13th European Week of Regions and Cities, presentation made on 12-15 October in Brussels, Belgium by Paolo Veneri, Economist, Regional Development Policy, OECD.
www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/
2024: The FAR, Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 30
Rural urban partnership for economic development
1. Rural-Urban Partnership for economic
development: rationale, geographies and
governance approaches
Paolo Veneri
Regional Development Policy Division
OECD
27 October 2015
GLOBAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING
The Role of Intermediate Cities in Strengthening Urban-Rural Linkages towards the
New Urban Agenda
2. Outline
1. What is urban / what is rural
2. Demographic, economic and well-being profile of urban
and rural areas
3. Urban-rural interactions and regional performance
4. From linkages to partnerships
5. Building effective U-R partnerships
3. 1. What is urban / what is rural
Current OECD classification of urban and rural areas
The current OECD typology is defined for Territorial Level 3 regions and into 3 major
categories. Subsequently, rural regions are classified in 2 sub-categories
TL3 regions
Intermediate
Predominantly
rural
Predominantly
urban
Rural close to a
city
Rural remote
Based on population
density of local units
Based on accessibility /
distance to cities
Large regions (TL2)
Usually the first government layer after the
national/federal one
Smaller regions, often corresponding to admin.
entities (i.e. Départements in France)
4. 2. Demographic, economic and well-being profile
of urban and rural areas
In OECD countries, on average, almost 80% of rural population
live close to an urban area (2012)
5. 2. Demographic, economic and well-being profile
of urban and rural areas
Different types of regions show similar patterns of growth in GDP per capita, 2010-12
6. 0.005.01.015
AverageannualgrowthofrealGDPpercapita(2000-12)
Rural remote Intermediate Urban Rural close to a city
3. Urban-rural interactions and regional
performance
Economic growth in the last decade was highest in rural regions close to cities
Cities support GDP
(and population)
growth in
surrounding rural
places
Source: OECD
regional database
Average annual growth of real GDP per capita (2000-12) by type of region
7. Strong spatial externalities between urban and rural regions are observed
population rural regions grow
more, ceteris paribus, the more
connected they are (the smaller
the distance) to the closest urban
or intermediate region
there positive growth spillovers
from urban to rural regions in
terms of population and GDP.
The existence of these externalities makes worth shifting the
attention from the administrative to the functional
organization of the territory (functional regions)
3. Urban-rural interactions and regional
performance
8. 4. From linkages to partnerships
Definition
Rural-urban partnerships are mechanisms of co-
operation between urban and rural stakeholders in order
to reach common objectives.
Distinctive features:
1. a membership mix that includes the relevant rural and urban stakeholders
2. initiatives aimed at yielding collective benefits to urban and rural partners
Characteristics:
• Members of R-U partnerships can belong to the private or public sector,
depending on the context and on the purpose of the initiative.
• The public sector is often the key promoter of the R-U partnership, which can
range from a formal body with delegated power to an informal co-operation
platform
9. 4. From linkages to partnerships
Some observed purposes of R-U partnerships
Category of benefit observed Example of sub-type of objective Example of practical experience
Production of public goods
Landscape preservation
Better management of natural resources
Larger and more integrated markets
Urban agriculture (Rennes, FR): small scale
farming activities in peri-urban spaces
Promotion of an integrated food supply chain
(Forli, IT; Nuremberg, DE): connecting rural-
areas to the market, through co-operation
between urban and rural actors
Common Management of water resources
(Forli, IT): mountain municipalities providing
water benefit from a share of revenues,
investments in cultural heritage and tourism
development initiatives
Achieving higher economies
of scale
Providing better and cheaper services to both
urban and rural communities
Education and health care through the use of
ICT (Central Finland)
Waste management (West Pomerania, PL):
through co-operation between R and U
municipal.
Capacity building
Improve capacity of local administrations to
carry out policy
Manage conflicts for land use conflicts for land
use between farming and housing (Geelong,
AU)
Account for negative cross-
border externalities
Housing and land use policy that account for
the need of landscape preservation (Limiting
“sprawl”)
Integrated spatial plan: housing, land use
policy and transportation are co-ordinated at
the level of functional region (Pays de
Rennes)
Overcoming co-ordination
failures
Building a common vision for development
and matching investment decisions
Common plan for economic development
(Geelong, AU; Nuremberg, DE)
10. The case of Forlì-Cesena, Italy: different geographies for different functions
Labour market areas (LLSs) Rural-urban. agro-industry partnership Tourism and water: the area of
Romagna (territorial identity – soft factor)
Forli
Cesena
different regions for different functions
labour market areas are not large enough to catch all the territory of the R-U partnership
soft factors such as a strong territorial identity (e.g. ‘Romagna”) plays a role for the
identification some of the partnerships (tourism, water, etc.)
