how immigrants from Europe may contribute to rural community welfare ‘by local for local’ and provide formal and informal welfare support to others (Gallent, Hamiduddin, Juntti, Kidd and Shaw, 2015). But in other parts of the UK, national and local political discourses

Conclusion 187

concerned with migration, as well as demographic pressures, are very different. For example, in England, only ten local authorities in total have a projected population decrease by 2039 (The Rural Coalition, 2017). In addition, the arrival of migrants from Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries since 2004 in many rural areas of England has frequently been reported as placing increasing pressures on rural infrastructure and services, such as housing, health, education and other local services, as well as potentially displacing native residents from the local labour market (Jentsch, Brian and de Lima, 2007). In Wales, language has been the main obstacle to migrant workers integrating within rural communities (Wales Rural Observatory, 2014), while in Northern Ireland the debate has focused on cross-border impacts and access to employment and services (Creamer et al., 2017). Consequently, the challenges of managing, attracting and / or retaining international migrants may be quite different in different rural contexts. This also has implications for the nature of rural regeneration strategies that are developed.

Key Points 



  

Four propositions for securing more progressive forms of rural regeneration relate to i) devolving responsibility but retaining accountability for rural regeneration; ii) focusing on ‘left behind’ rural places; iii) recognising the distinctive regeneration needs of rural communities; and iv) acknowledging rural–urban interdependencies while recognising that rural regeneration is different. While the withdrawal of state funding for regeneration has created an environment in which regeneration is one for communities, this may widen inequalities between different rural places and lead to a ‘two-speed countryside’. New initiatives should also recognise that competition-based funding allocations – and any requirement for match funding – may exacerbate such inequalities. Regeneration programmes and funding also need to focus on ‘left behind’ spaces which may lack advocacy and regeneration infrastructure, and which may require support over an extended period of time. Governance structures need to better encapsulate and respond to the regeneration needs of different rural communities. Reiterating the importance of a ‘differentiated rural’ – and reflected in postreferendum discussions – there is a need to develop broader approaches which acknowledge rural–urban interdependencies but which are also tailored to the needs of rural localities.

Summary In summing up, this textbook has taken considerably longer than originally envisaged to produce. Partially, this is the fault of the author although the increasing demands of working in the higher education sector in the UK certainly

188 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

took its toll. But arguably the elongated process of writing is also reflective of two other important influences. First, the broader context for regeneration in the UK, which has meant that literature on regeneration is more piecemeal, harder to find and certainly less evident in policy circles than hitherto. Once a ‘buzz word’ in the UK and an activity that was high on the national political agenda, the traditional model of regeneration involving state intervention to pump-prime investment from the private sector has largely disappeared. In this part of Western Europe, we are certainly in a post-regeneration era, although the historical reliance on community self-help in rural areas means that in one respect the emphasis on local communities delivering regeneration has simply continued. But what is increasingly clear is that rural communities – and the people that live within them – cannot do this on their own. While place-based approaches may facilitate agglomeration and economies of scale benefits, such actions can only go so far. Despite the lack of an explicit focus on regeneration in the UK – and rural regeneration therein – a key message is that the ‘local trap’ referred to at various places in this book must be avoided. In addition, through my own experiences of living in a small rural community in one part of the devolved UK (North Wales), it is evident that there are very different challenges and opportunities to become involved in rural regeneration. Time is a critical factor, as well as knowledge and expertise. But local politics is also crucial. I have had several opportunities in recent years to become involved in communitybased regeneration – for example (and in no particular order) – taking over the local pub and community centre to maintain local services; applying for grants to redevelop the local quarry and / or writing a community newsletter. Yet becoming involved has often proved challenging – individuals have often had vested interests and as a relative newcomer to the village, my motivations for engaging have – on some occasions – been implicitly questioned. So, there is a need to recognise the variation that exists within and between rural communities in respect of the ability to harness local (physical) assets ‘of the rural’ as well as the ‘vernacular expertise’ (Phillipson, 2017) of people residing within such areas. The latter refers to expertise that is home grown, which is nourished by outside sources. But the ability to harness such expertise may be challenging and uneven. A key message that emerges is that delivering rural regeneration is often as differentiated as the rural itself. Both need to be further recognised. Indeed, reflecting this point, the most ‘interesting and surprising findings’ reported by participants from across the UK who attended a recent workshop exploring the current and future challenges facing rural areas were very much focused around the differentiated rural, namely:   

the ways in which the rural is interpreted and defined differently across the (devolved) UK; differences in targeting and resources available for key community-based regeneration initiatives such as LEADER (and the respective RDPs); and the (differing) size and scale of the rural economy. Source: Rural Network Northern Ireland (2017, pp.27–28)

Conclusion 189

The second influence that has impinged on the writing process relates to the academic context. In simple terms, the lack of academic focus on rural regeneration has continued. In an attempt to update a review of the literature on rural regeneration, it is instructive to note that little has been written of relevance during the period in which this book has been produced. Beyond an (excellent) PhD produced in 2015 (Juppenlatz, 2015) and a couple of papers published on rural regeneration in China (architecture in rural China; Ren, 2018) and Germany (declining regions and local bargaining processes; Küpper, Kundolf, Mettenberger and Tuitjer, 2018) little explicit reference has been made to rural regeneration. Consequently, there has been little other work to draw and develop upon. As a result, the gap in our knowledge of rural regeneration continues –which hopefully this book goes a little way toward addressing. In particular – and in keeping with ambitions at the outset of the writing process – the book has drawn on theories of the state (i.e. use of the modified Strategic-Relational Approach – SRA) and those concerned with scale (through using the concepts of ‘statecraft’ and ‘scalecraft’) to illustrate the influences shaping the nature of governance structures and policy responses concerned with rural regeneration, and how these are spatially differentiated within and across different areas of the devolved UK. This is a key contribution of this textbook, which provides a framework to analyse the ways in which rural regeneration activities have been shaped in other contexts beyond the UK. To conclude, the spatial differentiation of the rural – both in terms of the nature of rural economy and society, as well as the nature of governance and policy responses – is a critical feature in shaping the rural regeneration process. But equally important are national and local political strategies that seek to define and (re-scale) specific ‘objects of governance’ for rural regeneration, and to achieve particular ends. In the context of considerable uncertainty about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, this is a suitable point to finish on. At a local level, local authority leaders have argued that a further devolution of powers – along with appropriate financial support – is critical in order to deal with any potential disappearance of EU funding and the RDP process. In so doing this will assist in efforts to respond to an ageing population in rural areas, tackling underemployment and low pay, the provision of local health services and adult social care, delivering affordable and decent housing (through new lending procedures) and improving accessibility and broadband connectivity (Local Government Association, 2018). Nationally, there are also on-going calls for a new coherent vision and strategy for businesses and communities, which is tailored to different rural areas in different devolved territories of the UK. If Britain is to make the most of a successful future (which potentially entails being) outside of the European Union, it’s essential that our future success is not confined to our cities. Unless the Government can give non-metropolitan England the powers and resources it needs, it will be left behind. (Councillor Mark Hawthorne, Chair of the Local Government Association’s People and Places Board; available at: www.local.gov.uk/about/news/rural-communities-fa ce-post-brexit-perfect-storm-councils-warn [Accessed 4 July 2018])

