University of Groningen

Local population decline in rural North-NetherlandsElshof, Hans

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2017

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Elshof, H. (2017). Local population decline in rural North-Netherlands. University of Groningen.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 11-12-2021

-8-

1.

Introduction

-9-

1.1 Motivation

In 2008 it was announced that 57 houses were about to be demolished in the

rural village of Ganzedijk, The Netherlands. This meant that most of the

houses in this village in the far Northeast of the Netherlands would

disappear; an unprecedented situation in a country that had been enveloped

in finding solutions for an ever-expanding population since WWII. The news

attracted much media attention and, although the housing that was about to

be demolished was eventually refurbished, brought the topic of population

decline to the forefront in the Netherlands. In other European regions

population decline had already been the reality for several decades (e.g.,

Amcoff 2006, Cawley 1994, Gauthier 1993, Muilu & Rusanen 2003, Spengler

1979). Now there were apparently also regions in the Netherlands that were

facing depopulation.

That the population of several regions in the Netherlands had been declining

and was expected to continue to do so in the coming decades was nothing

new for some. In 1996 the Dutch Demographic Society had already

organised a conference on population decline (Dykstra & Van Wissen 1996).

Ten years later, Derks et al. (2006) warned policy makers that populations of

rural areas in the Netherlands were about to decrease considerably. This

urged Van Dam et al. (2006) to write an extensive report about the causes

and consequences of population decline in The Netherlands. They

concluded that the magnitude of the decline was not as great as in other

countries. Moreover, the spatial effects of population decline were expected

to be limited, and population decline was thought to predominantly have a

reinforcing effect on already existing societal change. Nonetheless, they

made clear that on the local level population decline could affect the housing

market, quality of the living environment, and the availability of facilities

and services. In the years thereafter the national government took action. In

2009 a commission was appointed by the national government to further

analyse population decline in selected regions (Dijkstal & Mans 2009). This

commission confirmed the finding by Van Dam et al. (2006) that population

decline in general is not a great problem. However, it also identified specific

-10-

regions where population decline was substantial and structural, and

something had to be done.

Population decline in the Netherlands has thus far manifested itself

predominantly in regions that are furthest away from its economic centre in

the West. North-Netherlands is one of these more peripherally located

regions where population decline has occurred over the past decades. It is

also a region with the lowest address density in the Netherlands, making the

decline of the population in this region principally a rural affair. Parts of

North-Netherlands have been designated by the national government as

‘top’-declining regions, where population decline is already experienced,

and ‘anticipating’ regions, where the population is expected to decline in the

near future (Rijksoverheid et al. 2012).

North-Netherlands is the most rural region in the Netherlands (Haartsen et

al. 2003), but hardly compares to other rural regions in Europe in its rurality.

From any village in North-Netherlands it is possible to travel to the Dutch

capital Amsterdam within three hours. Regional urban centres can be

reached from almost everywhere within half an hour, which is in many rural

parts of Europe the time it takes to get to the next village. North-Netherlands

is therefore classified by the OECD as an ‘intermediate region’ (Brezzi et al.

2011). Neither urban nor rural, these regions look like rural areas but are

close to urban centres so that inhabitants can easily use their benefits. In that

way North-Netherlands compares to other European regions such as parts

of the English countryside, and the ‘rural’ areas of North-France, West-

Germany and North-Italy. One-fifth of the United States also classifies as an

intermediate region.

The decline of the population in North-Netherlands can be considered to be

modest when compared to other declining regions in Europe. As a matter of

fact, the total population of North-Netherlands was still growing up until

2012 (Statline 2015). This growth mostly took place in urban areas, especially

the university-hosting city of Groningen. In the more peripheral areas the

population has been declining for some time. For instance, the NUTS-3

-11-

region Delfzijl and surroundings experienced its first decline in the early

1980s and has lost 15% of its population since then. Once the scale level is

lower, the decline is stronger. If the city of Delfzijl is considered by itself, a

decline of about 20% is observed since the early 1990s until 2016, and the

population of the neighbourhood Delfzijl-North has decreased by over 40%

since 1995.

