England, United Kingdom 2011

274 Pages·2011·9.25 MB·English

by  OECD

OECD Rural Policy Reviews
OECD Rural Policy Reviews
EnglanD, UnitED KingDOm
Rural England plays a significant role in the economy of the United Kingdom, but an even larger
social and cultural role. And it is unique among OECD regions, in that it is geographically compact, EnglanD,
with rural inhabitants generally no more than a half hour’s drive from an urban area. There is thus
a vast amount of interaction between rural and urban populations in England.
UnitED KingDOm
England’s rural population is, on average, doing better than the urban population across a broad
range of socio-economic indicators. Nevertheless, rural England is also struggling with pockets
of poverty and social exclusion, difficulties in maintaining access to high-quality public services,
an ageing population, and, most importantly, a widespread shortage of affordable housing.
The government has adopted mainstreaming as its rural policy strategy. The objective of
mainstreaming is to ensure that people in rural England have access to the same policies and
programmes as those available in urban England. While mainstreaming is an attractive policy
approach, especially in a country with strong rural-urban interactions such as England, it has proved
challenging to implement for different reasons. This report examines the mainstreaming policy
response as applied to rural England and suggests ways to increase its effectiveness.
The report will interest academics and policy makers alike as it includes a discussion on
governance structures and decentralisation; delivering public services; economic development; and O
E
the importance of improving connectivity in the context of rural areas. While the focus is on rural C
D
England, other OECD member countries will also benefit from the insights provided. R
u
r
also available a
l P
The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance (2006) o
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Germany (2007) lic
y
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Mexico (2007) R
e
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Finland (2008) v
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: The Netherlands (2008) ie
w
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Scotland, UK (2008) s
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: China (2009) E
n
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Italy (2009) g
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Spain (2009) l
a
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Québec, Canada (2010) n
D
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Strategies to Improve Rural Service Delivery (2010) , U
n
it
E
D
K
in
Please cite this publication as: g
D
OECD (2011), OECD Rural Policy Reviews: England, United Kingdom 2011, OECD Publishing. O
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264094444-en m

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical
databases. Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org, and do not hesitate to contact us for more information.
isbn 978-92-64-09442-0 -:HSTCQE=U^YYWU:
04 2010 10 1 P
www.oecd.org/publishing

