The economic diversity of rural England: stylised fallacies and uncertain evidence

Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 263–272

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1The Thunde

countryside ha

1980s: a cause c

Bragg weeps fo

children go to s

place beyond h

0743-0167/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.jr

Editorial

The economic diversity of rural England: stylised fallaciesand uncertain evidence

Abstract

Debate about rural policy is often based on persistent presumptions about conditions in ‘rural England’, generally associated with

economic decline, low incomes, and a lack of services. Such generalisations are rarely justified for rural areas as a whole and we term

them as ‘stylised fallacies’. The impression of their relevance is perpetuated by the selective comparison of statistics for ‘urban’ and

‘rural’ areas. The paper reviews the evidence on a number of such fallacies: the economic impact of agriculture, depopulation, low

incomes, rural labour markets, house prices and service provision. In each case, the position is far more complex than is commonly

recognised in policy debate. The rural character of an area does not in itself offer a rationale for policy intervention. Rather,

discussion could be supported through the characterisation of different types of local area. This might be approached either through

statistical analysis or through qualitative analysis of emerging social and economic patterns of differentiation. In practice, each

approach needs to be supported through the other.

r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

It is dangerous to generalise about the countryside,since different areas face different problems (DETRand MAFF, 2000, p. 10).

1. Introduction

General debate about rural policy often seems toadopt persistent presumptions about conditions in ‘ruralEngland’. While perhaps not always stated explicitly,debate is often conducted with implicit generalisationsabout economic decline, low incomes, or low anddeclining levels of services. Indeed, over recent yearsthere have been common references to the ‘crisis’ inrural areas, such as reflected in the campaigns by theCountryside Alliance bringing out an estimated 400,000to march in London in September 2002 or campaigns innewspapers (for instance the ‘Countryside in Crisis’campaign in the Observer and the Guardian in 2000).1

Without wishing to deny that there are serious problemsfacing particular sectors and groups in particularlocalities, we argue that many generalisations aboutthe state of affairs in ‘rural’ areas are partial or

rer in The Times (3-4-03) commented recently ‘The

s adopted the role fulfilled by the inner cities in the!el"ebre for the socially aware. Everybody’s at it: Melvyn

r Cumbrian farmers; Joanna Trollope says Cotswolds

chool with no shoes. The countryside is spoken of as a

opey’

e front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

urstud.2003.11.004

inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful. We characterisethese unjustified generalisations as ‘stylised fallacies’.

Much discussion seems to implicitly assume what wemight describe as a ‘traditional’ model of rural change.This takes agricultural change as its starting point andworks through to the implications for other sectors andfor communities more generally. Thus, the relativedecline of agriculture with economic development bringsreduced employment and low incomes.2 In the absenceof alternative local employment opportunities, there isover-supply in local labour markets and out-migration.Depopulation reduces demand for local services leadingto reduced availability of services and further decline ineconomic activity. Because the out-migrants tend to beyounger, the average age of the remaining populationincreases and has a relatively low birth rate.

This ‘traditional’ model can be contrasted with a‘contemporary’ model of rural change where othermacro-economic forces, such as increased mobility andimproved communications, higher incomes, changinghousehold composition, changing technology in manu-facturing and growth of the service sector have led toincreased commuting, counterurbanisation, and theurban–rural employment shift. In many, probably the

2This model abstracts from the influences of agricultural policy.

However, failures of agricultural policy to deliver most of its objectives

mean that this abstraction might be less critical than would appear at

first sight.

ARTICLE IN PRESSEditorial / Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 263–272264

majority, of localities these contemporary forces haveoverwhelmed the consequences of the ‘traditional’model of decline.

This criticism will be familiar to many; much of thediscussion has been aired on numerous occasions. It wasfor instance acknowledged in both the 1995 (DoE andMAFF, 1995) and 2000 (DETR and MAFF, 2000) ruralwhite papers. And yet the discussion too often continuesto be cast simply in terms of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’, asreflected both in popular debate and, for instance in theapproach often adopted in the Countryside Agency’s‘State of the Countryside’ reports.

In this paper we consider a number of ‘stylisedfallacies’. We accept that they are to some degree strawpeople,3 but they do appear to be implicit in debate andremarkably persistent. We argue that these types ofgeneralisations are reinforced through the presentationof statistical material in terms of an urban/ruraldichotomy and review the extent to which they arewarranted against some of the evidence available. Thesegeneralisations do not offer a sound basis for thedevelopment of rural policy and we examine somealternative approaches towards the characterisation ofconditions in local areas. What is required is less a‘policy need for a consistent way of assigning Englandand Wales into an urban and rural classification’ asexpressed by the Countryside Agency (2002)4 but rathersome generally accepted categorisation of the differentpatterns of conditions in different local areas. Thismight develop a more socio-economic and dynamic‘countryside character’ approach.