190 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Thus, a need for recognising the regeneration needs of rural areas remains as pertinent today as it did at the start of the 20th century when calls were made “to accomplish the regeneration of the rural population of the country” (Hansard, 1907; Charles Masterman, King’s Speech, House of Commons February 18 1907). In rural areas of the UK and beyond the veil of the rural idyll, regeneration remains very much alive and kicking.

Key Points 









EU funding for rural regeneration through the RDP process has provided significant support to rural areas and for community-led approaches across different parts of the UK. RDP funds have supported LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGs) and community-led regeneration approaches. Any removal of such funds in the future will have a significant effect on rural areas of the UK – and over and beyond the impact on farming. Numerous issues are arising, which are of relevance to delivering rural regeneration following the 2016 EU referendum including funding availability; the appropriateness of governance arrangements; the potential for developing more nuanced approaches reflecting the differing needs of rural areas in a devolved UK; a re-balancing of funding between urban and rural areas through new national rural strategies and sub-regional and local action plans; and the integration of agriculture within wider rural regeneration activity through new partnership-based arrangements. There is a need for new governance and funding arrangements which draw upon local assets yet offer opportunities for wider strategic collaboration in order to support the agricultural economy and the wider rural economy and society. Four propositions for securing more progressive forms of rural regeneration relate to i) devolving responsibility but retaining accountability for rural regeneration; ii) focusing on ‘left behind’ rural places; iii) recognising the distinctive regeneration needs of rural communities; and iv) acknowledging rural–urban interdependencies while recognising that rural regeneration is different. To secure more progressive forms of rural regeneration, there is a need for vertical collaboration between the local and the national and the provision of support to local areas. There is also an on-going requirement to target ‘left behind’ rural places and rural communities that have specific challenges but which may lack advocacy or regeneration infrastructure. In addition, policy-makers should develop approaches to regeneration that reflect the distinctive challenges of rural areas (such as accessibility, proximity and local resources) while also acknowledging the interdependency of the rural and urban.

Conclusion 191

Study Questions  

‘In a post-regeneration era, rural regeneration should be delivered through community-led approaches’. Discuss. How can we secure more progressive forms of rural regeneration?

Further Reading / Websites of Relevance For information on the EU’s Rural Development Programmes (there are 118 in total across Europe) see: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-devel opment-2014-2020_en. Factsheets for each RDP in the UK can be found at: https://ec.europa.eu/agri culture/rural-development-2014-2020/country-files/uk_en [Accessed 10 July 2018]. With reference to the potential impact of ‘Brexit’ on rural areas of the UK see Creamer et al. (2017), Shucksmith (2017) and Dwyer (2018): 

 

Creamer, C., Garrod, G., Jack, C., Liddon, A., McAreavey, R., Meredith, D., Sherry, E., Shortall, S., Shuttleworth, I. and Wallace, M. (2017). After Brexit: 10 key questions for rural policy in Northern Ireland. University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Centre for Rural Economy. Shucksmith, M. (2017). Rural England after Brexit – a moment of opportunity. Available on-line at: www.acre.org.uk/cms/resources/rural-brexit-briefing. pdf [Accessed 10 July 2018]. Dwyer, J. (2018). The implications of Brexit for agriculture, rural areas and land use in Wales. Cardiff: Public Policy Institute for Wales.

In relation to the Rural Regeneration and Development Fund in the Republic of Ireland see: 

Department of Rural and Community Development (2018). Rural regeneration and development fund. Available on-line at: http://178.79.183.24/en/rura l-regeneration-and-development-fund/ [Accessed 16 July 2018].

For information on the Rural Futures programme in Wales see: www.biglot teryfund.org.uk/globalcontent/programmes/wales/rural-programme-communi ty-grants [Accessed 12 July 2018]; and www.ruralfutures.wales/news.html [Accessed 12 July 2018]. The recent report on LEP working and the measures required to support rural areas can be accessed from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) website: 

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) (2018). Next steps for LEPs: how greater transparency and accountability would help Local Enterprise Partnerships to support

192 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

a thriving countryside. Available on-line at: www.cpre.org.uk/resources/hou sing-and-planning/item/4894-next-steps-for-leps [Accessed 16 July 2018]. For the report produced following the UK Rural Development and Networking Conference 2017 see: 

Rural Network Northern Ireland (2017). Through a lens: UK Rural Development and Networking Conference 2017. Conference Report, 14–15 November 2017, Belfast. Available on-line at: https://ruralnetworkni.org.uk/download/ files/Conference%20%20Report%20%20Nov%2017.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2018].

In respect of the potential implications of Brexit for rural areas and the need to devolve power to local areas, see the interim findings of the Local Government Association’s Post-Brexit England Commission: 

Local Government Association (2018). Interim Findings of Post-Brexit England Commission. Available on-line at: www.local.gov.uk/about/news/rural-comm unities-face-post-brexit-perfect-storm-councils-warn [Accessed 16 July 2018].