The designation of areas in North-Netherlands as either declining or

‘anticipating’ regions by the national government, acknowledges the fact

that they deserve special attention in dealing with issues that are often

related to population decline (Haartsen & Van Wissen 2012). These issues

include: empty housing, lower housing prices, fewer employment

opportunities, and a loss of facilities (Van Dam et al. 2009). However, the

nature and context of these associated problems differ between localities.

The closure of a supermarket might for instance do more damage to a village

when it is the last service closing and no substitutes are available within

reasonable distance, than when many other services are still present and

another supermarket can be found in the next village or nearby city. The first

empty derelict home in a village might be an eyesore, but if the majority of

homes in a street are deserted it becomes a problem. Researchers in the

Netherlands therefore advised that the spatial problems in declining areas

had to be dealt with on a regional or even local scale (Van Dam et al. 2006,

Bureau PAU 2012).

Within declining regions a large variation in population change exists

between settlements. Although these regions might experience an overall

decline of their population, declining villages can be located right next to

growing ones (Bontje & Musterd 2012). Such local heterogeneity within

declining regions has even been observed in notable declining regions such

as the Great Plains in the United States (Cantrell 2005). It makes one wonder

why, when regional circumstances are the same, some villages thrive, while

other shrivel. In the Netherlands, Van Dam (1995) therefore already

suggested to further investigate population change on the local level. Thus

-12-

far however, knowledge on why some villages grow, while neighbouring

villages decline remains scarce.

It has long been established that the “principal determinant of population

change at a local scale is migration” (Lewis 1979, p. 101). Migration is

typically defined as moving over long distance, and this type of moving

certainly has an impact on population change in rural villages. However,

within rural North-Netherlands, most moves do not occur into or out of, but

within the region (Bijker & Haartsen 2012). It is therefore likely that these

intra-regional flows can be decisive in the population change of rural

villages. Milbourne (2007) finds it “surprising that more has not been said

about these more local migrations” (p.385). In addition to this, Stockdale &

Catney (2014) emphasise that migration research has paid less attention to

the influence of local circumstances on migration and how such influences

may play out differently over the life course. So, whereas it has been advised

that the problems that occur because of population decline should be dealt

with on the local level (Van Dam 2006, Bureau PAU 2012), little is known

about how the local circumstances influence population change on this level.

Population decline in the Netherlands occurs at a time when governments

have been moving towards a ‘big society’. This means that government tasks

have been shifted downwards; i.e., former national government tasks have

become the responsibility of local governments, and former tasks of local

governments have become the responsibility of citizens (Kisby 2010, Patty

& Jonhston 2011, Putters 2014). In this new society, local governments

appeal to citizens for contributing to their local living environment. In other

words, villages and their inhabitants have to become increasingly self-

reliant. If self-reliance in villages is to be effective, there has to be a certain

level of social capital (Besser 2009, Wilding 2011, Woolcock 1998).

There are two major approaches to social capital. On the one hand there is

the approach of Coleman (1988), who sees social capital as a resource of

individuals who gather social contacts. Putnam (1995, 2000) on the other

hand, places social capital within communities, where people come together

-13-

to interact. When inhabitants of villages tap into the communal social

capital of village life to increase their individual social capital, while at the

same time providing input to the communal social capital, the two

approaches come together. Population decline could harm both individual

and communal social capital. This could happen for instance when specific

categories of the population disappear from villages, or when opportunities

to meet for the remaining villagers become scarce. This would undermine

the government’s new policy direction, which demands increasingly self-

reliant citizens.

1.2 Research aim and research questions

The objective of this research is to gain more insight into flows of movers on

the local level in areas where the population declines and into people’s

experiences of population decline on the local level. It does so by analysing

flows of movers to and from rural villages in North-Netherlands, but also by

investigating in which ways people experience population decline and how

they deal with it. Four research questions are addressed:

1. To what extent are people more likely to move out of a rural village

where the population has been declining, than out of a village where

the population has been stable or growing?