5This has been described as ‘a heuristic amalgam of a number of

definitions of rural at this geographical level including the OPCS/ONS

area classification, a National Voluntary Organisations list (based

largely on population density) and a list suggested by DETR for the

1995 Rural White Paper’ (Anon, undated, ‘A Review of Urban and

Rural Area Definitions’).6The starting point is the identification of areas with land use which

is irreversibly urban in character, such as built-up sites; transport

corridors, transportation features (e.g. airport) or areas completely

surrounded by built-up sites. The prerequisite for an urban area is that

2. The problems of ‘knowing’ about the rural economy

There are familiar problems in defining any particulararea as being ‘rural’. Any specific definition is inevitablyrather arbitrary. While we may recognise an urban torural transition, this takes place across many differentvariables, such as density of human settlement, remote-ness from urban centres, balance of particular economicsectors and patterns of land use. These variablestransform continuously at different rates in differentlocations. There can then be no logical point at which‘urban’ changes to ‘rural’ and the character of ruralareas varies between places and through time. Anysearch for a single definitive definition of rural must bearbitrary at best and potentially futile.

In practice, different definitions are adopted forstatistical and policy purposes without clear explana-tion. Thus, for instance, the Countryside Agency ‘State

3We are grateful to the editor for advising us against the obvious

solecism.4 Invitation to tender: contractor brief: Rural and urban areas—

definition and classification.

of the Countryside’ report (Countryside Agency, 2002, p.11) defines a set of local authorities as being ‘rural’without a clear rationale.5 This places 28% of England’spopulation in ‘rural areas’. On the other hand, theOPCS analysis of the 1991 census, applying a differentdefinition based on small-scale analysis of land use,6

places 10% of the population in ‘rural areas’. Clearly,neither figure in isolation is especially informative. Eventhe interpretation of figures for population change basedon the same definition over time is less than straightfor-ward given the change of certain areas from onecategory to the other and the changing character ofrurality itself (e.g. Cloke and Edwards, 1986). Astandardisation onto a single definition would reducesome aspects of this confusion, but perhaps at theexpense of implying that there is indeed a singledefinition that is in some sense correct.

In practice, it is rarely possible to identify the policy-relevant characteristics of localities directly. Often theinterest will be in individual welfare, social isolation oraccess to employment or to services. These are notdirectly observable and it will thus be necessary to inferconditions on the basis of available indicators. There isthus a further problem in contrasting conditions indifferent types of area based on the available evidencefrom secondary data sources (Dunn et al., 1998). Thearea measure should be seen as one of a prevalence of aproblem experienced by individuals, but it may alsorepresent a measure of risk. Area-based measures ofdisadvantage can be interpreted as indicating thatpeople living within those areas are at greater risk ofsuffering disadvantage than people living in lessdisadvantaged areas. This problem is sometimes referredto as the ecological fallacy, the danger of assuming that,because statistics for an area show particular character-istics, individuals within the area will experience thiscombination of characteristics (Fieldhouse and Tye,1996).

Further, behavioural differences between differenttypes of areas can affect the appropriate interpretationof whatever indicators are available. Differences mayreflect differences in the spatial concentration of

the area of urban land should extend for 20 ha or more and should

have a minimum population of approximately 1000 persons (a proxy

for this was the exclusion of areas with less than four Census

Enumeration Districts). Rural areas are those areas which fall outside

of this definition.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Agriculture's share of total regional gross value added at basic prices, 2000

%

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4

North

Eas

t

North

Wes

t

Yorks

hire

& Hum

bers

ide

East M

idlan

ds

Wes

t Midl

ands

East o

f Eng

land

South

Eas

t & L

ondo

n

South

Wes

t

Fig. 1. Agricultural contribution to total gross value added at basic

prices in the UK, Source: DEFRA.

Editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 263–272 265

population, and hence the costs of certain actions, ordifferences in social conditions whereby norms andconventions may operate in different ways. Thus, forinstance a lack of public transport may deter residents inrural areas from making visits to see a doctor relative tothose living in urban areas. Thus a measure of visitsmade to see doctors may not be an accurate representa-tion of relative levels of health. A similar differencemight arise if the expectation within a rural communityis that doctors should only be consulted under direcircumstances. Similarly, different patterns of jobsearch, registration for unemployment and migrationbehaviours in different sizes and types of labour marketsuggest that comparisons of unemployment statisticswill not be straightforward. Indicators thus need to betreated with caution.