Bibliography Allen, M. (2016). Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector – background and possible ‘Brexit’ considerations. Research and Information Service Briefing Paper. Paper 66/16. Belfast: Northern Ireland Assembly. Available on-line at: www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/ documents/raise/publications/2016-2021/2016/aera/6616.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Bentley, G., Bailey, D. and Shutt, J. (2010). From RDAS to LEPs: a new localism? Case examples of West Midlands and Yorkshire. Local Economy, 25(7), pp.535–557. Bird, J. (2017). Scotland’s rural policy options post-2019. Rural Policy Centre Policy Briefing (RPC PB 2017/07). Edinburgh: Rural Policy Centre. Available on-line at: www.sruc.ac.uk/download/…/scotlands_rural_policy_options_post-2019.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Bulpitt, J. (1983). Territory and power in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bulpitt, J. (1986a). Continuity, autonomy and peripheralisation: the anatomy of the centre’s race statecraft in England. In: Z. Layton-Henry and P. Rich (Eds.) Race, government and politics in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp.17–44. Bulpitt, J. (1986b). The discipline of the new democracy: Mrs Thatcher’s domestic statecraft. Political Studies, 34(1), pp.19–39. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) (2018). Next steps for LEPs: How greater transparency and accountability would help Local Enterprise Partnerships to support a thriving countryside. Available on-line at: www.cpre.org.uk/resources/housing-and-pla nning/item/4894-next-steps-for-leps [Accessed 16 July 2018]. Centre for Cities (2010b). The Local Growth White Paper and its implications for cities. London: Centre for Cities. Available on-line at: www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/up

Conclusion 193

loads/2014/09/10-11-01-Local-Growth-White-Paper-and-its-implications-for-cities.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (2012). How are rural interests being recognised within Local Enterprise Partnerships? Available on-line at: www.rsnonline.org.uk/ images/files/crc-documents/How-are-rural-interestsbeing-recognised-within-Loca l-Enterprise-Partnerships.pdf. Creamer, C., Garrod, G., Jack, C., Liddon, A., McAreavey, R., Meredith, D., Sherry, E., Shortall, S., Shuttleworth, I. and Wallace, M. (2017). After Brexit: 10 key questions for rural policy in Northern Ireland. University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Centre for Rural Economy. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011b). A plain English guide to the Localism Act. London: DCLG. Department of Rural and Community Development (2018). Rural regeneration and development fund. Available on-line at: http://178.79.183.24/en/rural-regeneration-a nd-development-fund/ [Accessed 16 July 2018]. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1997). Building partnerships for prosperity – sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment in the English regions. London: HMSO. Dwyer, J. (2018). The implications of Brexit for agriculture, rural areas and land use in Wales. Cardiff: Public Policy Institute for Wales. Fraser, A. (2010). The craft of scalar practices. Environment and Planning A, 42(2), pp.332–346. Gallent, N., Hamiduddin, I., Juntti, M., Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2015). Introduction to rural planning: economies, communities and landscapes (2nd ed.). Oxford: Taylor and Francis. Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney (Eds.). Handbook of rural studies. London: Sage, pp.44–62. Hall, S. (2016). The rise and fall of urban regeneration policy in England, 1965 to 2015. Fraktale Metropolen, pp.313–330. Hansard (1907). Commons debates: Daily Hansard February 18 1907 – King’s Speech, vol.169, c.611. Available on-line at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1907/ feb/18/kings-speech-motion-for-an-address#S4V0169P0_19070218_HOC_264 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Harrison, J. and Heley, J. (2015). Governing beyond the metropolis: placing the rural in city-region development. Urban Studies, 52(6), pp.1113–1133. Hodge, I. and Monk, S. (2004). The economic diversity of rural England: stylised fallacies and uncertain evidence. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), pp.263–272. House of Commons Library (2017). Effect of the UK leaving the EU on the rural economy. Debate Pack. Number CDP 2017/0018, 16 January 2017. Available on-line at: https:// researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0018 [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Jentsch, B., Brian, M. and de Lima, P. (2007). Migrant workers in rural Scotland: ‘going to the middle of nowhere’. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 9(1), pp.35–53. Jessop, B. (2008). State power: a Strategic Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. Juppenlatz, E. (2015). Rural regeneration and localism. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Newcastleupon-Tyne. Newcastle: University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Küpper, P., Kundolf, S., Mettenberger, T. and Tuitjer, G. (2018). Rural regeneration strategies for declining regions: trade-off between novelty and practicability. European Planning Studies, 26(2), pp.229–255.

194 Key Dimensions and Spaces of Rural Regeneration

Local Government Association (2018). Interim findings of post-Brexit England Commission. Available on-line at: www.local.gov.uk/about/news/rural-communities-face-p ost-brexit-perfect-storm-councils-warn [Accessed 16 July 2018]. Lupton, R. and Crisp, R. (2018). Regeneration redux? What (if anything) can we learn from New Labour? In C. Needham, E. Heins and J. Rees (Eds.). Analysis and debate in social policy, 2018. Social Policy Review, 30. Bristol: Policy Press. Lysgaard, H.K. (2016). The ‘actually existing’ cultural policy and culture-led strategies of rural places and small towns. Journal of Rural Studies, 44(1), pp.1–11. McAreavey, R. (2004). Rural Regeneration Policy and Practice, Rhetoric or reality? Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Newcastle: University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. O’Brien, D. and MatthewsP. (2015). After urban regeneration: communities, policy and place. Bristol: Policy Press. Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30(2), pp.156–181. Paver, D. (2016). Rural regeneration has a problem. The government’s heart doesn’t seem to be in it. Merrion, 8 September 2016. Available on-line at: http://merrionstrategy. com/rural-regeneration/ [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Pemberton, S. and Shaw, D. (2012). New forms of sub-regional governance and implication for rural areas: evidence from England. Planning Practice and Research, 27(4), pp.441–458. Phillipson, J. (2017). Future directions for rural economies and expertise. Presentation to Through a lens: UK Rural Development and Networking Conference 2017, 14–15 November 2017, Belfast. Available on-line at: https://ruralnetworkni.org.uk/downloa d/files/Jeremy%20Phillipson.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Powe, N. and Pringle, R. (2017). Helping businesses thrive in peripheral rural towns. Report by Newcastle University for Civitas, July 2017. Available on-line at: www.civita s.org.uk/content/files/helpingbusinessesthrive.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Ray, C. (1999). Endogenous development in the era of reflexive modernity. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(3), pp. 257–267. Ren, X. (2018). Anonymous process and absent architect: behind the scenes of Chinese rural regeneration. Architecture and Culture, 6(1), pp.145–154. Rural Network Northern Ireland (2017). Through a lens: UK Rural Development and Networking Conference 2017. Conference Report, 14–15 November 2017, Belfast. Available on-line at: https://ruralnetworkni.org.uk/download/files/Conference%20% 20Report%20%20Nov%2017.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2018]. SaccomaniS. (2016). Urban regeneration and crisis. Paper presented at EURA Conference, City lights Cities and citizens within/beyond/notwithstanding the crisis, Torino, 16–18 June 2016. Available on-line at: www.academia.edu/26330451/Urban_regeneration_a nd_crisis [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Scott, K., Rowe, F. and Pollock, V. (2018). Creating the good life? A wellbeing perspective on cultural value in rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 59, pp.173–182. Scottish Government (2017). The contribution of EEA citizens to Scotland. Evidence annex. Available on-line at: www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00527186.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Shortall, S. (2004). Social or Economic Goals, Civic Inclusion or Exclusion? An analysis of rural development theory and practice. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), pp.109–123. Shucksmith, M. (2008). New Labour’s countryside in international perspective. In: M. Woods (Ed.). New Labour’s countryside. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.59–78.