2. How can we classify villages based on net settlement of different age

categories and to what extent do village characteristics influence the

net settlement?

3. To what extent does the absence or closure of a primary school

influence inward and outward flows of families with school-aged

children?

4. How do adults with young children experience population decline

and how do these experiences influence the communal social capital

of a village and the individual social capital of families living in the

village?

The study adds to the sparse literature on the influence of village

characteristics on migration behaviour and flows of movers. Policymakers

-14-

can use this as input for improving their planning strategies, because it

provides insight into what does, and maybe even more crucial, what does

not influence the volatile flows of movers of different ages in declining

regions. Furthermore, this study also adds to the literature by showing that

social capital in villages is certainly influenced by population decline. Before

providing a short overview of the chapters in this book, the relation between

migration and population decline and heterogeneous attractiveness on the

local level is discussed.

1.3 Migration and population decline

Although population decline in the Netherlands also occurs in some

urbanised areas, it is predominantly a rural affair. This can partly be

explained by continuing urbanisation. Year after year, mostly young adults

cannot resist the lure of the cities. Some just move for the excitement that can

be found in urban areas as compared to the relatively uneventful life in

villages (Brandes 1975), but most young people make the rural-urban move

as part of a strategy that will increase their human capital. Their move is

motivated by the prospect of education and employment opportunities that

cannot be found in rural areas. From that perspective urban regions serve as

an escalator region for those attempting to climb the social ladder (Fielding

1992). In some cases people step off the escalator and move back to the rural

areas from whence they came, but often not until later life.

People also move from urban into rural areas. As the comprehensive

literature on counterurbanisation shows, a group of people is actually

attracted by the same aspects of rural life that are found relatively

uneventful by those who leave; space and quietness (e.g., Halfacree 1994,

Steenbekkers et al. 2008). This relates to the dominant understanding of

counterurbanisation that middle-aged middle-class groups move from

urban to rural areas in search of the rural idyll: peace, quiet, safety and the

prospects of intimate village life (Halfacree 2008). However, more recent

research diversifies this image of counterurbanisation by showing that other

motivations for moving, such as being close to family and friends, and cheap

housing, apply to less popular rural areas (Bijker et al. 2012). Stockdale

-15-

(2014) adds to this that the traditional understanding of counterurbanisation

may only be relevant to a small part of urban to rural migration, by

providing evidence that the younger age groups also participate in

counterurban migration flows.

In many rural areas in the Netherlands the size of the influx of people is

insufficient to counter the outflow of others. In former times, relief from

such negative net migration was found in high levels of fertility. From the

Second World War up to the 1970s around three children were born per

woman in the Netherlands. However, societal change brought

secularisation, individualisation, an increasing role for women in society,

and the introduction of the contraconceptive pill. Often understood as the

second demographic transition (Lesthaeghe & Van de Kaa 1986), the

changes resulted in a drop of period fertility rates below replacement level

during the 1970s and have stabilised at around 1.7 children per women for

the last few decades (Billari 2005). Given the above, it is unlikely that the

number of children and young adults in rural areas of the Netherlands will

increase anytime soon, making population decline in rural areas the reality

for at least the coming decades (Haartsen & Venhorst 2010).

The selective migration flows also strengthen the processes of dejuvenation

and ageing. Migration flows strengthen dejuvenation, which is caused by

lower fertility rates, in a direct way because young people move out, and an

indirect way because the departed young adults start their reproductive

careers in urban instead of rural regions. Ageing is partly the other side of

the same coin; caused partly by increasing life expectancy, the share of older

people increases because the number of young people decreases. Moreover,

life expectancy has been increasing. Many rural regions in North-

Netherlands are thus faced with declining populations that contain fewer

children, and more older people than before.

