The recent farmer protests in Europe highlight the persistent disparities between rural and urban areas. This study investigates the extent of the rural-urban divide in the European Union (EU) across various dimensions, including income, poverty, employment, human capital, housing, and digital access. Our analysis reveals significant gaps calling for policy interventions. We propose potential solutions such as investing in rural education and training, promoting balanced regional economic development, fostering rural community involvement in policymaking, and improving accessibility to essential services. Addressing the rural-urban divide is essential for sustainable and inclusive growth across the EU.

¹ . This growing dispersion within groups, combined with an increase in the average for each group, shows that (in the language of the analysis of convergence) there is a divergence. Therefore, europeans are becoming richer, but income disparities within each level of urbanization is increasing and sharply rising trend of the blue line dashed shows that this is especially so in the cities from 2019 . In fact, until this time, there was greater inequalities within the groups in rural areas, cities are recently overtaking rural areas in terms of disparities across europe.

An alternative measure to assess the economic well-being of eu citizens at all levels of urbanization is the rate AROPE AROPE. The rate is the proportion of the total population is at risk of poverty, of material deprivation serious or to live in a household with a very low level of employment.

While the inequalities in income increased between 2012 and 2021 the Table 4 shows the differences between the member states are being narrowed during the same time the proportion of people at risk of poverty or exclusion. In addition, the average proportion of people at risk also decreased during this time, 25 , 7 % 2012 to 20 , 7 % 2021 . This way, there was a convergence the increasing AROPE.

However, once again, what is true for the whole is not universally, and some member states were to increase its AROPE average rate over the last decade. In particular, the following Member states experienced an increase of the population at risk of poverty or exclusion: france, germany, luxembourg, Netherlands and spain. On the other hand, some member states, including Bulgaria, croatia, cyprus, poland and Hungary, experienced a marked decline in AROPE, facilitating the process of convergence upwards.

There was also an upward convergence within each level of urbanization. Throughout the decade, were cities were the coarser AROPE ( 21 , 7 %), as well as the lowest levels of inequality. The rural areas recorded the highest average AROPE ( 25 , 6 per cent) and the highest level of disparity. However, unlike urbano-rural gap with regard to the median income, the gap urbano-rural in the rate fell from AROPE 2012 and 2021 from 4 , 1 to 3 , 3 percentage points.

Overall, the data on per capita income and the rate AROPE indicate that the standard of living is higher in cities. However, trends in per capita income increased to a gap between rural and urban areas over the last decade, but the trend suggests that such AROPE gap has narrowed.

We also propose that a possible explanation for the different directions of change in income disparities between rural and urban areas and AROPE is that the first might be increasing, while poverty gaps are decreasing due to differences in the cost of living between Rural and urban areas. In fact, an important component of the cost of living in rural residents have advantages in terms of housing.

In general, 2012 to 2021 , concluded at european level convergence increasing strain on the cost of housing (Figure 6 ). The percentage of the population is experiencing a strain on the cost of housing declined from 10 , 3 % 2012 to 7 , 4 % 2021 . At eu level, the disparities also decreased between 2012 and 2021 . However, the upward convergence was not the time and between the levels of urbanization. Indeed, during the last decade, while the upward convergence among rural and suburban areas, the divergence ascending took place in cities. The rural areas had the lowest percentage of population with a cost to the cost of housing and also submitted the average level of disparity, decreasing faster than the eu average. In general, the gap urbano-rural in a cost to the cost of housing remained largely unchanged between 2012 and 2021 .

Microdata summarizing perceptions on their housing situation can help to shed more light on the gap urbano-rural in this area as important. The results reflect some of the challenges related to housing facing different levels of urbanization.

Table 7 shows that the inhabitants of rural areas are more likely than of peoples and regions (and even more so than in cities) of owning a house in which they live. Much more likely than rural homes have a size above average (measured by number of rooms), its residents are less likely to suffer the negative effects of external actors such as environmental pollution and dirt, and is less likely to be victims of acts of criminality, violence and vandalism in the locality.

Therefore, the analysis of the conditions of housing provides a picture of the quality of life of rural and urban dwellers, showing that, while the latter can enjoy higher incomes and poverty rates lower on average, the costs and housing conditions in rural areas tend to be more advantageous.