3. Stylised fallacies and available evidence

3.1. Stylised fallacy 1

3.1.1. Agricultural decline has a major impact on the

state of the rural economy

Arguments for support for agriculture and foragricultural diversification are often cast in terms ofthe wider impact of agricultural decline on the ruraleconomy. This is presumably based on a model in whichagricultural activity, as a basic sector, represents asignificant influence on the total level of economicactivity in the local area. Historically, this has hadconsiderable logic. Indeed, at low levels of economicdevelopment, agriculture is a significant influence on thenational economy. However, this is no longer the case.Agriculture contributed some 0.8% of total gross valueadded at basic prices in the UK in 2000. But there isconsiderable regional variation as shown in Fig. 1,between 0.2% for London and the South East, and1.2% in the East Midlands or the South West.

However, the argument deserves more careful scru-tiny at the local level where the position variesconsiderably between different local areas. In many,the twin processes of declining agricultural employmentand incomes and counterurbanisation (see below) haveleft agriculture as a very small element in the localeconomy, even in relatively ‘rural’ areas. At the sametime an increased significance of non-agriculturalincomes to agricultural households, suggest that thetraditionally assumed dependency of the local economyon agricultural activity may in fact be reversed.Agricultural households can only survive because ofthe economic opportunities arising from the non-farmsector.

Thus, this is indeed a fallacy as a generalisationalthough there may be a few localities where agriculturalchange is a significant influence on local levels of

economic activity. Even so, this in itself does notindicate that a stimulus to agricultural activity repre-sents the ‘best’ way of stimulating the local economy.


3.2.1. Depopulation is a persistent characteristic of rural

areas

Notwithstanding the documentation of widespreadcounterurbanisation in the 1981 census and its subse-quent persistence, depopulation continues to be an issueof debate. The 2001 census suggests a similar patternbetween 1991 and 2001 to that observed between 1981and 1991. Some figures comparing urban and ruralareas, using the Countryside Agency categorisation ofrural districts, are shown by region in Table 1.Population growth in rural districts has been higherthan that in rural districts in all regions except for theSouth East where urban growth has been slightly higher.But there have been considerable differences betweenrural areas in different regions, ranging between a smalldecline in the North East, particularly in Berwick-upon-Tweed and Wear Valley, to an over 8% increase in theEast Midlands, where growth was particularly strong inNorthamptonshire and Lincolnshire. Perhaps the mostnotable feature is the growth of population in London,especially in inner London.

Using a categorisation of local authority districtsdeveloped in 1991 (Hodge and Monk, 1991) in advanceof the 1991 census results, it is possible to comparepopulation change between 1981 and 1988 with popula-tion change between 1991 and 2001. Population changesby clusters are shown in Table 2. The highest rates ofpopulation growth have continued in two clusters:‘Farming’ (areas dominated by arable land uses in theeast and west of England) and South Eastern Growth (asemi-circle of districts north east to south west ofLondon, outside the green belt). There has been a


substantial reduction in the rate of growth of populationin the ‘Parks and Countryside’ cluster (primarily uplanddistricts dominated by livestock production). The rangebetween the clusters has reduced, although this maysimply reflect the fact that the clusters were created tomaximise the differences between them on the basis ofdata available in 1991; it may be that an alternative

Table 1

Population change, 1991–2001

Percentage population change, 1991–2001

Urban Rural

England �1.2 3.0

North East �3.0 �0.3

North West �2.6 3.3

Yorkshire and the Humber�0.4 5.0

East Midlands 1.2 8.4

West Midlands �0.4 5.2

East 3.6 7.7

London—Inner 6.6 —

London—Outer 4.4 —

South East 5.0 4.9

South West 3.0 7.3

Source: ONS and countryside agency.

Table 2

Population change, 1981–2001 by cluster

Cluster No of districts Population change

1981–1988 1991–2001

1 Coastal retirement 13 11.5 6.1

2 Parks and countryside 18 6.6 3.7

3Midland manufacturing 29 3.6 3.6

4 Farming 37 9.3 8.0

5 South eastern growth 33 13.2 7.3

6Midland outer manufacturing 34 4.7 3.2

7 Industrial declining 19 2.7 3.6

8 Service 49 9.1 4.2

9Mining and nuclear 4 �1.5 �0.8

10 Outer London pressured 21 0.7 3.4

Source: Hodge and Monk (1991) and ONS.