Conclusion 195

Shucksmith, M. (2017). Rural England after Brexit – a moment of opportunity. Available on-line at: www.acre.org.uk/cms/resources/rural-brexit-briefing.pdf [Accessed 10 July 2018]. Steiner, A. (2014). Building community resilience and empowering communities that do not engage. Rural Policy Centre Research Briefing (RPC RB 2014/13). Edinburgh: Rural Policy Centre. Available on-line at: www.sruc.ac.uk/downloads/file/2195/2014_ building_community_resilience_and_empowering_communities_that_do_not_engage [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Taylor, M. (2008). Living working countryside; the Taylor review of rural economy and affordable housing. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. The Rural Coalition (2017). The Rural Coalition Statement 2017. Available on-line at: http://acre.org.uk/cms/resources/rural-coalition-statement-2017-low-res.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Van der Ploeg, J.D.et al. (2000). Rural development: from practices and policies toward theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), pp.391–408. Wade, C. (2012). Small towns at the centre of a rural revival. Presentation by Chris Wade, CEO of Action for Market Towns to Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group on Rural Policy, 6 June 2012. Available on-line at: www.sruc.ac.uk/download/downloads/id/ 852/chris_wade.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Wales Rural Observatory (2014). Migrant workers in Rural Wales and the South Wales Valleys. Available on-line at: www.walesruralobservatory.org.uk/sites/default/files/Migrant% 20Workers%20in%20Rural%20Wales%20and%20the%20South%20Wales%20Valleys% 202014.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2018]. Ward, N. (2006). Rural development and the economies of rural areas. In: J. Midgley (Ed.). A new rural agenda. London: IPPR, pp.46–57. Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. London: Sage. Woods, M. (Ed.) (2008). New Labour’s countryside: rural policy in Britain since 1997. Bristol: Policy Press. Woodward, R. (1996). Deprivation and ‘the rural’: an investigation into contradictory discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(1), pp.55–67.

INDEX

Entries in italics denote figures; entries in bold denote tables. ABIs (Area-Based Initiatives) 26, 43 accessibility 15, 29, 116, 189 ACE (Arts Council for England) 119–20; further reading on 133 administrative reform 150 ageing population 25, 113, 150, 189 Agenda 2000 173 agriculture: in Northern Ireland 14, 141, 152, 160–1; in RDPs 173–4; role in rural economy 6–7, 9, 14–16; and rural regeneration policy 14, 24–5, 35–7; in Scotland 149; in Wales 150–3, 177 amenity migrants 11 antiques 10, 113, 118, 125 area-based partnerships 17; see also ABIs Areas of Pull 28, 59 arms-length action 88, 104 Arney River Corridor 121–2 arts, and rural regeneration 10, 113, 115, 119 arts and crafts 113, 117, 120, 125, 127, 129 arts-led development 119 Assets of Community Value 121; see also local assets austerity 8–9, 12, 40, 44–5, 64, 71, 86 Australia, cultural tourism in 115–16 Bakewell Project 30 Beckett, Margaret 66 Bettisfield Village Hall 92–6, 93, 94

Bishop’s Castle, Shropshire 30, 126 Board of Agriculture 23 boosterism, rural 130 bottom-up initiatives 4; and culture 112–13; empowering 85–6; and neighbourhood planning 101; regeneration as 6, 38, 43 bounded rationality 15 Brexit see EU (European Union), UK referendum on Bro Partnership 181 broadband provision 102, 125, 129, 150, 162, 184, 189 CAP (Common Agricultural Policy): and Brexit 175; Pillar 2 90, 150; reform of 33, 36, 152, 173 capacity to act 85, 88, 90, 186 capital: bridging 104; human 7, 95 capital funding 99 CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) 187 Centre for Cities 108 Centre for Rural Economy 47 CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) 102–4 City Deals 41 city-regionalism 38–9, 44–5, 64, 69, 185 civic development, arts-led 119 CLA (Countryside Landowners Association) 71, 128

Index 197

climate change 161 CLLD (community-led local development) ix, 173 CLP (community-led planning) 99 Coalition Government 2010–2015 64; austerity under 172; and LEPs 71–3; and rural regeneration 42, 45; sub-regional and localist approaches 13, 40–1, 65–7, 99 Combined Authorities 137, 151 Communities England 38 Communities First programme (Wales) 155–9, 182; classification of areas 155 community anchor organisations 158 Community Choices Fund 159 community cohesion 121, 178 community development, arts-led 119 community empowerment 85–6, 100, 104, 149, 159, 181 Community Empowerment and Renewable Act 2015 150, 159 community engagement 29, 86, 159 community facilities 30, 93, 103, 158, 160 community identity 8, 114 community infrastructures 96–7, 102, 120 community involvement, and SRB approach 29, 43 community partnerships 17, 26, 53, 59, 97 community regeneration: engagement in 103–4; forms of 87–8; and LEPs 71; long-term approach to 98; and neighbourhood planning 100, 102; and partnerships 85–8; and physical regeneration 29, 43; resources for 95–6; state control of 105; territorial coverage of 103 Community Regeneration Toolkit 98 community rights 99–100, 103–4, 121, 149 community self-help 45, 88, 151, 163, 178, 188 community-led regeneration ix, 9, 36, 85, 88, 92, 171–2, 177–80, 188 competition, in rural regeneration initiatives 26, 30–1, 43, 180 Conservative Governments: of 1920s and 1930s 58; 1979–1997 27, 43, 59, 87; 2015- 45, 73 Conservative Party: and rural areas 58; statecraft of 55 Cork Declaration 86–7 Cornwall 35–6; see also West Cornwall CoSIRA (Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas) 59