OECD Rural Policy Reviews:
England, United Kingdom
2011
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2011), OECD Rural Policy Reviews: England, United Kingdom 2011, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264094444-en
ISBN 978-92-64-09442-0 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-09444-4 (PDF)
Series/Periodical: OECD Rural Policy Reviews
ISSN 1990-9276 (print)
ISSN 1990-9284 (online)
Photo credits: Cover: top-right and bottom-left © Government of the United Kingdom
top-left © Monty Rakusen/Digital Vision/Getty Images
bottom-right © Chemistry/Digital Vision/Getty Images
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2011
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and
multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should
be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be
addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC)
at [email protected].
FOREWORD
Foreword
W
ith gains in agricultural productivity leading to a dramatic reduction in farm employment,
rural regions across the OECD now depend on a wide range of economic engines for growth.
Increasing globalisation, improved communications and reduced transportation costs are additional
drivers of economic change in rural areas. Traditional policies to subsidise farming have not been
able to harness the potential of these economic engines. In 2006, the OECD published a thematic
report The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance, which seeks to explain the shift in
rural development policies to account for these important economic changes and the need for a new
approach to governance.
Policies to develop rural places are beginning to take into account the diversity of economic
engines as well as the diverse types of rural regions. On the aggregate level, rural regions face
problems of decline with out-migration, ageing, a lower skill base and lower average labour
productivity which then reduce the critical mass needed for effective public services, infrastructure,
and business development, thereby creating a vicious circle. However, there are many rural regions
which have seized opportunities and built on their existing assets, such as location, natural and
cultural amenities and social capital. The success of such dynamic rural regions is evident in regional
statistics.
Promoting rural development poses numerous policy and governance challenges because it
requires co-ordination across sectors, across levels of government and between public and private
actors. OECD countries have therefore been undergoing a paradigm shift in their approaches to
accommodate such important challenges. The most defining characteristics of this shift are a focus
on places rather than sectors and an emphasis on investments rather than subsidies.
The multi-disciplinary nature of rural development has contributed to the lack of comprehensive
analytical frameworks to analyse and evaluate multisectoral, place-based approaches. To fill this
knowledge gap, the OECD co-operates with stakeholders worldwide. Its work on rural development
was intensified with the creation in 1999 of the Territorial Development Policy Committee (TDPC)
and its Working Party on Territorial Policy in Rural Areas. These bodies provide governments with a
forum for discussing regional and rural development. In early 2006, under TDPC’s guidance the
Directorate of Public Governance and Territorial Development (GOV) launched a series of national
rural policy reviews, such as this one on England, to deepen international knowledge in this field.
OECD RURAL POLICY REVIEWS: ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM 2011 © OECD 2011 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements
T
his review was prepared by the Directorate of Public Governance and Territorial
Development (GOV) of the OECD in collaboration with the government of the United Kingdom.
The Secretariat would like to thank Robin Mortimer, Ron Scrutton, Tony Williamson,
Nick Turner, and Jackie Rawlings from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra) for their support for the study, their part in providing background information
and for accompanying the study missions.
Peer Reviewing countries (Ireland and The Netherlands) were represented by: Gillian
Buckley, Investment Manager, Western Development Commission (Irish delegate to the
OECD Working Party on Territorial Policy in Rural Areas) and Hans Zwetsloot, Director,
Rural Development Programme, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.
The Review was directed by Joaquim Oliveira Martins (Head, Regional Development Policy
Division) and David Freshwater (Head, Rural Development Programme). The Review was co-
ordinated and drafted by David Freshwater and Betty-Ann Bryce (Administrator) of the OECD
Secretariat. External contributors were Robert Annis, former Director Rural Development
Institute, Brandon University (Canada), Thomas Johnson, Frank Miller Professor of
Agricultural Economics, Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri
(United States) and Renata Rees, former Head of Rural Strategy, Defra (United Kingdom).
Jeanette Duboys, Erin Byrne, and Kate Lancaster prepared the review for publication.
Special thanks go to Pippa Gibson of Defra and Justin Martin of the Commission for Rural
Communities (CRC) for providing a wealth of statistical information that helped shape the
report. Officials from Communities and Local Government, The Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills and the Department for Transport helped set the scene for our study
missions which benefited from the planning and participation of John Fitzsimmons and
Graham Russell from CRC. Other officials from CRC, members and officials from the Regional
Development Agencies, officials from the Government Offices in the Regions, representatives
from Local Authorities, the voluntary sector, the academic sector, other parts of the
government network and many others made our visits enjoyable, interesting and extremely
illuminating.
OECD RURAL POLICY REVIEWS: ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM 2011 © OECD 2011 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Assessment and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Chapter 1. Profile of Rural England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.1. Key points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.2. “Rural” is different in England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.3. Rural England is growing and is better off. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.4. Rural England has good socio-economic indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1.5. There is no “distinct” rural economy in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
1.6. Five “key” sectors form the core of the rural economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
1.7. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Annex 1.A1. Additional Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 2. England’s Rural Policy and Governance Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.1. Key points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.3. The evolution of rural policy in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.4. The different components of rural policy in England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.5. Mainstreaming rural at the sub national level: actors and mechanisms . . . . 123
2.6. England’s rural financial framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
2.7. Housing policy and spatial planning in rural England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2.8. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Annex 2.A1. Additional Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Chapter 3. Assessment of England’s Rural Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
3.1. Key points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3.2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
3.3. The New Rural Paradigm offers a framework for examining
rural policy in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.4. The challenges in mainstreaming rural. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
3.5. Strengthening rural proofing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.6. Improving the evidence base, strengthening the case for rural policy . . . . . . 182
3.7. Decentralisation in England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
OECD RURAL POLICY REVIEWS: ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM 2011 © OECD 2011 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.8. There is room to further elevate the visibility of the rural voice . . . . . . . . . . 193
3.9. Housing policy and rural England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
3.10. Service delivery – the challenges and opportunities in rural England. . . . . . 199
3.11. Linkages between English policy and EU policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
3.12. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Chapter 4. Policy Recommendations for Rural England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.1. Key points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
4.2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
4.3. Developing more effective governance structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
4.4. Enhancing mainstreaming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
4.5. Introducing rural to regional cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
4.6. Ensuring equitable access to services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
4.7. Strengthening the rural economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
4.8. Expanding connectivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
4.9. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Évaluation et recommandations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Tables
1.1. Rural and urban definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.2. Selected socio-economic indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1.3. Comparison of poverty levels in sparse and less sparse rural areas. . . . . . . . . 59
1.4. Fuel poverty in rural and urban areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1.5. Projected household estimates, 2006-2031 (national) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1.6. Number of service outlets, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
1.7. Change in the level of intrusion by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
1.8. % economically active working age population who are unemployed, 2004-06 . . 76
1.9. Proportion of local authorities with 80% and above employment rate. . . . . . . 76
1.10. Business start-ups per 10 000 population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1.11. Aspirations for small businesses, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
1.12. Top 50 visitor “economy-dependent” English authorities, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
1.13. Biofuels used to generate electricity and heat in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1.14. Wind generation capacity in the United Kingdom, 31 December 2009. . . . . . . 97
1.A1.1. Change in average and lower quartile house prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.1. 2007 comprehensive spending review PSAs and DSOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2.2. Local government organisations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
2.3. Sum of estimated rural spend in England, 2007-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
2.4. Government service expenditure on rural areas 2007-08. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
2.5. England 2007-13 Rural Development Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2.6. Rural housing delivery during 2008-09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.1. The New Rural Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.2. Business stock 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
3.3. Distribution of jobs across sectors, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
3.4. Rates of centralisation per policy area excluding health and education . . . . . 188
3.5. Five dominant gaps that challenge multilevel governance relationships . . . . 188
3.6. Degrees of decentralisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8 OECD RURAL POLICY REVIEWS: ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM 2011 © OECD 2011