4. From linkages to partnership
The spaces of co-operation (case studies)
11. 4. From linkages to partnership
The example of urban agriculture in Rennes Métropole (RM)
Context: political choice for “ville archipel” (agriculture between urban centres)
Tool: Local Agricultural Programme within a Common inter-municipal plan (SCoT)
Rural areas
- Ecosystem services
- Niche food products
- Landscape
- Quality of life
Urban areas
- Advanced services
- Access to large
market
- Diversification
Meta-objectives:
- Set-up an agricultural observatory to monitor economic dynamics
- Combine planning, land and agriculture
- Strengthen the grove in its multiple roles
- Adapt to the new energy and climate context
- Strengthen the linkages between agriculture and citizens (communication; short circuits
and local identity of products; support agricultural diversification)
RM gave to farmers financial subsidy in two cases: a) support the "agricultural diversification":
(for 20% max of the investment - farm products stores led by farmers groups;
b)Under the program "Breizh bocage" : RM contributes for 100% to the plantation of
hedgerows (mulching, plantations, soil preparation, maintenance during 3 years ).
12. 4. From linkages to partnership
Four governance approaches to R-U partnerships
Explicit rural-urban
partnership
Partnership deliberately
addresses the management
of rural-urban relationships.
Implicit rural-urban
partnership
Co-operation is driven by
objectives mandating the
involvement of urban and rural
areas.
No delegated
functions
High flexibility (large and
diverse set of actors)
Lower access to resources
Potential discord between
actors
Example: Nuremberg
Metropolitan Region
With delegated
functions
High access to resources
High influence
Low flexibility
Example: Rennes
Métropole
With delegated
functions
High access to
resources
Need comprehension
of U-R issues
Example: Province of
Forlì-Cesena
No delegated
functions
Soft co-operation
High flexibility
Sectoral approach
Example: Prague and
nearby municipalities
in Central Bohemia
13. 5. Building effective R-U partnerships: a
strategy
Matching
..the appropriate scale
Including
..the relevant stakeholder
Learning
..to be more effective
1. Better understanding of R-U
conditions and interactions
2. Addressing territorial challenges
through a functional approach
3. Working towards a common agenda
for urban and rural policy
4. Building a enabling environment for
R-U partnership
5. Clarifying the partnership objectives
and related measures
Hinweis der Redaktion
This presentation tries to answer to the question: Do we have economic reasons to foster rural-urban partnerships? Answers are based on theory and on the evidence provided through the case-study analysis.
In order to justify a policy intervention to help the formation of rural-urban partnerships we have to understand the following issues:
What are the main challenges that regions want to address through rural-urban partnerships?
How these challenges are based on specific linkages between urban and rural areas?
How the purposes of rural-urban partnerships change depending on the type of territory?
What are the observed outcome of rural-urban partnerships? What are their foundations?
What are the potential risks of rural-urban co-operation?
The building blocks are «local units» (i.e. municipalities, counties in the US, wards in the UK, etc.).
Our classification was built in the early 2000s with the OECD Working Party on Territorial Indicators. It’s a result of finding a common ground for the different countries at that time. The main objectives of such classification were: a) international comparisons; b) robust way to describe, with an international perspective, the entire territory of different countries; c) when possible, adhere to policy relevant units of analysis.
A region is classified as intermediate if the share of population living in rural local units is between 15% and 50%
This graph uses the OECD regional classification, which distinguishes all TL3 regions in “Predomanatly urban”, “Intermediate” and “predominantly rural”. The latter are further classified in “predominantly rural close to a city” and “remote rural regions”. The graph shows how total population that live in predominantly rural region is split in “close to a city” and “remote”.
Note: in order to be considered “close to a city”, at least 50% of regional population should be able to reach a city of at least 50 000 inhabitants in less than 45 minutes driving (60 minutes for American countries).
Regarding the convergence of rural regions, there is an important difference between rural remote regions and rural close to cities. The former in 1995 had on average a level of GDP per capita that was 93% of the average GDP per capita in the OECD. In 2011 this level decreased to 88%. On the other hand, the pattern for the rural close to cities has been opposite: levels of GDP per capita were 84% of the average level in 1995, while in 2011 it was 86%.
Production of public goods (or “club” goods)
Higher external visibility and attractiveness
Exploiting local productive linkages (e.g. agro-industry) and economic complementarities
Easier access to natural resources (incl. renewable energies)
Strengthen territorial identity and social capital
Achieve higher economies of scale
Network economies (e.g. overcoming limits of small-size business environments)
Higher political power, financial resources and better dialogue with other government levels
Improving quality, access or economic viability of services’ provision
Capacity building
Improving local government capacity to carry out tasks
Account for negative externalities
Coordinating land use policy (e.g. sprawl issues)
Limiting zero-sum competition among municipalities (e.g. tax competition)
Overcoming coordination failures
Setting and aligning priorities for economic development
Improving local knowledge through social learning and information sharing