Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences

Considerable importance is attached to social exclusion/inclusion in recent EU rural development programmes. At the national/regional operation of these programmes groups of people who are not participating are often identified as ‘socially excluded groups’. This article contends that rural development programmes are misinterpreting the social processes of participation and consequently labelling some groups as socially excluded when they are not. This is partly because of the interchangeable and confused use of the concepts social inclusion, social capital and civic engagement, and partly because of the presumption that to participate is the default position. Three groups identified as socially excluded groups in Northern Ireland are considered. It is argued that a more careful analysis of what social inclusion means, what civic engagement means, and why participation is presumed to be the norm, leads to a different conclusion about who is excluded. This has both theoretical and policy relevance for the much used concept of social inclusion.

Growth Coalitions and Rural Development Police in the EU and the US

A recent issue of EuroChoices (7:1) was devoted to a discussion of comparative US-EU rural development policies. This article discusses the concept of growth coalitions, well developed in urban literature but less so in rural literature. Some light is shed on the different positions of rural and environmental issues in EU and US policies. The agricultural lobby is the dominant actor in agricultural growth coalitions because it perceives land in terms of its exchange value. Environmental and rural development actors perceive land in terms of its use value and its contributions to quality of life: they form a rural development coalition, seeing the need to balance growth with quality of life, but they have less political power than the agricultural growth coalition. In the European context, rural and environmental agendas are linked to a multi-functional agricultural agenda allowing common ground between these two coalitions and greater visibility in the policy arena. In the US, rural interests and environmental groups are more often in opposition to agriculture. This reduces their political visibility and clout. The challenge is how to link the power of the agricultural growth coalitions with rural development coalitions to achieve a broader balance of concerns and a more effective rural development policy.

The diverse geographies of rural gentrification in Scotland

Gentrification has for too long been investigated as an urban phenomenon. Only relatively recently has it been viewed as an avenue for fruitful rural research. This paper focuses on the repopulation of rural Scotland. Using survey and interview data it examines evidence of gentrification among in-migration flows and seeks to explore both the social transformation of rural areas and the social displacement of rural residents.

The findings point towards important geographical variations. Not all in-migration represents gentrification, and where it does gives rise to very differing impacts. Clear spatial divisions in the local housing market are identified, and evidence is obtained to support a number of differing theoretical debates. Issues of social displacement and population replacement are explored, with the paper tentatively suggesting an important link between urban and rural gentrification processes. Finally, temporal and geographical phases of gentrification are identified. Collectively these findings have direct relevance to how we define gentrification.