Table 8 shows that, 2021 , 74 , 6 % of the eu population between 20 and 64 years was used. The data also indicate that, starting in 2021 the average rates of use of the eu are similar in all levels of urbanization: cities have the highest employment rate ( 75 , 8 %), followed by the peoples and regions ( 74 , 4 per cent) and rural areas ( 74 %). At member state level, most recorded its highest employment rate in cities. However, there are exceptions to this general trend and, of the five member states with the average employment rate in the eu, three of them (Germany, sweden and the netherlands) recorded its highest rate in rural areas. In addition, some countries have significantly higher numbers of job opportunities in cities than in rural areas. For example, we find the most important differences in Romania and Bulgaria with 17 and 13 , 4 percentage points, respectively.

With regard to the employment gap between rural and urban areas, there are also gaps in the educational level, that we can determine the way for future opportunities. An important measure of human capital is the rate of attainment of higher education.

Table 11 shows that, overall, there was a divergence on the rates of achievement of higher education among 2012 and 2021 as the average rate increased during this period, but so did the disparities between member states. However, there were no differences throughout the period; indeed, inequalities between member states decreased between 2012 and 2017 subsequently, increasing, 2017 and 2021 due to the uneven pace of progress between them. If we take account of individual states, the most significant increase in the achievement of higher education was recorded in Austria, Portugal, croatia and Malta, Member states that submitted one of the lower results 2012 . In contrast, most countries with higher 2012 progressed at a slower rate than the average of the eu.

There was also a divergence on each level of urbanization. The percentage of people between 25 and 34 with higher education was higher and continued to grow in the cities during the decade before us. The upward trend in the level of higher education in urban areas was driven by a sharp rise in Austria and Poland. At the same time, the level of disparities within cities also increased, albeit modest. The average rate of attainment of higher education was lower in rural areas in 2012 and 2021 ; however, experienced an upward trajectory over the decade been above average rate of the eu. The increase in rural areas was facilitated by progress in Austria, slovenia and Poland. In addition to increased the average educational level, there was a rise in inequalities between rural areas. In fact, 2018 the degree of disparity between rural to urban areas, that so far, had made the greatest degree of inequality.

Bearing in mind the gap between degrees of urbanization, the gap urbano-rural increased throughout the decade, 18 , 4 percentage points in 2012 to 21 , 5 in 2021 .

²

As we have discussed above, rural areas are a clear disadvantage in terms of income, employment opportunities, human capital accumulation and digital access. Added to this growing inequalities in services, in Such areas as education, transport and health care. This creates a sense of neglect or lack of respect and is associated with a lower level of social tolerance in rural communities and with more dissatisfaction with governments and democracy in general. This is a threat to social cohesion in the eu and its member states. The policies should focus on addressing these gaps and its underlying causes.

1 . To invest in education and training in rural communities
Urban centres with a young and a high level of education have been able to take advantage of opportunities of globalization and technological progress. Rural communities should also have tools to benefit from economic change. In this regard, it is essential to promote education and knowledge economy. The data show that the gap urbano-rural in the level of higher education is growing, which could be explained by migration to cities of persons with higher educational level in search of better employment opportunities. Policies should focus on reversing this trend and ensure that the accumulation of human capital and skills available in all areas in order to attract investment and innovation and ensuring future growth.

2 To guarantee the growth in all regions, the digital access is key
There are significant gaps regarding the quality of broadband connections to the inhabitants of rural areas. It is necessary to ensure local residents and rural enterprises to high-quality access to the Internet for that are not left behind in the transition. The rise of telework, accelerated by the pandemic of COVID- 19 , offers important opportunities for rural areas, as it attracts the inhabitants of cities motivated by the benefits of rural life. However, to work from a distance from rural areas in the long term, the quality of Internet connections must be ensured. In Addition, the solution to the deterioration of many public services in rural areas requires a shift towards online delivery of certain services (e.g., tele-health). This is only possible with the development of an Internet connection within reach of all.

