8/14/2019 Rural Development in England - The Art of Saying Old Things in New Ways

1/2

Draft

Rural Development In EnglandThe Art of Saying Old Things in New Ways?

The problems of rurality appear to be intractable. Associated with access toservices, employment, and leisure, they are functions of population sparsity,

demography, opportunity, and geography. Relatively small numbers of people,living a long way from one another in remote places makes for expensive andpossibly limited service provision. Opportunities in rural areas for young people,the poor, and those disadvantaged by, for example, a lack of transport, are alsobound to be limited. The old and the frail are similarly disadvantaged. Inaddition, financially hard-pressed service providers find it difficult to meetpeoples needs during a time of constant change in central and local governmentstructures, priorities, and ways of working.

These problems are not new. How can they be? Remoteness is remoteness.Although it is possible to travel faster today than 150 years ago, the relative

advantage of the townies access to services and facilities remains. Similarly,although working and communicating via Broadband has transformed life in ruralareas, Broadband speeds in London, for example, can be twice the speed ofthose in rural areas.

For many years now, people interested in rural lives and livelihoods have lobbiedtirelessly to improve the lot of country people. Current concerns about theexodus of young people, an ageing population, about disparities between urbanand rural public expenditure, about the loss of Post Offices and GeneralPractitioner surgeries, the closure of schools, the lack of affordable housing, andthe loss of a sense of community caused by the increasing number of incomers,

are so familiar as to be almost traditional.

According to the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), however, the vastmajority of rural dwellers are happy with their lot. Education standards tend tobe higher than in urban areas, as do incomes. There are quality of lifeadvantages, and there is a healthy amount of entrepreneurial activity. That said,there is also, according to the CRC, plenty of rural disadvantage to worry about,and much of their and others research suggests that this is so, and,moreover, that this has long been the case. The contradiction between theincreasing popularity of rural life with its, in many ways, vigorous economies andvibrant communities, and the persistent, well-known, much researched andreported-upon problems associated with rural disadvantage, is obvious.

Concern about rural England seems to be embedded in the English psyche. Inthe nineteenth century there were concerns about the adverse effects ofimprovements in transport and education on rural services. In the 1930s,according to early documentary films, there were familiar worries about theexodus of young people from the countryside, and the need for village halls andother facilities - a view often repeated since in numerous reports. In the 1980sRural Voices Village Ventures film urged people to use their Post Office or lose it(or, in the case of the village pub, Booze it, or lose it!).

There is a certain sense of dj vu about all of this, and, possibly, a certain

comfort amongst, albeit frustrated and caring, policy makers, academics andpractitioners that, if nothing else, their employment is assured.

Gordon Morris 19 September 2008

8/14/2019 Rural Development in England - The Art of Saying Old Things in New Ways

2/2

Draft

The solutions to these problems are obvious, but they are unlikely to beimplemented. For example, financial and access poverty could be overcome byincreasing benefits via a rural premium to cover the additional costs of travel, orproviding more housing at affordable (subsidised) rents. The rural wealthy could

be subjected to higher taxes, of income or, perhaps, of land (a source of revenuefavoured by Tom Paine in the 1790s, Churchill in 1909, and discussed recentlyby Professor McLean of Oxford University). Tax income could be hypothecated tomeet the needs of the rural poor (after all, those who would be taxed oftenexpress their concern for the rural disadvantaged).

Similarly, incentives to persuade businesses to relocate in rural areas could be(re-)introduced. More money could be invested in mobile provision of, say,dental clinics (as was the case in some areas in the 1950s and 60s). The ruralpremiums long called for by SPARSE could be provided. Proven schemes such asWheels to Work could be made statutory, and paid for accordingly.

Experience suggests that these changes are unlikely to come about, provokingquestions about the effectiveness of approaches to rural development, and valuefor money. The fundamental problems facing the disadvantaged remain largelyunchanged and, despite all the evidence and experience, conventionalapproaches seem only to maintain the status quo. Is there a better way, or is itthe destiny of those employed in rural development to be forever trying to sayold things in new ways?

Gordon Morris 19 September 2008