counter-urbanisation 99, 113 Countryside Agency 32, 37, 60; abolition of 65–6; budget of 32, 33; and MTI 96 Countryside Commission 32, 60, 65 CPPs (Community Planning Partnerships) 149 CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) 184–5, 191–2 craft industries 112 CRC (Commission for Rural Communities) 37, 65–8; abolition of 40, 73, 152; further reading on 77; internal and external influences on 74; on LEPs 41, 71–3, 185; State of the Countryside reports 39; website of 47 creative classes 113 creative clusters, rural 117–18 Creative Countryside Report 115–16 creative industries 113–14; categories 117; rural challenges for 114–18, 186; urban assumptions about 125, 129 Creative Shropshire 127 cultural activity, DCMS definition of 118 cultural cringe 117 cultural economy 10, 120; see also creative industries cultural production, traditional 120 cultural regeneration 118–20, 124–5 cultural value 118 cultural vision 121 culture: and creativity 114; importance of 10, 112–13; non-economic instrumentalised accounts of 114, 118, 186 culture and regeneration 114, 118–20, 130, 171, 186; case studies of 121–9 Culture Partnership (Herefordshire) 124–5 Culture Strategy (Shropshire) 128–9 Culture White Paper 2016 120–1 culture-in regeneration 127 culture-led regeneration 118–21, 124, 127 cycle routes 128, 179 DARD (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) 140, 143, 160, 166 DCMS (Department of Community, Media and Sport) 118, 120–2 decentralisation: of decision-making 91; of responsibility 5, 12–13, 37–8, 41, 86, 172, 177–8; of services 141 Deep Rural localities 11, 15, 43, 92, 150 DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs): and Countryside Agency 65–6; creation of

198 Index

37; in England 151–3; and LEPs 75; and RDAs 63; under Coalition government 40, 67–8; website of 166 deindustrialisation 22 Denmark, new rural businesses in 116 Department for Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Welsh Government) 152 Department of Environment 59; see also DEFRA depopulation 6, 186 design-led reconfiguration 119 de-statisation 152, 183 DETR (Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions) 37 de-urbanisation 22; see also counterurbanisation Development Areas 24 Development Commission 57–9; see also RDC devolution 5, 137–8; after Brexit 189, 192; further reading on 165–6; of responsibility see decentralisation, of responsibility; and rural regeneration 139–40, 173; timeline of 142–8 Devon and Cornwall 35; see also West Cornwall differentiated countryside ix, 4, 12, 171 digital connectivity 172 digital technologies 117 diversity, cultural 113, 128, 130 Dumfries and Galloway 35 EAGGF (European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund) 36, 160 East Anglia 35 economic development: EU funding for 36; growth pole approach to 6; in LEADER programme 174; MAAs for 69; policy focus on 184; rates of 35; regional structures for 40, 61, 137, 151 economic diversification 10, 89 economic governance 45, 64 economic regeneration: private sector in 7; rural 9–10, 45 ecosystem preservation 161, 174 ecosystem services, cultural 115 e-government 162 elite capture 101, 104 Employment Action Zones 28 Empowering Communities Fund 159 England 4; after Brexit 176; agriculture and rural regeneration 14; community regeneration in 105; cultural strategy for

119–20; devolution in 137–8, 151, 163; Great Places Scheme in 121–2; LEADER in 91; MAAs in 69, 70; migration to 187; MTI in 97–8; natural economic geography of 41; Neighbourhood Planning in 86; planning system reform in 99–100; regionalism in 13, 38, 61–2, 184–5 (see also regional assemblies); rural champion in 40, 65, 152; Rural Development Areas of 29; Rural Development Programme for see RDPE; rural regeneration governance in 5, 53–4, 57, 63, 73–5, 183–4; rural regeneration initiatives in 25–8; rural regeneration policy in 22, 42–3; Rural White Papers for see Our Countryside; Rural England England Rural Development Plan 36 English Nature 37, 65 English Partnerships 60 ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) 60, 160 ESF (European Social Fund) 160 ethnographies, local 130 EU (European Union): future UK relationship with 176–7, 186, 189; and rural development policy 5, 22, 48, 138; Rural Development Programmes see RDPs; Rural Development Regulation 153; UK referendum on 172–3, 175; see also CAP EU funding 35–6; increasing reliance on 8, 153–4, 160, 163; Peace and Reconciliation Fund 25; RDAs delivering 64; and SRB 28; supporting partnerships 9; see also RDPE European Community Initiatives 88 European Conference on Rural Development 86–7 everyday lives 13, 116, 183 ‘Evolution, Revolution and Innovation’ strategy 126 extra-local networks 101, 104, 171 farm diversification 15, 25, 33, 114 farming community: academic discourse on 9; engaging 8; see also agriculture farming unions 25, 153 festivals, rural 113, 115, 127–8, 130 films 10, 113, 117–18, 123 Finland, LEADER in 91 Florida, Richard 113–14