1.4 Heterogeneous attractiveness of rural villages

The population developments sketched above provide an explanation for

population decline in rural areas, but are insufficient to explain the

-16-

differences in population change between villages within these areas. To

understand why these differences exist, the local circumstances need to be

taken into account when considering why people move into or out of rural

villages (Stockdale & Catney 2014). Traditionally, explanations for moving

behaviour have focused on the availability of jobs. Rural villages have

however evolved from being autonomous villages, where the village

provided in jobs and all of the other inhabitants’ needs, to residential

villages, where the large majority of people commutes to nearby urban

centres (Thissen & Loopmans 2013). Other village characteristics that might

attract or repel people are often referred to as amenities, a term which has

been described as “pleasant living conditions” (Ullman 1954, p. 119).

Many aspects of the living environment can be considered amenities, such as

scenic beauty (McGranahan 2008, Argent et al. 2009), services (Dustman &

Okatenko 2014) and accessibility (Gkartzios & Scott 2009). However, the

importance of specific amenities depends on the different needs of people.

For some it might be more pleasant to live close to services, while others

prefer to live close to a forest or even a train station for commuting. As the

needs of people differ over the life course, age is likely to be a determinant of

which amenities matter. For rural villages this means that their specific sets

of amenities could influence the inward and outward flows differently at

different ages.

Population decline is sometimes understood as being part of a downward

spiral. The idea is that population decline leads to a decline of jobs, services

and quality of the living environment. This might motivate people to leave

or refrain from entering a declining area, causing more population decline,

which puts even more pressure on jobs, services, and the quality of the

living environment (Myrdal 1957). Cases where population decline

depresses the regional economy and the depressed economy inspires more

population decline have been well documented in literature (e.g., Glaeser et

al. 1992). Much less is known about self-reinforcing processes on the local

level, or, to what extent population decline in villages influences an

intermediating source that inspires more population decline. On this local

-17-

level population decline and amenities might reinforce each other, for

instance when local services close, or when the local housing market is

disrupted because of lower housing values or a decline in the quality of the

housing.

1.5 Research outline

The research questions presented above are addressed in the next four

chapters of this book. The first research question is answered in chapter 2

and focusses on individual migration decisions. It aims to find out whether

population decline on the village level is self-reinforcing by analysing to

what extent preceding population decline at the village level has an effect on

the probability to move out or within the village. The analysis distinguishes

between people of different ages, education levels and occupational statuses.

Moreover, a multinomial regression model is estimated that differentiates

between moves over different distances. In this chapter it is revealed that a

preceding decline of the population in a village increases the probability to

move out of the neighbourhood, but that this effect differs between

categories of the population and between the distances of the moves.

To gain more insight into population change of villages, chapter 3 analyses

flows of movers in villages in rural North-Netherlands. It focusses is on how

net settlement of different age categories in villages is influenced by the

attractiveness of a village, which answers the second research question. The

attention is confined to net settlement in this chapter, because that

determines the population change of different age categories in villages to a

large extent. Using different age categories provides the opportunity to find

out to what extent some villages are more attractive than others for people of

different ages, and which village characteristics influences these differences

in attractiveness. In this chapter the villages are first clustered by net

settlement of different age categories to get a broader understanding of

settlement patterns of villages. In the second part of the chapter linear

regression models are estimated to find out to what extent village

characteristics influence net settlement per age category. Explanatory

variables are grouped by type of amenity, but other characteristics such as

-18-

housing construction are also included. The regression analysis shows that

effects of village characteristics on net settlement may vary considerably

between different age categories. Especially the findings of the effect of

primary schools on net settlement are interesting and contrary to previous

research findings on the topic.

Chapter 4 answers the third research question on the extent to which the

inward and outward flows of families with children in villages are

influenced by the presence of a primary school. A distinction is made

between villages where the primary school is still present, villages where the

primary was not present during the period of observation, and villages

where the primary school closed during the period of observation.

Population register data from the Netherlands were used to model the

moving behaviour of families with children on the village level for the

period 1996-2011. It was expected that a village with a recent closure of a

primary school would experience an increase in the outflow and a decrease

in the influx of families with children; a scenario much feared by families

with children who live in rural villages. The results of the regression

analyses show that these fears are partly unfounded.