3 . To involve rural communities in policy design and implementation
A clear conclusion that emerges from this report is that rural residents feel that they are being forgotten and neglected. These are less politically active and rely less on governments. This is a major threat to social cohesion. To address these feelings of isolation and mistrust, we must provide rural communities with a platform to express their views and concerns and ensured that their voices will be heard and that it will act accordingly. Rural communities must participate in the design of policies to address the gaps in services and to promote economic development in their communities. they have to be more assertive of its value for both the social fabric and economic driving forces of their countries and the eu.

4 . We must adopt innovative solutions to provide essential services
A major obstacle to providing quality public services in rural communities is that the depopulation and ageing population are appealing the provision of these services. The current demographic trends show that rural communities will continue to face these challenges and, as such, we must adopt innovative solutions for the provision of public services. Eurofound ( 2023 a) documented several examples of innovative solutions in action in all member states to ensure the continued provision of care in rural communities. The local and national actors should develop best-practice models for the provision of services that take into account the specific needs of each community. In addition to the solutions to provide durable medical care, politicians should be looking at the reuse of empty buildings in rural areas and to find innovative ways to provide them with public transport. In the member states, many communities have designed novel solutions to the numerous natural advantages in rural areas, while addressing the challenges of being away from centres of population. The european governments should support such measures and, where necessary and appropriate, to find ways to get more information.

Conclusions
Rural areas account 83 % of europe ’ s land area, but only one quarter of the european population lives in them. Globalization and technological progress have promoted and continues to promote economic growth in urban areas. This is appealing to young people and have a higher educational level, creating more opportunities for growth and resulting in a repetitive cycle, which is becoming younger, those who move from rural to urban areas. This creates problems of population ageing and depopulation in rural europe, and exacerbates the problem of “ solitary places ” (Proietti et al., 2022 ). For the eu, it is essential to ensure territorial cohesion to foster growth and opportunities are to be conducted on a balanced and harmonious relationship between all member states and within them.

Historically, europe has been considered a “ convergence ” machine, which has led to economic growth and development in less developed historically regions of the continent. However, in recent years, progress towards a balanced growth throughout europe has slowed, and it is possible that the “ convergence ” machine need reshaping. Rural areas, in particular the most remote and less developed areas face significant challenges and difficulties that require to be addressed (European Parliament 2022 ). With this objective, the european Union has launched a wide range of policies to promote rural development from many Angles, as reflected in The vision "eu rural". These include support to agricultural livelihoods, creating jobs in Rural areas outside the agricultural sector, promoting innovation, education and job opportunities, protection of the most vulnerable and the guarantee of a just transition towards climate neutrality.

Differences in standards of living between areas with varying degrees of urbanization pose a threat to democracy and the fabric of society. Those living in less prosperous regions may feel that their identity economic, social and cultural life is threatened. this can lead to an increase of populism and make the voters pro-authoritarian leaders. you can also undermine confidence in governments, in the european Union and social unrest. This underlines the need for a better understanding of the economic, social, cultural and policies among the Rural and urban areas, while recognizing the diversity within regions.

Eurofound ( 2023 a), Bridging the rural–urban divide: Addressing inequalities and empowering communities, Oficina de publicaciones de la Unión Europea, Luxemburgo.

Eurofound ( 2023 (b), and as Unaffordable housing in Europe, office for official publications of the european Union, luxembourg.

The European Parliament ( 2022 ), Report on a long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas – Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 , 2021 / 2254 (INI)

Kah, S., Georgieva, N. and Fonseca, L. ( 2020 ), Research for REGI Committee – EU Cohesion Policy in non-urban areas, Parlamento Europeo, Departamento Temático de Políticas Estructurales y de Cohesión, Bruselas.

Proietti, P., Sulis, P., Perpiña Castillo, C., Lavalle, C., Aurambout, J. P., Batista E Silva, F. et al. (), New perspectives on territorial disparities, Oficina de publicaciones de la Unión Europea, Luxemburgo.

Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W. et al. ( 2015 ), ‘Digital inequalities and why they matter’, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 18 , n. º 5 , pp. 569 – 582 .

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. ( 2008 ), ‘The digital divide in Europe’, en The handbook of internet politics, Routledge, Londres y Nueva York