Index 199

FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease) 37, 44, 63, 74 food and drink, local 115, 128–9 forestry: multi-purpose 150; in Northern Ireland 160–1; in RDPs 36, 173–4; and rural regeneration policy 24, 58 France, LEADER in 91 functional representation 89, 103 funding: arts and cultural 119–20; matched 96, 123, 179; for MTI 99; new sources of 95; and Rural Inclusion Plans 184–5 gatekeepers 115 gentrification 113, 120 Germany, LEADER in 90 GLA (Greater London Authority) 137 global countryside 7, 10–11, 14, 16 global financial crisis: and austerity in UK 8, 74, 97, 99, 171; and EU funding 45; and left-behind places 181; and property-led regeneration 12, 41; and unemployment 156 globalisation: and rural regeneration policy 22; uneven impact of 10 governance: horizontal and vertical 98; objects of see objects of governance; see also rural governance; regeneration governance governance change 4, 53 governing competence 45; and LEPs 73; and RDAs 60, 62; and RDC 57, 60; and rural regeneration governance 74–5; and statecraft 55–6 governmentality 88, 97, 104 Great Places Scheme 120–5, 122 growth, going for 102 growth pole approach 6 Hall, Daniel 57–8 handyman schemes 158 Hansard 22, 57 Haskins, Lord 37, 63, 65–6, 68, 74 Health Action Zones 28 Heart of the National Forest, Leicestershire 30 Herefordshire 114, 121–5, 130 heritage assets 124 heritage features, in Shropshire 127–8 heritage tourism 112–13 high culture 112 housing: affordability 99, 177, 184; non-decent 15 housing-led regeneration 101–2 hub and spoke models 125

impedimenta state 140, 154 inequalities, in rural areas 123, 178 institutional capacity 62, 75 interests, communities of 87, 155 intergenerational working 124 Ireland (Republic of) 10; LEADER in 91; regeneration funding in 178–80; see also Northern Ireland Italy, LEADER in 91 key actors 95, 140 Key Growth (Settlement) Policy 15, 24 Labour Government 1997–2010: and devolution 137; and regionalism 31–2, 60–2, 73, 75, 185; rural regeneration priorities 33, 37, 39, 44; use of independent commissions 65 Labour Party: and the countryside 58; and regionalism 13, 64 LAGs (Local Action Groups) 36, 41, 89, 91–2, 161 laissez faire 71, 149 land ownership 12, 149, 152 land reform 14, 149–50, 162 landscapes, meaning attached to 115 LEADER programme 9, 86, 88–92, 171; and Brexit 175; case study of 92–6; as de-statisation 177, 183; in devolved territories 152–3, 160–1; and empowerment 104; iterations of 36; and LEPs 71; Local Action Groups and 41; and public sector 104–5; and RDPs 173–4; South Shropshire 127–8; territorial coverage of 103, 180 left behind places 172, 180–3 LEPs (Local Enterprise Partnerships) 13, 45, 68–73, 72; and Brexit 176; creation of 41, 65, 75, 151, 184; further reading on 77, 191; and RDPE 153; as re-statisation 183; survey on 184; and urban-rural links 185 less favoured areas 161 Liberal Democrats 27 Lincolnshire and the Midlands Uplands 35 Lloyd George, David 24 local assets: in LEADER programme 89; mobilisation of 186, 188; in post-Brexit future 177; in Scotland 149–50, 159 local authorities: decline of 87; and LAGs 89–90; in Northern Ireland 141; in Scotland 149; in Wales 150 local communities: capacity of 87; representation in LAGs 89–90, 92

200 Index

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 39, 69, 151 local government: in England and Wales 23; in rural areas 9; see also local authorities Local Government Association 192 local identities 115, 118, 129 Local Nature Partnerships 41, 71 local partnerships see community partnerships Local Plans 100 local trap 178, 188 localism 64, 99; and austerity 181; in England 151, 163; new 40, 86 Localism Act 2011 40, 99–100 locomotive of the urban viii, 39, 69 lottery funding 30, 93–4, 121, 181–2 MAAs (Multi Area Agreements) 38, 68–71, 70 MAFF (Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries) 37; and RDAs 63 Major, John 42 the Marches 35 marginality: and creative industries 114, 129, 186; and firm size 7 market failures 26, 181 Market Town Healthchecks 96–7 market towns 6, 8–9; as hubs 15, 42; regeneration projects in 29, 33 meta-governance 9, 85 Middleton, Thomas 58 migration: labour 11; lifestyle 116; return 10; varying UK attitudes to 186–7; see also out-migration MTI (Market Towns Initiative) 86, 96–9; as community-led 177; and empowerment 104; territorial coverage of 103, 180 MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area) 94 multi-use centres, rural 126 music 113, 116 National Assembly for Wales 137, 140, 150 National Development Plan (Irish Republic) 178–9 National Performance Framework 149 Natural England 65 natural environment 11, 14, 38, 42, 45 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 65 Neighbourhood Development Orders 99–100

Neighbourhood Planning (Rural) 86, 99–103; as community-led 178; in England 151; further reading on 108; territorial coverage of 103; under Coalition Government 40 neo-endogenous approach 15, 87, 100–1, 105, 107, 171, 177–8 neo-liberalism: and the countryside 14; in England 151, 163; and rural regeneration policy 23, 25, 44; and the state 139 new marketplace countryside 5, 25 newcomers: and neighbourhood planning 101, 104; wariness of 115 NFU (National Farmers Union) 71 NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) 176–7 NIRDP (Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme) 160, 162, 174 non-state actors 74–5, 88, 139, 184 North East of England 64, 68 Northern Heartlands Great Place Scheme 122 Northern Ireland: and Brexit 176; devolution in 137–8; EU support for 36; Great Places Scheme in 121–2; LEADER in 91; migration to 187; policy and governance in 5; rural regeneration in 140–1, 152–4, 162; tourism in 25; see also NIRDP Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive 137, 140 Northern Uplands 35 Northfield, Lord 59 Objective 1 36 Objective 2 36 Objective 5b 35–6 objects of governance 5, 12–14, 16; and devolution 140; in England 24, 31, 42, 44, 151; and funding 105; in Northern Ireland 140–1; and power groups within state 23, 45, 54–5, 69, 75, 183, 189; the rural as 64, 73, 184–5; in Scotland 149; in Wales 150, 163 open space 119, 129 OswestryCultFest 128 Our Countryside (White Paper, 2000) 33, 36–7, 44; funding commitments in 34–5; and MTI 96; and objects of governance 151; and partnerships 87; and RDAs 62; review of 38, 45