Table 3

Population change with fixed housing stock

Average household

size in

Great Britain

Population with fixed

housing stock

1961 3.1 930

1971 2.9 870

1981 2.7 810

1991 2.5 750

2001 2.3 690

clustering based on data available in 2001 wouldgenerate a similar range.

While the predominant position in rural areas is ofpopulation growth, there are a few local rural areasexperiencing population decline. However, the picturebased on an analysis of population change at a localauthority district scale and above almost certainly masksthe changes that are taking place at the very local level.Evidence from earlier population censuses has demon-strated that a significant proportion of the very smallestparishes have continued to decline in size, even indistricts experiencing quite high overall rates of popula-tion increase.

The likely explanation for this pattern of populationconcentration is almost certainly not associated withchanges in agriculture, or indeed any sort of eco-nomic decline. It is much more likely to arise from adecline in household size against a fixed or evendeclining housing stock. While the planning systemhas severely restricted the development of new houses inrural areas, there has been a steady decline in theaverage size of household. Table 3 illustrates the changethat would take place in a settlement of 300 housesoccupied at the average national household size between1961 and 2001.

This offers some basis for the persistent perception ofrural population decline within the smallest settlements.But the cause and hence, if it is regarded as a problem,the solution, does not lie in efforts to influence the levelof local economic activity. Indeed, Weekley (1988) hasargued that the effect should be regarded as aconsequence of counterurbanisation. The effect isexacerbated to the extent that the housing stockavailable to permanent residents is eroded by amalga-mating smaller into larger properties and by thepurchase of second homes.

In conclusion then, despite the prevalence of alongstanding process of counterurbanisation, there issome evidence in support of the notion that ruralpopulations are in decline. But this is predominantlyonly at the very local level in the smallest settlementsand is not associated with the traditional model of ruraldecline.

% decline in population

with fixed housing

stock (%)

New properties required per

decade to maintain population

at 1961 level.

�6 21

�7 23

�7 28

�8 32

ARTICLE IN PRESS

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Surre

y

Buckin

gham

shire

CC

Hertfo

rdsh

ire

Oxford

shire

North

Yor

kshir

eCC

Dorse

t CC

Wilt s

hire

CC

East S

usse

x CC

Cambr

idges

hire

CC

East C

umbr

ia

Devon

CC

North

umbe

rland

Suffo

lk

Heref

ords

hire,

Cou

nty o

f

l

Cornw

all& Is

es o

f Scil

ly

Isle

ofW

ight

Wes

t Cum

br

Fig. 2. A 3-year average domestic household income per head 1997–

1999 (UK=100).

7We should note that the definitions of rural areas differ between

these tables.



3.3.1. Incomes in rural areas are systematically lower

than those in urban areas

Not only are incomes in agriculture low relative toother sectors, but so also are those in other sectorscommonly associated with rural areas such as tourismand services. This means that localities where thesesectors predominate can experience relatively low earn-ings. Thus some of the most rural counties, such asCornwall or Shropshire, do have some of the lowestlevels of GDP per head in the country. But at the sametime, other relatively ‘rural’ counties have some of thehighest. Fig. 2 shows 3-year average domestic householdincome per head 1997–99 (UK=100). Thus, WestCumbria at 85 is only slightly above the lowest areasin England (East Merseyside at 79 and East Derbyshire,Nottingham and Leicester at 81), Surrey at 131 is thehighest county in the country, only below InnerLondon—West at 164. Clearly, ‘rurality’ per se is notsufficient to explain the spatial distribution of incomes.

Sometimes the argument is altered somewhat topropose that the incomes of ‘locals’ are low relative tothose of ‘newcomers’. There is some basis for this in theevidence that those moving into rural areas are often,although not always, on relatively high incomes.However this moves us, appropriately, away fromcategorisations based on location towards identificationof categories of people and patterns of local change.


3.4.1. The labour market in rural areas offers limited

opportunities and low wages

This stylised fallacy is similar to the previous one, butconcentrates on the workings of the rural labourmarket. The decline in agriculture and associatedeconomic activity in rural areas in the absence ofalternative employment opportunities can be expectedto lead to an over-supply of labour in rural labourmarkets. This does in some contexts explain therelatively low earnings in rural areas.

