Ian Smith and Paul Courtney

Cities Research Centre

Rural-Urban linkages and social cohesion: a position

paper

Rural-urban linkages

• What were we asked to do?• Writing the position paper• What are we trying to achieve today?

Structure of the day

• Setting out a conceptual framework• Morning: What are the cohesion

outcomes of rural-urban linkages?• Afternoon: What are the means of

promoting rural-urban linkages?• What can the Commission do?• Key respondents and rounding up

Remember

• The paper is the start of a conversation and not the end

• The conversation will continue after today

Paul Courtney

Cities Research Centre

A conceptual framework for Rural-Urban linkages

and social cohesion

Presentation Structure

• Defining the nature of urban-rural linkages• Defining social cohesion• Social cohesion and social/territorial

capital• Measuring social cohesion• A conceptual framework• Operationalising social cohesion• Discussion points

Defining rural-urban linkages

• Lack of clarity and complexity underestimated• Two-way flows which are functional and structural

– Movements of people goods, capital,– Social transactions and administrative / service

provision / Governance– Flows of technology, lifestyles

• Interdependencies and increasingly complex inter-relations

• Geographic (territorial) and socio-economic (relational) space

Defining social cohesion

• Academic (Sociology and Psychology):– Social and economic relevance– Solidarity and division of labour (Durkheim)– Communities, groups and memberships.– Shared values; reducing disparities; common

enterprise; facing shared challenges– Nature and extent of socio-economic divisions in

society– Group membership: how members can shape

the conditions of their environment

Defining social cohesion

• Policy perspective – social and economic:– Achieving Integration – income differentials;

labour market access; housing conditions; social networks; community interaction; whilst:

– Recognising differences and interdependences– Focus on social networks and community

interaction leads debate to Social capital (Networks, norms, trust, reciprocity)

Social Cohesion & Social Capital

• Implicit and explicit relationship well documented, and contested

• Tool to achieve or sub-set of cohesion? Societal or group level?

• Social Capital – individual and group levels (i.e. networks);

• Social Cohesion – General condition of society (networks may be exclusionary, thus high social capital but low levels of cohesion)

• Need to tackle social exclusion and cohesion in tandem

Social cohesion and territorial capital – economic

goals• Business networks, customs, solidarity,

mutual assistance, agglomeration economies and natural/cultural endowments

• Process by which social capital mobilised through R-U linkages integral to an area’s territorial capital with economic goals of enhancing efficiency and productivity

Measuring social cohesion

• Means-end and Pluralistic approaches• Council of Europe’s multi-dimensional

approach:– Equity in enjoyment of rights; dignity &

recognition; occupational and family development; participation and commitment

– Half of indicators focussed broadly on social capital

• Chan et al’s two-by-two framework:– Horizontal – cohesion within civil society– Vertical – State-citizen cohesion

A Conceptual framework

Shared identity

Social capitalRural-urban linkage/ inter-dependency:

movement of people, goods, capital; social

transactions; and administrative and service provision

Thematic governance arrangements/

delivery vehicle

Intervention/ co-ordinated actions

That reinforces/ provides capacity to support…

That shape…

That reinforce/ support…

Reduce social/ economic

inequalities

Shared identity of place

Territorial capital

Reduce spatial inequalities

Spatial governance arrangements/

delivery vehicle

That shape…

That reinforces/ provides capacity to support…

Operationalising social cohesion and rural-urban

linkages• Labour market linkages• Rural-urban migration• Rural-urban partnership working

Labour market linkages

• Division of labour supports dependence, supports social cohesion, thus labour market patterns and commuting important

• Research shows varying patterns of employment decentralisation and journey to work times

• Combining residential and employment land use will help support services, stocks of human and social capital

• Related to wider patterns of rural-urban migration

Rural-urban Migration

• Patterns of rural-urban flows of human and social capital and implications for civil society differentiated and difficult to predict

• In-migration of urban professionals can create tensions but can add to civic vibrancy

• Out-migration from rural areas can lead to spiral of decline, although return migration can bring urban knowledge, skills and networks

• As a form of linkage, impacts of commuting are variable according to sector and distance

Rural-urban partnership working

• Limited evidence indicates that a number of opportunities and barriers exist

• But that good practice can be sought• To be examined in the context of the

vignettes

Discussion points• Can we foster social cohesion through

rural-urban linkages? Are rural-urban linkages special?

• Should we attempt to measure social/territorial cohesion derived from rural-urban linkages and if so how?

• Is there merit in considering social cohesion separately from the territorial agenda?

Ian Smith

Cities Research Centre

Rural-Urban linkages: do they foster cohesion?

Discussion points• Can we foster social cohesion through

rural-urban linkages? Are rural-urban linkages special?