Index 201

out-migration 25, 113, 115, 129 over-embeddedness 101, 104 parish councils 23, 97, 100–1, 103 particularities, rural 117, 125, 127, 180, 186 partnership funds 33, 88 partnerships: autonomy of 9; city-region 39; of convenience 31; as hegemonic mode 8; in LEADER 88–90; in MTI 97; in Rural Challenge 29–30; as rural governance 88; in rural policy 43, 87; in Scotland 141; and SRB 26; see also community partnerships; LEPs; rural partnership working; rural regeneration partnerships path-dependency 74, 139 People and Communities fund (Scotland) 158–9 people climate 114 peripherality: and creative industries 114–15, 129, 186; in Scotland 149 physical regeneration 3, 29, 100–2 PIU (Performance Innovation Unit) 33 place: communities of 87; new patchwork politics of 101; see also rural places place making 123 place-based approaches 98, 153, 188 place-marketing 10, 102, 116, 118 Pockets of Need 28, 59 Poland, LEADER in 90 policy learning 154 political argument hegemony 45; and CRC 68; and LEPs 73; and RDAs 60, 62; and RDC 60; and rural regeneration governance 74–5; and statecraft 56 political strategies 53–4; SRA on 13, 54–5 popular culture 112 population densities 8, 116, 149, 186 postcards 116 post-industrialism 22 post-productivist approach 7, 16 post-regeneration era 172, 181, 188 poverty: fuel 15; in Northern Ireland 141; in rural areas 7, 42, 95, 180 Priority Rural Development Areas 28, 32 private sector: involvement in rural regeneration initiatives 29, 31, 44, 71; and place-making 123; promoting 41; in rural areas 7–8 (see also rural businesses) productivism 4, 7, 14, 16, 24–5, 42 programme bending 156 programme managers 98, 104

property-led regeneration 9–10, 12, 45 protectionism 14, 25 proximity, and creative industries 114–15, 186 PSA (Public Service Agreement) 38 public sector: in LEADER 91; retrenchment in 8, 99, 124, 171 public sector retrenchment 44–5, 151, 163, 175 Public Service Boards 150 public services: accessibility of 29; in Northern Ireland 141; privatisation and deregulation of 87; in Wales 150 quality of life 15 QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organisations) 97 RCF (Rural Cultural Forum) 119–20; further reading on 133 RCPU (Rural Communities Policy Unit) 40, 67–8, 71 RDAs (Regional Development Agencies) 31–4, 60–5, 152; abolition of 40–1, 71, 73, 151; and Countryside Agency 37; creation of 75, 185; criticisms of 45; further reading on 77; internal and external influences on 74; and MTIs 96; and RDPs 38; and Single Integrated Regional Strategy 69; and SRB 28 RDC (Rural Development Commission) 23, 57–60; abolition of 32, 61, 65, 73–5; further reading on 77; initiatives supported 25–8; and RDAs 40; records of 47; and statecraft 74–5 RDPE (Rural Development Programme for England) 45; 2014–20 173; focus of 38; further reading on 48; and LEADER 90; and LEPs 41, 184; as main lever 151; and RDAs 64; under Cameron government 40 RDPs (Rural Development Programmes) 8, 38, 44; and Brexit 175–6; for devolved territories 152–4, 173–4 (see also NIRDP; SRDP); further reading on 191 regeneration: literature on 188–9; and redevelopment 5–6 regeneration infrastructure, communitybased 182 regeneration projects: community involvement in 87, 101; in market towns 29; and regional devolution 60

202 Index

‘Regeneration to Enable Growth’ document 41–2 regional assemblies 38, 40, 64, 68, 137, 151 regional structures, demise of 75, 184 regionalism, local social and political forces in 13; see also England; localism; sub-regionalism remoteness: and creative industries 114–15, 186; and firm size 7 renewable energy 150 re-statisation 152, 183 revenue funding 99 RPA (Review of Public Administration) 141, 154 RPPG (Rural Policy and Practitioners Group) 153 the rural: as appendage of the urban viii, 15, 39, 69, 73, 172, 185; commodification of 11, 14, 25; lives of 14 (see also everyday lives); representations of 13–14, 16, 183; spatial differentiation of 7, 188–9; variegated nature of 11–12 Rural Action 33 Rural Action Plans 176 Rural Advocate 39, 67 Rural Basic Services Scheme 161 Rural Broadband Scheme 162 Rural Business Investment Scheme 161 rural businesses 36, 38, 63, 176, 186 Rural Challenge 26–9, 31, 42; area-based targeting in 180; evaluation of 47 rural change: drivers of 15; traditional and contemporary models of 176 rural communities: differing resources of 180; empowering see community empowerment; socio-economic re-composition of 99 Rural Communities Strategy 176, 186 rural community regeneration see community regeneration rural creativity 114–17, 125–7, 129–30; see also creative industries Rural Cultural Summit 2006 115 Rural Delivery Report 37, 65 rural development 6, 22; agencies 149; new paradigm 114, 171 Rural Development and Networking Conference 2017 192 Rural Development Fund 23 Rural Development Officers 95, 152–5

Rural Development Plans for Wales 150, 154, 156 Rural Development Programme for Northern Ireland see NIRDP 141 rural economy: cultural diversification of 120, 130; as more than agriculture 176 Rural England (White Paper, 1955) 27 rural governance: and culture 123; and rural government 87–8; structures of 12, 42; see also rural regeneration governance rural identities 11 rural idyll: discourse of 7, 15–16; in English planning system 99; and necessity of regeneration 28; and place-marketing 116; and rural regeneration policy 42 Rural Inclusion Plan 184 rural industrial strategy 176, 186 rural industries 4, 24–5, 36, 58 Rural Industries Loan Fund 25 rural locality: and agriculture 24; as commodity 44; impact of globalisation on 10; and regeneration 13–14, 183; and rural politics 12 Rural Media Charity 121–4 Rural Parliament (Scotland) 152 rural partnership working 5, 17, 53, 85 Rural Partnerships (Scotland) 152 rural places: and rural creativity 125–6; spatiality and temporality of 117 rural planning, and culture 120 Rural Policy Unit, Welsh Government 152 Rural Priority Areas 33 rural protectionism 5, 9, 99 rural regeneration 3–4, 16; academic attention to 189; asset-based model of 124; community-led see community-led regeneration; and culture 113–14, 118–20, 129 (see also cultural regeneration; culture and regeneration; culture-led regeneration); defining 5–6; different forms of 9–10; framing 12–15; further reading on 17–18; future possibilities 15, 177–87; history of 7; infrastructure development for 69; politics of 12, 16; scaling of 54, 56 (see also scale; scalecraft); spatial distribution of 182; specific features of 7–9; statutory responsibility for 138; withdrawal of state funding for 171–2, 175, 178 Rural Regeneration and Development Fund (Irish Republic) 178–9, 191 Rural Regeneration Committee 33