But, what is the ‘rural labour market’? In practice, theway in which individuals search for employment willvary depending on the sorts of employment that they areseeking and the resources available to them. Some willsearch on a national or even international basis, beingwilling to relocate in order to obtain the best job. Otherswill be prepared to commute over substantial distances,well beyond the areas that might be defined as either‘rural’ or ‘urban’. It is thus difficult or impossible todistinguish a separate market as being ‘rural’ or indeedto define labour markets generally in spatial terms at all.If we are to do so, we need to identify that group ofindividuals whose job search behaviour is restricted toan identifiable spatial area. In practice, those whosesearch is narrowed to an identifiably rural area will oftenhave some particular constraint, such as child carecommitments or lack of transport, that prevents a widersearch. In this sense, any labour market that canreasonably be defined as ‘rural’ is comprised of only asmall residual of the labour market as a whole. Andparticipation in that market will be constrained by avariety of factors leading to a mismatch between what isrequired and what are the options available (Hodgeet al., 2002), often beyond the simple availability of jobs.Policy solutions to employment problems within anyparticular local labour market need to be assessed withinthis broader context.


3.5.1. High house prices in rural areas force locals to

move away from the area

The issue of house prices represents the area where theconsequences of counterurbanisation have been mostfully incorporated into general policy discussion. Theargument is that the increased demand for housing inrural areas from in-migrants on relatively high incomesagainst a supply heavily restricted through the operationof the planning system has forced house prices above thelevels that can be afforded by ‘locals’. They are thereforeobliged to move away from the area in search of lower-cost housing.

There is of course some basis for this generalisation,but it is far from a sufficient analysis of the generalposition. It is in practice difficult to make accuratecomparisons between house prices in different locations.It would be necessary to estimate a full hedonic modeltaking account of any differences in housing character-istics in order to attribute any specific influence of thelocal environment on house prices. The position issignificantly complicated by differences in the composi-tion of the housing stock and in housing tenure indifferent types of area, as illustrated in Tables 4 and 5.7

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Housing, urban and rural areas, England, 1991

Percentage of household accommodation Rooms per household

Detached Terraced Purpose-built flat Not main residence

Total 20.0 29.2 15.3 1.2 5.1

Urban areas 16.7 31.0 16.6 1.0 5.0

Rural Areas 50.0 15.6 2.7 3.2 5.9

Source: Denham and White (1998).

Table 5

Housing tenure in urban and rural, 2001

Local authority rented Registered social landlord Other public sector Private sector

Urban areas 15.8 7 0.5 76.7

Rural areas 6.4 6.8 0.7 86.1

Source: Countryside Agency (2002).

Map 1 - Rank of access to housing, lowest 20%

Fig. 3. Access to housing bundle. Source: data from Midgley et al.

(2000).

Editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 263–272268

But as with other generalisations, the urban/ruraldichotomy obscures other patterns. In practice, we cancharacterise two different types of rural housingproblem.8 In some circumstances, the relationshipbetween the level of house prices and the level ofearnings in the local area prevents a significant propor-tion of those working locally from gaining access to thehousing market. In other circumstances, the conditionof the local housing stock is poor. Generally, we mayexpect the former to be associated with areas experien-cing counterurbanisation and with generally highincomes, and the latter to be associated with areasexperiencing the ‘traditional’ process of rural declineand low incomes.

The spatial patterns associated with these two types ofproblems are illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. Not surpris-ingly, the problems are prevalent in different areas andthere is a significant negative correlation between them.9

It is clear, and not surprising, that problems ofhousing affordability tend to be concentrated in themore affluent southern part of the country, whileproblems of housing conditions tend to be concentratedin the remoter areas. In fact, the proportion of wardpopulations that are disadvantaged with respect toaccess to housing tends to increase with increasingrurality, but to decline again for the most rural areas.The proportion disadvantaged with respect to housingconditions falls initially but then rises with increasingrurality (Midgley, et al., 2003). We might thus suggestthat there are arguably two quite different rural housingproblems but occurring in different types of rural area.

8Note that similar problems and differences are found in urban

areas too.9The correlation between the two indicators at the ward level is

0.305, significant at the 0.01 level (Midgley et al., 2003).


3.6.1. There is a systematic decline in the services

available to the population living in rural areas

In practice of course, the level of service provisiondepends considerably on the size of settlement. Fig. 5shows the proportion of settlements lacking certainservices as reported in the Rural Development Commis-sion/Countryside Agency surveys of rural services.Clearly, if we were to define rural areas in terms ofsettlements of less than 10,000 then the level varies

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Map 2 - Rank of housing conditions, lowest 20%

Fig. 4. Housing conditions bundle. Source: data from Midgley et al.