• Should we attempt to measure social/territorial cohesion derived from rural-urban linkages and if so how?

• Is there merit in considering social cohesion separately from the territorial agenda?

Vignettes – illustration

• How will we illustrate the issues?• Seven vignettes in paper:

– Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå, Sweden.– NGO-driven work with disadvantaged urban youth– Combined Universities in Cornwall– Tackling out-migration by young people in the Pays

Berry Saint Amandois– Counteracting digital exclusion through broadband in

Kuyavia-Pomerania – Joining up public transport in the Prague metropolitan

area– Realignment of family protection and child-welfare

service in Pécs ‘micro-region’ (Hungary).

Case vignettes Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå

Imayla (NGO-led) social cohesion &

youth – SW England

Combined Universities in Cornwall

Tackling issues for young people: Pays

Berry Saint-Amandois

Implementing a Broadband Network

in Kuyavia-Pomerania

Prague Integrated Transit System

Realignment of family protection and child-

welfare services, Pécs

Source of base map: Wikipedia reproduced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Social farming: Netherlands

What was being done?

• Infrastructure building• Improving public services• Training and employment• Tackling social problems

Creating social cohesion through experience

• Imayla creates learning environments for disadvantaged young people

• Young people from disadvantaged urban areas taken to experience rural environments (cohesion within group)

• Also social farming – later• Are rural-urban linkages special?

Cohesion through improving public services

• Improving family support services in Pécs (Hungary)

• Re-organisation of service at city-region level

• Improved access, specialist service and quality control

• Are rural-urban linkages special?

Propositions

• Proposition 1: cohesion outcomes of rural-urban linkages need to benefit both rural and urban communities

• Proposition 2: cohesion can be the unintended or secondary outcome of linkages

• Proposition 3: territorial and social cohesion are generally linked but they do not have to be

• Proposition 4: linkages are good for dealing with service deficits, migration issues, shared experiences

Some thoughts from our case vignettes

Cities Research Centre

Rural-Urban linkages: do they foster cohesion?

Ian Smith

Cities Research Centre

Rural-Urban linkages: how do you create them?

Making rural-urban linkages

• Outline some key ideas• What have we learnt from EU

initiatives• Vignette illustrations• What you think

Rural-Urban PartnershipsBenefits/opportunities• Reduced polarisation• Ability to address regional

issues• Intelligence of local

concerns at strategic level• Inclusion of multiple

stakeholders• Increased global

competitiveness• Increased capacity to

provide fiscal relief for revitalisation

Challenges/constraints• Political and cultural

differences• Difficulties in cross-

collaboration and building trust

• Lack of regional policy frameworks and ambiguous structures

• Operational complexity of process

• Lack of resources• Competition between local

authorities

Partnerships: EU initiative experience

• Partnerships are important for problem identification and project delivery

• Partnership programmes need to be integrated and area-based

• Transfer of lessons at EU level important

• Partnerships need to be encouraged to be innovative

Case vignettes Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå

Imayla (NGO-led) social cohesion &

youth – SW England

Combined Universities in Cornwall

Tackling issues for young people: Pays

Berry Saint-Amandois

Implementing a Broadband Network

in Kuyavia-Pomerania

Prague Integrated Transit System

Realignment of family protection and child-

welfare services, Pécs

Source of base map: Wikipedia reproduced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Social farming: Netherlands

Institutional structures in vignettes

• Voluntary local government associations (with and without incentives)

• Regional partnerships• Non-governmental partnerships• Partnerships for identifying priorities

and partnerships for delivering projects

Voluntary associations of municipalities

• Giving small ‘rural’ authorities a voice: the city-region of Umeå

• Umeå – city region of 143,000 residents• Voluntary association brings together 6

municipalities to pool some resources – this partnership identifies priorities

• Project partnerships take forward projects calling on EU co-finance

• Transferability? Probably good if have strong local government

Non-governmental public partnership

• Providing HE for Cornwall – Combined Universities in Cornwall

• 500,000 population of which 92% ‘rural’ and small towns

• Partnership of 6 universities (independent public sector) comes together around accessing EU co-finance

• Provides HE courses• Transferability? Depends on capacity of

non-governmental sector

Propositions

• Proposition 1: partnership is crucial in the delivery of rural-urban linkages – both in terms of issue identification and project delivery

• Proposition 2: partnerships will probably mostly depend on local government but is not the only form of partnership

• Proposition 3: EU co-finance/support has been important in facilitating rural-urban linkage

• Proposition 4: lessons on partnership can be transferred across Europe

Some thoughts from our case vignettes

Cities Research Centre

Rural-Urban linkages: how do you create them?