In Chapter 5 it is investigated in which ways people in selected rural villages

in North-Netherlands experience consequences of decline. Furthermore, it is

examined how the perceived consequences of population decline influences

the collective social cohesion within the villages and the individual social

capital of its inhabitants. The reason for this is that social cohesion and social

capital are important factors in the self-reliance of rural villages and its

inhabitants, which is actively and increasingly promoted by national and

local governments. To uncover these relations, 23 in-depth interviews in six

villages in the North and East of the province of Groningen were conducted.

The results showed that the consequences of population decline that are

predominantly experienced are found in tangible aspects of the living

environment. Furthermore, it showed that population decline influences

social capital differently over time.

-19-

Chapter 6 contains the conclusions of the studies described above,

recommendations for further research, and recommendations for policy

makers.

-20-

References Amcoff, J. (2006). Rural population growth in Sweden in the 1990s:

unexpected reality or spatial–statistical chimera?. Population, Space

and Place, 12(3), 171-185.

Argent, N., Tonts, M., Jones, R. & Holmes, J. (2009). Rural amenity and rural

change in temperate Australia: Implications for development and

sustainability. Journal for geography, 4(2), 15-28.

Besser, T. L. (2009). Changes in small town social capital and civic

engagement. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(2), 185-193.

Bijker, R. A., & Haartsen, T. (2012). More than counter‐urbanisation:

Migration to popular and less‐ popular rural areas in the

Netherlands. Population, Space and Place, 18(5), 643-657.

Billari, F. (2005). Europe and its Fertility: From Low to Lowest Low. National

Institute Economic Review, 194(1), 56-73.

Bontje, M., & Musterd, S. (2012). Understanding shrinkage in European regions.

Alexandrine Press.

Brandes, S. H. (2013). Migration, kinship, and community: tradition and

transition in a Spanish village. New York: Academic Press.

Bureau PAU (2012). Krimp en regionale samenwerking: lessen uit de praktijk van

Noord-Nederland. Groningen: Bureau PAU.

Brezzi, M., Dijkstra, L., & Ruiz, V. (2011). OECD extended regional typology:

The economic performance of remote rural regions (No. 2011/6). OECD

Publishing.

Cantrell, R. L. (2005). Rural depopulation: A closer look at Nebraska's

counties and communities. Rural Initiative Publications and Reports,

13.

Cawley, M. E. (1994). Desertification: measuring population decline in rural

Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, 10(4), 395-407.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the creation of human capital. American

Journal of Sociology, 94 Supplement, 95-120.

Derks, W., Hovens, P., & Klinkers, L. (2006). Structurele bevolkingsdaling: een

urgente nieuwe invalshoek voor beleidsmakers. Den Haag: Ministerie van

Verkeer en Waterstaat.

Dijkstal, H. F., & Mans, J. H. (2009). Krimp als structureel probleem.

Rapportage Topteam Krimp voor Parkstad Limburg.

Dustmann, C., and Okatenko, A. (2014). Out-migration, wealth constraints,

and the quality of local amenities. Journal of Development Economics,

110, 52-63.

-21-

Dykstra P.A. & Van Wissen, L.J.G. (1996) (eds.). Teruglopende bevolking:

ramp of remedie? Bevolking en Gezin, book issue 1996/2, CBGS

Brussels and NIDI The Hague.

Fielding, A. J. (1992). Migration and social mobility: South East England as

an escalator region. Regional Studies, 26(1), 1-15.

Gauthier, A. H. (1993). Towards renewed fears of Population and Family

Decline?. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de

Démographie, 9(2), 143-167.

Glaeser, E.L., Kallal, H.D., Scheinkman, J.A., Schleifer, A., (1992). Growth in

cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1126-1152.

Gkartzios, M. and Scott, M. (2009). Residential mobilities and house building

in rural Ireland: evidence from three case studies. Sociologia Ruralis,

50, 64-84.

Haartsen, T., Huigen, P. P. P. & Groote, P. D. (2003). Rural areas in the

Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 94(1),

129-136.

Haartsen, T., & Venhorst, V. (2010). Planning for decline: anticipating on

population decline in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en

Sociale Geografie, 101(2), 218-227.

