Placing Housing in Rural Development: Exogenous, Endogenous and Neo‐Endogenous Approaches

Abstract

This article aims to address the disconnect between housing and rural development research. We do this by examining models of rural development (exogenous, endogenous and neo-endogenous) in the rural housing context. Drawing on in-depth documentary analysis of planning and rural development policy and research in the Republic of Ireland, we demonstrate a series of policy failures in implementing exogenous and pseudo-endogenous approaches to housing policy in rural areas. Subsequently, we propose a neo-endogenous framework for a more effective integration of housing and rural development theory and practice. In an international context Ireland represents an insightful case for studying the relationship between rural development and housing, due to the emphasis on housing development in rural areas, which in essence has represented a 'quick fix' for development, as evidenced by the country's liberal planning regime during an extraordinary housing boom period until the more recent property crash. While the article focuses on Ireland as a case-study, lessons and a framework for a neo-endogenous model of rural development and housing are also drawn internationally.

Empowering Local Action through Neo‐Endogenous Development; The Case of LEADER in England

“…Neo‐endogenous development is based on local resources and local participation but is also characterised by dynamic interactions between local areas and their wider environments (Ray ; Gkartzios and Scott ). This does not seek to push aside national or regional institutions of the state but ‘the goal is to achieve partnership and long‐term co‐operation among various social actors’ (Gorlach and Adamski , p. 487).…”

“…Gkartzios and Scott () presented a similar table in relation to neo‐endogenous housing policy where socio‐spatial justice is cited as a key principle that steers their conceptualisation. Additionally, they cite a number of specific issues relating to the economic conditions at the time of their research but here it is the over‐arching principles of neo‐endogenous development that we seek to crystallise.…”

“…; Convery et al . ; Gkartzios and Scott ), our article does not seek to re‐evaluate LEADER as a policy approach but instead uses this policy domain as a means to deepen the conceptualisation of neo‐endogenous development. This is tackled through the following research questions grounded in the neo‐endogenous development principles of local action and extra‐local networks: How are power relations negotiated between local, regional and national actors in the neo‐endogenous model of rural development? How effectively can local partnerships communicate local development needs, stimulate local action and assess local impacts? …”

Multi‐Scale Meta‐Governance Strategies for Addressing Social Inequality in Resource Dependent Regions

“…The article has also highlighted how central state meta‐governance contributed to a wider participation of organisations (and their resources) from urban areas. The resulting ‘exogenous’ governance arrangements for affordable housing delivery were accordingly much more differentiated and better resourced than previous ‘endogenous’ housing delivery partnerships solely between local actors (Gkartzios and Scott, ). While we suggest that urban–rural approaches to housing delivery in extractive resource regions offers exciting opportunities for future regional development, with benefits to both urban and rural areas, it remains to be seen how – and by whom – the tensions and interests between these spatially different actors will be resolved.…”

Governmentalities of mobility: The role of housing in the governance of Australian rural mobilities

“…For instance research on temporary worker migration have highlighted the temporal dimensions of rural mobility (Bell and Ward, 1998) and their housing impacts on rural communities such as Fly-In-Fly-Out (FIFO) resource industry workforces in remote Australia (Haslam McKenzie et al, 2009;Beer and Tually, 2012) or the impacts of seasonal agricultural workers in producing a fluctuating demand for housing in some rural areas (Ziebarth, 2006;Satsangi et al, 2010). Furthermore, these new forms of rural mobility produce in turn other types of housing-related mobility (Gober et al, 1993;Gallent and Robinson, 2011) and new forms of mobile housing (Esparza, 2011;Marcouiller et al, 2011).…”