(2000).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 - 99 100 -199

200 -299

300 -499

500 -999

1000 -2999

3000 -9999

NO PO 94

NO PO 00

NO bus 94

NO bus 00

NO school 94

NO school 00

NO pub 94

NO pub 00

Survey of Rural Services, England 1994 and 2000

Fig. 5. Proportion of parishes lacking certain services, 1994 and 2000.

Source: Rural Development Commission (1995) and Countryside

Agency (2001).


within rural areas between most settlements havingprovision, to most settlements lacking it.

In the ‘traditional’ model of rural decline, the level ofservice provision falls with the reduced demand asso-ciated with a declining population and the emphasis indebate has generally been on the decline in servicesprovided in rural areas. But in practice many otherfactors are associated with the level of service provisionrelating to both supply and demand.10 Economies of sizeand centralisation in the supply of services, increasedpersonal mobility, privatisation of service providers andaltered patterns of demand have led to major changes inthe way in which services are delivered. A recent survey

10Houston (2003) has recently reviewed the implications of

migration for the decline of services in rural areas.

by the Countryside Agency (2001) has concluded that‘the decline of many, but not all, essential local servicesin rural areas seems to be slowing down’.

But far less attention is given to the ways in which, formany, access to services in rural areas has significantlyimproved over time. Rural areas in England, in contrastwith many other parts of the world, do not generallylack provision of basic infrastructure such as mainelectricity or telephone networks. Pervasive car owner-ship in combination with increased traffic congestion inurban areas has meant that many rural areas canreasonably be regarded as being more accessible thanmany urban areas. The increased capacity of informa-tion technology has reduced the isolation of rural areasand, in the context of the increased importance of theinformation economy, enables some people to workfrom extremely remote locations.11 Thus, a majority ofthe population in many rural and remote areas do nothave to live without essential services.

In practice, the relationship between rurality andservice provision is not straightforward. Recent analysisfor the Countryside Agency (2001) has mapped the areasthat lack a variety of local services. This reveals acomplex spatial pattern of service availability. While theremoter rural areas are generally more likely to lacklocal access to many of the services analysed, it isnotable that areas lacking services are spread quitewidely across the country, even in areas that might begenerally be thought of as relatively accessible.

However for some residents in rural areas, restrictedmobility combined with limited provision at the verylocal level can represent a serious source of disadvan-tage. Thus, the absence of particular ‘essential services’within a particular locality can for them be a significantproblem. At the same time, public policy has continuedto emphasise the objective of maintaining specific servicestandards across all areas. The 2000 Rural White papercomments ‘We want everyone to have the basic servicesthey need—shops, health and education—close at hand’(DETR and MAFF, 2000, p. 6).

But in practice, we might anticipate that an ‘optimal’standard of service would vary between locationsdepending on local circumstances. It would seem to bean extreme view that all residents should have an equalright to a certain standard of service irrespective of thecosts of its provision. Clearly, perceptions as to whatrights rural residents should enjoy vary considerablybetween countries; there are for instance few suchnotions in Australia. At the same time, it will oftennot be feasible to maintain the desired levels of servicethrough conventional means of delivery. For example,the public transport routes that are supported only

11 It is acknowledged that the infrastructure for some high-

technology services such as fast internet services or access to mobile

phones does not cover all rural areas.


through public subsidy still often fail to offer a usefulservice to most local residents.

Thus we must expect that the priorities for serviceprovision, the standards attained and the methods usedto deliver them will vary between localities and shouldbe determined locally. They will reflect both themarginal costs and benefits of the level of serviceprovision and, given a rejection of market tests, socialjudgements as to what levels are regarded as fair inparticular circumstances. This latter aspect may beinfluenced by historical patterns of service provision,migration and income levels.

4. Analysis and policy over differentiated spaces

Much debate about rural development is conductedon the apparent assumption that it is useful to generaliseabout conditions in rural areas and that they share acharacteristic set of problems. These may be repre-sented, albeit naively, in what we have termed ‘stylisedfallacies’. They are especially associated with lowincomes in agriculture, general population and econom-ic decline, high house prices relative to earnings, anddeclining levels of service provision. However, whileeach aspect can apply in specific local circumstances,none offers a valid generalisation of the conditions inrural areas as a whole. The presence of ‘rural’ attributesis not per se a rationale for policy intervention. Thus,any attempt to characterise a single set of ‘rural’problems is bound to be misleading. Similarly, conceptssuch as the ‘rural economy’ or the ‘rural labour market’have little meaning.

