Historicizing counterurbanization: in-migration and the reconstruction of rural space in Berkshire (UK), 1901-51

This article uses census data for Berkshire to argue that large-scale counterurbanization began much earlier than is generally recognized in some parts of southern England. This was not just movement down the urban hierarchy, which as Pooley and Turnbull have demonstrated was a long-term feature of England’s settlement system, but in some cases at least amenity-driven migration to rural areas of the kind increasingly recognized as a core component of recent counterurbanization. Despite a reduction of acreage Berkshire’s rural districts saw a 54% rise in population between 1901 and 1951. The sub-regional pattern of growth is assessed to gauge whether ‘clean break’ migration to the remote west of the county (which remained effectively out of commuting range from London throughout the period) was taking place, or whether counterurbanization was confined to the more accessible eastern districts. However, whilst population did increase in both west and east, it was in fact the central districts that grew most impressively. Three case study parishes are investigated in order to gauge the nature and consequences of counterurbanization at a local level. Professional and business migrants figure prominently, seeking to preserve and promote the rural attributes of their new communities, without however cutting their ties to urban centres. It is argued that migration to rural Berkshire in the first half of the twentieth century cannot adequately be described either as a form of extended suburbanization or an anti-metropolitan ‘clean break’. Rather, early counterurbanization marks the first stage on the long road to a post-productivist countryside, in which countryside becomes detached from agriculture, there is socio-economic convergence between town and country, and the ‘rural’ increasingly becomes defined by landscape and identity rather than economic function.

State and society in the English countryside: the rural community movement 1918-1939

This paper assesses the relationship between state and society in interwar rural England, focusing on the hitherto neglected role of the Rural Community Councils (RCCs). The rise of statutory social provision in the early twentieth century created new challenges and opportunities for voluntaryism, and the rural community movement was in part a response. The paper examines the early development of the movement, arguing that a crucial role was played by a close-knit group of academics and local government officials. While largely eschewing party politics, they shared a commitment to citizenship, democracy and the promotion of rural culture; many of them had been close associates of Sir Horace Plunkett. The RCCs engaged in a wide range of activities, including advisory work, adult education, local history, village hall provision, support for rural industries and an ambivalent engagement with parish councils. The paper concludes with an assessment of the achievements of the rural community movement, arguing that it was constrained by its financial dependence on voluntary contributions.

In search of the aim of the free movement of persons provisions: has the Court of Justice missed the point?

The Court of Justice has, over the years, often been vilified for exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction by interpreting the provisions of Community legislation in a way not seem originally envisaged by its drafters. A recent example of this approach was a cluster of cases in the context of the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment (Ritter-Coulais and its progeny), where the Court included within the scope of those provisions situations which, arguably, did not present a sufficient link with their (economic) aim. In particular, in that case law the Court accepted that the mere exercise of free movement for the purpose of taking up residence in the territory of another Member State whilst continuing to exercise an economic activity in the State of origin, suffices for bringing a Member State national within the scope of Articles 39 and 43 EC. It is argued that the most plausible explanation for this approach is that the Court now wishes to re-read the economic fundamental freedoms in such a way as to include within their scope all economically active Union citizens, irrespective of whether their situation presents a sufficient link with the exercise of an economic activity in a cross-border context. It is suggested that this approach is problematic for a number of reasons. It is, therefore, concluded that the Court should revert to its orthodox approach, according to which only situations that involve Union citizens who have moved between Member States for the purpose of taking up an economic activity should be included within the scope of the market freedoms.