How EU Investments Strengthen Trust in Rural Areas?

Speed-read

• In a new study, Cultivating Trust? The Role of European Union Investments in Bridging Rural-Urban Divides, researchers Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu, Leo Azzollini, and Anne-Marie Jeannet examine whether European Union institutional investments can reduce trust gaps between rural and urban areas.
• The researchers formulated four hypotheses to investigate how European Union investments affect citizens’ trust in the EU, with a focus on differences between rural and urban areas as well as across social strata.
• The researchers found that EU investments do indeed foster greater trust in the European Union, but this effect is uneven across social groups. The study shows that EU funds do not affect trust in national governments or the European Parliament, suggesting that citizens clearly distinguish trust in the Union as a whole from trust in individual institutions.
• The research highlights that institutional investments can reduce social and political divisions in Europe and shows that trust can be restored through concrete measures and equitable regional development.
• The most important task for governments is to reinvest in rural areas and regain citizens’ trust. If the EU leaves rural areas behind, it will not be able to tackle the issues raised by Mario Draghi.
• It is crucial to consider how institutions can strengthen citizens’ faith in the EU and promote greater unity within the community. To foster that belief, it is up to institutions. They must demonstrate transparency in their operations and take effective action to promote social, fiscal, and environmental justice. They must also avoid giving the impression that they consistently favor the interests of already privileged social groups.

On January 1, 2025, the EU population was estimated at 450.4 million, with approximately 30%, or 137 million people, living in rural areas. This highlights the importance of understanding rural-urban disparities, which were the focus of a report titled Bridging the Rural-Urban Divide: Addressing Inequalities and Empowering Communities, published in 2023.

According to the report, rural residents are more likely to feel neglected by governments and tend to have lower levels of trust in both governments and institutions compared to their urban counterparts. The authors warn that these disparities could pose a serious threat to social cohesion in Europe.

Scientists are conducting extensive research on this topic. One of the most recent studies, conducted last month, included 17 waves of Eurobarometer data (2003–2020) covering 27 European countries, 99 regions, and approximately 370,000 individuals.

The Role of European Union Investments in Bridging Rural-Urban Divides

In a new study, Cultivating Trust? The Role of European Union Investments in Bridging Rural-Urban Divides, researchers Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu, Leo Azzollini, and Anne-Marie Jeannet examine whether European Union institutional investments can reduce trust gaps between rural and urban areas. Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu, the corresponding author and associate professor of Economics at the University of Paris, discussed the study in an interview with Unknown Focus.

In the study, the researchers formulated four hypotheses to investigate how European Union investments affect citizens’ trust in the EU, with a focus on differences between rural and urban areas as well as across social strata.

Trust in the EU was measured using individual responses from the Eurobarometer over the period 2003–2020, covering more than 370,000 respondents from 27 countries and 99 EU regions. Regional data included information on EU funds, gross domestic product, employment, sectoral structure, and demographics. The analysis also included individual control variables such as gender, age, marital status, education, and social class to better understand the factors influencing trust in the EU.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 posits that people living in regions receiving higher EU investment have greater trust in the EU than those living in areas with lower investment. EU funds include projects in agriculture, infrastructure, schools, cultural initiatives, and employment. Since these projects are visible and often marked with EU symbols, citizens can more easily recognize their benefits, and cooperation with local authorities prevents the spread of negative attitudes toward the EU.

Hypothesis 2 focuses on rural areas, where trust in the EU is generally lower than in urban settings. With higher EU investment in villages and smaller communities, citizens can directly see the benefits, such as improved roads, schools, and job creation. This demonstrates that investments can significantly increase trust in the EU in areas where it would otherwise be low.

Hypothesis 3 emphasizes the role of social stratification. Middle- and lower-class respondents, who often have fewer resources of their own, experience the largest increases in trust when their region receives more EU funds. Conversely, higher-class citizens already show relatively high trust, so the effect of investment on them is less pronounced.

Hypothesis 4 combines both factors—place of residence and social class. Higher levels of EU investments are expected to particularly increase trust among the middle and lower classes in rural areas. Upper-class citizens in urban areas already have the highest trust, while lower-class citizens in rural areas have the lowest. Those in “mixed situations,” such as wealthy individuals in the countryside or poorer individuals in cities, show trust levels somewhere in between.

As explained in the study, linear probability models (LPM) with country-year fixed effects were used, allowing the researchers to control for differences across countries and changes over time. This approach ensures that the observed effects of EU investment on trust are separated from the broader context of national policies, economic trends, and individual respondent characteristics. Interaction models were also applied to examine how place of residence, education, and social class modify the effects of EU funds.

Results

The researchers found that EU investments do indeed foster greater trust in the European Union, but this effect is uneven across social groups.

Specifically, the effect of EU investments is most pronounced among middle- and lower-income citizens, who are more likely to live in rural areas. Although the direct difference between rural and urban areas is not statistically significant, trust in the EU in rural areas increases indirectly. In other words, EU investments help reduce the gap through the social composition of the population, rather than through geographical distance alone.

The study shows that EU funds do not affect trust in national governments or the European Parliament, suggesting that citizens clearly distinguish trust in the Union as a whole from trust in individual institutions. The results suggest that visible, locally focused investments – such as infrastructure, cultural, and social projects – can play a role in restoring trust in the European Union among citizens who are economically or socially disadvantaged.

The authors also point out that citizens in rural areas are not inherently distrustful or resentful; their level of trust responds rationally to concrete improvements in their communities. Overall, the research highlights that institutional investments can reduce divisions in Europe and shows that trust can be restored through concrete measures and equitable regional development.

How much are these studies actually used in practice? What do you think is the key takeaway from this study, and how can it be useful both for society as a whole and for the further development of the EU? What surprised you the most?

Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu: To be honest, I don’t know how often studies are actually used in practice. This is why I think it is important to disseminate the results through the media, so that both politicians and citizens can access them. Hopefully, politicians and their collaborators will take an interest in this type of research.

The key takeaway from this study is that when public resources are spent wisely, they not only build infrastructure but also serve as a vehicle for trust-building. In short, institutions matter, and governments need to invest more in rural areas to rebuild trust. What surprised me the most was how well citizens understand and agree with the importance of EU investments, even though this does not increase their trust in national governments. They clearly recognize who is funding these improvements to their living conditions.

Why the EU Must Invest in Rural Areas?

Given the current global political situation, do you think the rural-urban divide or social inequality may have increased in some way?

Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu: Yes, it is a sad observation, but as a trained economic historian, I can confirm that the rural–urban divide and social inequalities have increased over the last few decades. The general rise in inequality within European societies has been exacerbated by the investment policies pursued by successive governments, which have played a significant role in widening the rural–urban divide. Most of the time, investments were concentrated in urban areas, which is understandable, given that the majority of the population now lives in cities. However, rural areas tend to be neglected in new investment plans, either because “nobody lives there anymore” or because policymakers perceive tourism as the primary avenue for rural economic development.

This reinforces the sense of abandonment or being “left behind” experienced by rural citizens, who often view investment plans and public policies as focused exclusively on urban areas. For example, policies aimed at promoting cycling or reducing car use by creating zones where older vehicles are prohibited are often perceived negatively by rural residents—not because of their laudable objectives, such as reducing CO₂ emissions, but because these citizens feel excluded from urban centers and believe their lifestyles are being singled out as incompatible with such policies.

If public policies fail to incorporate social and environmental justice considerations, reducing the rural–urban divide will be very difficult. More broadly, the lack of investment has fueled this divide over the past few decades and has contributed to the growth of social inequalities.

When it comes to the EU and rural areas, the issue of people leaving these regions must also be highlighted. It is clear that investments are needed, but as young people continue to leave rural areas, the question arises: in which direction should these investments be focused? In addition, Europe is facing an aging population.

Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu: Of course, aging is a significant issue in rural areas. However, I am not sure that most young people leave these areas willingly; they leave because there are few opportunities or insufficient transport links. It is a very complex situation, but the EU could leverage its influence to support young people who want to remain in rural areas—for example, by directing targeted investments toward them. The EU could help young people develop new projects in rural areas by simplifying access to EU resources, assisting with the renovation of abandoned buildings, and providing easier access to agricultural land and public transport.

The countryside cannot consist solely of fields and natural spaces for urban citizens to enjoy on holiday. People need to live there, develop social relationships, and build new communities. The EU can facilitate this by investing more in rural areas—for instance, by offering fiscal advantages to companies.

How might this, for example, affect applications for EU funds?

Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu: The main problem with EU funds is that they are typically implemented at the regional level by regional administrations and politicians. Rather than improving the daily lives of rural citizens, these funds are often used to serve political agendas. Another issue is that EU funds are frequently allocated to infrastructure projects, such as cultural or medical centres, in rural areas. However, local institutions often struggle to find the resources to pay the staff working in these new facilities. Consequently, rural areas end up with new buildings but no personnel, as local administrations cannot afford to cover their salaries.

I hope that this and other studies will convince policymakers of the importance of investing in rural areas. If they want to reinforce trust, they must maintain funding to ensure that these investments continue to pay off. Investment in rural areas cannot be conducted solely through short-term projects; the EU needs to develop long-term policies for sustainable rural development.

Draghi’s Report and Rural Development

There is a lot of talk about Mario Draghi’s report, competitiveness, and investment in science, innovation, defense, and technology. But is all of this achievable without, for example, a certain level of equal trust in EU institutions across both rural and urban areas?

Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu: The current urban–rural divide is certainly an important issue for the EU, which cannot address all these challenges and the growing level of Euroscepticism at the same time. For me, and at the risk of repeating myself, the most important task for governments is to reinvest in rural areas and regain citizens’ trust. If the EU leaves rural areas behind, it will not be able to tackle the issues raised by Mario Draghi.

Rural areas cannot serve solely as centers for tourism and holidays; they need projects and investments that improve employment opportunities. I understand that it is usually easier to invest in major European cities. However, there are many small EU towns with abandoned factories and facilities that could be repurposed for new projects. To address the main challenges currently facing the EU, we need to invest in these small towns and stop concentrating investments only in major cities.

What was the most challenging part of the study for you, and which aspects, in some way, opened up additional questions? What limitations in the study do you wish had not been present?

Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu: Clearly, the most challenging part of the study was data collection. It was also difficult to interpret some of the results correctly. One major question was whether we were truly capturing the effects of EU funds. This raised many issues, but to address them, we need to move beyond quantitative political science and surveys and adopt a qualitative approach by conducting interviews with citizens living in rural areas that have received significant EU funding.

Again, the data! Surveys (such as Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey) are very valuable, but we need representative surveys at the regional level (NUTS 2 — part of the European statistical classification of territorial units, called the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), which is used for collecting and analyzing statistical data and allocating EU funds).

Boosting EU Unity

Investments are of key importance because they strengthen the common good and improve the quality of life for citizens, especially in rural areas that are often neglected. Citizens’ trust in the direction the EU is taking is becoming increasingly important. It is crucial to consider how institutions can strengthen citizens’ faith in the EU and promote greater unity within the community. “To foster that belief, it is up to institutions. They must demonstrate transparency in their operations and take effective action to promote social, fiscal, and environmental justice. They must also avoid giving the impression that they consistently favor the interests of already privileged social groups,” concludes Maneuvrier-Hervieu.

Image: Paul Maneuvrier-Hervieu