Haartsen, T. & Van Wissen, L.J.G. (2012). Causes and consequences of

regional population decline for primary schools. Tijdschrift voor

Economische en Sociale Geografie, 103(4), 487-496.

Halfacree, K. (1994). The importance of ‘the rural’ in the constitution of

counterurbanisation: evidence from England in the 1980s. Sociologia

Ruralis, 34, p. 164-189.

Halfacree, K. (2008). To revitalize counterurbanization research?

Recognising an international and fuller picture. Population, Space and

Place, 14, 479-495.

Kisby, B. (2010). The big society: Power to the people?. The Political Quarterly,

81 (4), 1-8.

Lehtonen, O., Tykkylainen, M., (2010). Self-reinforcing spatial clusters of

migration and socio-economic conditions in Finland in 1998-2006.

Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 361-373.

Lesthaeghe, R. & Van de Kaa, D. (1986). Twee demografische transities?.

Bevolking–Groei en Krimp, Mens en Maatschappij. Eds., Lesthaeghe, R.

& Van de Kaa, D. (1986) Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus, 9–24.

Lewis, G.J. (1979). Rural communities: A social geography. London: David &

Charles.

-22-

McGranahan, D.A. (2008). Landscape influence on recent rural migration in

the U.S. Landscape and Urban planning, 85, 228-240.

Milbourne, P. (2007). Re-populating rural studies: migrations, movements

and mobility. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 381-386.

Muilu, T., and Rusanen, J. (2003). Rural young people in regional

development—the case of Finland in 1970–2000. Journal of Rural

Studies, 19(3), 295-307.

Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions. Duckworth,

London.

Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of

social capital in America. Political Science & Politics, 28(4), 664-683.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American

community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rijksoverheid, VNG & IPO (2012). Interbestuurlijke Voortgangsrapportage

Bevolkingsdaling.

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2012/07/03/inte

rbestuurlijke-voortgangsrapportage-bevolkingsdaling-2012,

accessed on 04-11-2016.

Spengler, J. J. (1979). France faces depopulation: postlude edition 1936-1976.

Durham: Duke University Press

Statistics Netherlands (2015). Statline. http://statline.cbs.nl, accessed on 23-2-

2015.

Patty, C. & Johnston, R. (2011). How big is the big society?. Parliamentary

Affairs, 64, pp. 403-424.

Putters, K. (2014). Rijk geschakeerd. Op weg naar de participatiesamenleving. The

Hague: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau

Steenbekkers, A., Simon, C., & Veldheer, V. (2008). Het platteland van alle

Nederlanders: Hoe Nederlanders het platteland zien en gebruiken. Den

Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

Stockdale, A., & Catney, G. (2014). A life course perspective on urban–rural

migration: the importance of the local context. Population, Space and

Place, 20(1), 83-98.

Thissen, F. & Loopmans, M. (2013). Dorpen in verandering. Rooilijn, 46(2),

80-89.

Ullman, E.L. (1954). Amenities as a factor in regional growth. Geographical

Review, 44(1), 119-132.

Van Dam, F. (1995). Meer voor minder: schaalverandering en bereikbaarheid van

voorzieningen in landelijke gebieden in Nederland. Utrecht: Faculty of

Spatial Sciences.

-23-

Van Dam, F., De Groot, C., Verwest, F. (2006). Krimp en ruimte.

Bevolkingsafname, ruimtelijke gevolgen en beleid. Rotterdam/Den Haag:

Nai Uitgevers.

Van Dam, K.I.M., Van Wissen, L.J.G., De Roo, G., Van Dijk, J., Strijker, D., &

Veenstra, J. (2009). Quick Scan. Regionale bevolkingskrimp en de stad

Groningen. Groningen: Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of

Groningen.

Wilding, K. (2011). Voluntary and community organisations. In N. Yeates, T.

Haux, R. Jawad, M. Kilkey, and N. Timmins (Eds.), In defence of

welfare: the impacts of the comprehensive spending review, Lincoln:

Social Policy Association.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a

theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2),

151-208.