Reimagining rural policy through mission-led governance

Bibliographic Data

ID5953511
AuthorsJ Gla (0000-0002-7683-0428, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, Department of Earth Sciences Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden), Mark Shucksmith (0000-0002-8546-9582, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK)
Year2025
Volume191
Issue4
Publication date2025-10-28
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGeographical Journal (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0016-7398 • E-ISSN: 1475-4959
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/geoj.70053
OpenAlexW4415649849
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited30

Mission-led governance has emerged as a popular policy approach to address complex societal challenges through ambitious, cross-sectoral goals. However, concerns persist about its top-down nature, lack of spatial sensitivity and potential incompatibility with place-based approaches. A particular concern is that it might marginalise rural areas. This commentary examines whether mission-led governance can deliver for rural communities by fostering vertical (multi-level) and horizontal (cross-departmental) policy integration to advance rural well-being. We juxtapose mission-led approaches with outcome-oriented well-being frameworks, highlighting lessons from international experiences in the United Kingdom and Europe. While both approaches share ambitions for systemic change, each faces challenges in their application to diverse places. Rural policy faces particular challenges, many of which require place-sensitive responses: siloed governance, urban-centric biases and loss of institutional capacity. We critique conventional rural proofing as reactive and consider three potential pathways for mission-led rural policy: (1) a dedicated rural mission to prioritise place-based needs, (2) embedding rural considerations within existing missions, or (3) a hybrid model combining mission-led steering with well-being framework principles. We argue for the third approach, emphasising participatory governance, flexible local targets that reflect place diversity, and cross-departmental accountability. Key lessons include the need for political leadership, aligned institutional incentives and co-creation with rural stakeholders. Without deliberate attention to rural spatial justice, mission-led policies risk perpetuating inequalities. We conclude that missions could revitalise rural governance if reconfigured as collaborative, multi-level endeavours, offering a timely alternative to fragmented policy. The paper also identifies future research directions

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access