Index 203

rural regeneration governance 53–4; and Brexit 175–6; de-statisation and re-statisation of 152, 183; existing and emerging forms 183–5; rescaling of 56–7, 65, 74, 85; and SRA 55; structures of 23, 74 rural regeneration partnerships 8–9, 87–8 rural regeneration policy 22; complex environment for 44; and devolved administrations 138–9, 151–3, 162–3, 166, 184; further reading on 46–7; MAAs delivering 69; pre-1997 background of 23–5, 171; regional decentralisation of 63; retrenchment 37–8; structures governing 55; under Coalition government 39–42; see also Our Countryside; RDAs; Rural Challenge; SRB rural space: hybridities of 11; three-fold categorisation of 13–16, 18, 183 Rural Statement 2012 42 Rural Strategy 2004 38, 64, 66 Rural Task Force report 63 rural visitor economy 14 Rural Wales see Wales, rural Rural White Paper, 1995 87, 96 Rural White Paper for Scotland, 1995 141 Rural White Papers see also Our Countryside; Rural England Rural-Urban Classification 11 rural-urban interdependencies 5, 15, 24, 117, 161, 172, 185–7 scale: crafting of see scalecraft; economies of 99, 117, 180, 188 scalecraft 4–5, 54, 183; messiness of 184; and rural regeneration governance 57–73; temporality of 65, 73–4; use of term 55–6 Scilly, Isles of 30, 36 Scotland: and Brexit 176; devolution in 59, 137–8; Great Places Scheme in 121; land reform in 14; LEADER in 91; migration to 186; policy and governance in 5; rural regeneration in 141–50, 152, 162; see also People and Communities fund Scottish Government 137, 141; Regeneration Strategy 2011 158–9; website of 166 Scottish Highlands and Islands 35–6, 149 Scottish Parliament 137, 139–41 sectarianism, in Northern Ireland 141, 152–3, 162

self-employment 10 self-reliance 9 settlements, joining up 99, 180 Severn Wye Energy Agency 181 Shropshire 30, 114, 125–30 Shropshire Hills Discovery Centre 126 Shuttleworth, Lord 60 Signpost database 30 Single Integrated Regional Strategy 69 Single Regional Strategy 39 Skeffington Report 99 SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) 102 SNP (Scottish National Party) 141–9 SNR (Sub-national Review) 38, 69 SOAs (Single Outcome Agreements) 149 social capital 8, 159 social cohesion 118 social enterprises 112, 158 social exclusion, rural 38, 42 social inclusion 14, 53, 141, 149, 161–2, 174 social justice 141, 149, 153, 162, 184 social networks 118, 129 social polarisation 11 social regeneration 26, 38, 101–4, 106 social renewal, creativity-led 119 the South West 35 South Yorkshire 36 Spain, LEADER in 91 spatiality 7–8, 16, 117, 186 Special Investment Areas 28, 59 SRA (Strategic-Relational Approach) 12–13, 16–18, 54–5, 73, 189; and devolution 138–40; further reading on 78, 166; and objects of governance 183 SRB (Single Regeneration Budget) 8, 26–9, 42–4; allocation of funds 27; area-based targeting in 180; evaluation of 47; and RDAs 32; and Rural Challenge 31 SRDP (Scottish Rural Development Programme) 149, 173–4 the state: hollowing out and filling in of 139–40, 151–3, 162; in SRA 54–5, 138–9 state space 53–4; devolved 139 statecraft 55, 183; and rural regeneration governance 57–73, 184; and scalecraft 74–5, 185 statutory sector 89–90 Strengthening Communities Programme 159

204 Index

Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration 38, 68–9 sub-regionalism 39, 41, 64–5, 69, 75, 127, 172, 183–5 subsidiarity 89 succession planning 98, 104 support services 115 Sustainable Communities Plan 38 sustainable development 63, 88 Taylor Review 39, 185 technical advisors 65, 74 technocracy 150, 163 Telford and Wrekin 126–7 territory-first approach 103, 180 Thatcher, Margaret 5, 25, 42 third sector 26, 29, 85, 90, 92, 97, 124, 158 top-down interventions 4, 85; development as 6; MTI as 96; and regeneration policy 24, 43; in Scotland 159 tourism: cultural 115, 128; global flows of 11; in Irish Republic 179; niche 150; and rural regeneration 25, 114; slow 115 transport: costs of 115; public 29, 97, 184–5; public 29, 97, 184–5 Treasury, and RDC 58 Trigger Areas 28, 59 two-speed countryside 178 underemployment 15 unemployment 24–5, 156, 185 urban containment 5, 99 urban regeneration viii; and culture 112–13; and rural regeneration 3–4, 6–10, 15–16, 171–2 Urban Regeneration Fund 179–80 vernacular expertise 188 village renewal 160–2, 173 village trails 128

Vinson, Lord 59 Vital Valley programme 122 Vital Villages programme 33 voluntary sector see third sector volunteers: recruiting 177; reliance on 8, 95, 101 WAG (Welsh Assembly Government) see Welsh Government Wales: artists in 116; and Brexit 177; devolution in 59, 137–8 (see also National Assembly for Wales; Welsh Government); Great Places Scheme in 121; LEADER in 91; low-income areas of 156–7; migration to 187; MTI in 97–8; policy and governance in 5; rural areas of 35, 97, 150, 188; Rural Futures Initiative 181–2, 191; rural regeneration policy in 25, 150, 152–4, 163; see also Community First programme Wales Rural Network 154–5 Walker, Peter 25 Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 150 Welsh Development Agency 97–8 Welsh Government: and Brexit 176; and Communities First 155; establishment of 137, 150; and rural policy 152, 154–5; website of 166 West Cornwall (Rural) Initiative 28–9 West Midlands 10 West Wales and the Valleys 36 White Paper on Local Growth 42 whole place approach 102, 178 Williams Commission on Public Service Governance and Delivery 150 WIMD (Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation) 156–7 women 8, 89, 161 Young Farmers Clubs 88