For this reason, little is to be gained in seeking toestablish a single definition of rural areas beyond somedegree of apparent statistical or administrative conve-nience. To target policy on ‘rural areas’ almost certainlyconfuses the purpose of the policy, both because of thewide variation in circumstances found within rural areasand because of the high degree of interaction betweeneconomic activity in urban and rural areas such thatpolicies need to take account of both types of area. Thewider context of an area is significant as well as itsinternal characteristics.12

Where the formal targeting of policy is felt to benecessary (rather than allocating against indicativetargeting criteria, see for instance Hodge et al., 1996),policy should be targeted in respect of the specificcircumstances within particular localities. Thus specificanalyses are required, relating to particular problems(e.g. accessibility to housing or particular types of local

12Thus, for instance, the Rural Development Commission found it

necessary to include some ‘urban’ market towns within its Rural

Development Areas despite its definition of rural areas on the basis of

settlements of less than 10,000.

services). These will seek to tell a story about the sets ofconditions affecting individuals in local contexts andwill aim to identify the numbers of people facingparticular problems of disadvantage (see Hodge et al.,2000; Midgley et al., 2003).

There are however correlations between differenttypes of disadvantages, both positive and negative,that suggest the presence of consistent spatial patterns.This indicates a need to develop alternative chara-cterisations of particular types of locality. Thiswill include statistical analysis (e.g. Hodge and Monk,1991) that can identify the patterns amongst parti-cular indicators. Analysis, both quantitative andqualitative can then offer explanation of the pro-cesses and relationships that are influencing theparticular outcomes. Thus, for instance, Marsdenet al. (1993) have proposed and Murdoch et al. (2003)have elaborated a number of ‘differentiated country-sides’ based on a characterisation of different typesof area:

4.1. The preserved countryside

Lowland and attractive and accessible upland areascharacterised by the dominance of pastoral andpreservationist attitudes and decision-making processes.These concerns are expressed by middle-class socialgroups, often working in nearby urban centres. Thisgroup provides a ready demand for new developmentactivities associated with leisure, the service sector andresidential property.

4.2. The contested countryside

Areas outside the main commuter zones where localagricultural, commercial and development interestsmay be politically dominant, tending to favourdevelopment for local needs. These interests areincreasingly opposed by ‘incomers’ who may be middleclass workers or retirees. Thus the development processis marked by increasing conflict between old andnew groups.

4.3. The paternalistic countryside

Areas where large private estates and big farmspredominate and where the development process isdecisively shaped by established landowners. Largeestates seek out diversification opportunities and canimplement them relatively unhindered. They take along-term management view of their properties andadopt a traditional paternalistic role. These areasare likely to be subject to less development pressure,in part because the middle class is present in lowernumbers.

ARTICLE IN PRESSEditorial / Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 263–272 271

4.4. The clientelist countryside

Found in remote areas where agriculture and itsassociated political institutions still hold sway. Processesof rural development are determined by state agencies,in part, because farming can only be sustained by statesubsidy. State agencies and agricultural interest groupsfrequently work together in close relationships. Localpolitics is dominated by employment concerns and thewelfare of the ‘community’.

No attempt is made to discern these areas in specificspatial terms or to test them against available statisticalindicators. And there will of course be gradationsbetween them. We might also wish to debate the specificterminology and relationships hypothesised. Perversely,the ‘protected’ countryside is probably the one in whichrates of development are the highest.13 Some specificareas may be subject to more than one type of influence.Northumberland is taken by Murdoch et al. (2003) as acase study for the paternalistic countryside, but it isargued that ‘clientelism’ associated with the influence ofstate agencies is also a significant influence there.However, the approach does recognise the differentexternal pressures operating on local areas with differinginternal characteristics. It takes account of botheconomic and institutional aspects of change and thesehave obvious implications for efforts to tackle particularpolicy problems, although the extent to which thedifferentiation process is driven by levels of externaldemand rather than differences in internal propertyrights and networks is less clear.

The ‘differentiated countrysides’ approach starts fromthe opposite position from the Hodge and Monk (1991)clustering approach; starting from a theoretical andqualitative analysis of rural change rather than from astatistical analysis. The cluster analysis may be seen assuggesting the extent of some of the differentiatedcountrysides, although it does not seem to offer a basisfor distinguishing the ‘paternalistic’ or ‘clientelistic’ coun-trysides. At the same time, it suggests that there may beother types of area, such as the ‘Outer London pressured’or ‘coastal retirement’. There is scope to explore furtherthe spatial and statistical characteristics associated with thedifferentiated countryside as well as the theoretical basisfor the differences identified between the cluster areas.

5. Conclusions

We are not arguing that we should, as expressed byHoggart (1990), ‘do away with rural’. The term

13 In practice statistical comparison depends upon specific spatial

definitions. Thus, for instance, the rate of growth would be higher with

the inclusion of the larger ‘rural’ settlements.

continues to have pragmatic value in identifyinga general category of circumstances for study and, inthe absence of alternative datasets, some use incharacterising different types of locality. But it isan insufficient and potentially misleading guide topolicy.14

But even if it is possible to distinguish syste-matic patterns of change in particular types of localarea, it may still not be appropriate to target anddeliver policy on a territorial basis. Increasingly, if wemay be permitted one generalisation relating to atleast many rural areas, sources of social exclusionoperate on a minority of households in particularways. This suggests a need for new characterisationsof rural change and disadvantage that get beyondthe stylised fallacies of popular debate. And newapproaches to policy, institutional analysis and ruraldevelopment.

References

Cloke, P., Edwards, G., 1986. Rurality in England and Wales

1981—a replication of the 1971 Index. Regional Studies 20 (4),

289–306.

Countryside Agency, 2001. Rural services in 2000. CA48, Countryside

Agency, Cheltenham.

Countryside Agency, 2002. The state of the countryside. CA109,

Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.

Denham, C., White, I., 1998. Differences in urban and rural Britain.

Population Trends 91, 23–34.

DETR and MAFF, 2000. Our countryside: the future. A fair

deal for rural England. Cm4909, The Stationery Office,

Norwich.

DoE and MAFF, 1995. Rural England: a nation committed to a living

countryside. Cm 3016, HMSO, London.

Dunn, J., Hodge, I., Monk, S., Kiddle, C., 1998. Developing

Indicators of Rural Disadvantage. Rural Research Report no. 36,

Rural Development Commission, London.

Fieldhouse, E.A., Tye, R., 1996. Deprived people or deprived places?

Exploring the ecological fallacy in studies of deprivation with the

samples of Anonymised Records. Environment and Planning A 28,

237–259.

Hodge, I., Monk, S., 1991. In search of a rural economy: patterns and

differentiation in non-metropolitan England. Monograph 20,

Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.

Hodge, I., Dunn, J., Monk, S., 1996. Redefining the rural development

areas: the limits of spatial targeting. Regional Studies 30 (2),

207–214.

Hodge, I., Dunn, J., Monk, S., Kiddle, C., 2000. An exploration of

bundles as indicators of disadvantage. Environment and Planning

A 32 (10), 1869–1887.

Hodge, I., Dunn, J., Monk, S., Fitzgerald, M., 2002. Barriers to

participation in residual rural labour markets. Work, Employment

and Society 16 (3), 457–476.

Hoggart, K., 1990. Let’s do away with rural. Journal of Rural Studies

6 (3), 245–257.

14 It might be argued that the success of the Countryside Alliance is

based almost entirely on the misperception of the commonality of

‘rural’ problems.


Houston, D., 2003. The role of migration in the decline of services in

rural areas. In: Higgs, G. (Ed.), Rural Services and Social

Exclusion. European Research in Regional Science, Vol. 12.

pp. 41–58. Pion Limited, London.

Marsden, T., et al., 1993. Constructing the Countryside. UCL Press,

London.

Midgley, I., Hodge, I., Monk, S., 2000. Developing indicators of rural

disadvantage: stage II. Final Report to the Countryside Agency,

Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.

Midgley, J., Hodge, I., Monk, S., 2003. Patterns and concentrations of

disadvantage in England: a rural–urban perspective. Urban Studies

40 (8), 1427–1454.

Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N., Marsden, T., 2003. The

Differentiated Countryside. Routledge, London.

Rural Development Commission, 1995. 1994 survey of rural services:

summary of findings. Rural information series. Rural Development

Commission, London.

Weekley, I., 1988. Rural depopulation and counterurbanisation: a

paradox. Area 20, 127–134.

Ian HodgeE-mail address: [email protected]

Sarah MonkDepartment of Land Economy, University of Cambridge,

19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK

The economic diversity of rural England: stylised fallacies and uncertain evidence

Documents

Transcript of The economic diversity of rural England: stylised fallacies and uncertain evidence