Non-state nations: Structure, rescaling, and the role of territorial policy communities, illustrated by the cases of Wales and Sardinia

This paper explores the role of non-state nations’ identity and agency with regard to relations with their host nation states. The particular focus here is on the means by which such regions might express their individuality. To this end, we employ a comparative case study analysis of two non-state nations with a range of differing yet in other ways similar qualities – namely Wales (UK) and Sardinia (Italy). We suggest that this is a valuable exercise, allowing as it does for the exploring of evidence ‘on the ground’ of the processes involved. The conceptual rationale for the paper is provided by new regionalism – regions as actors beyond the nation state. Following this, the idea of the ‘territorial policy community’ is presented as a point of departure, with the scope of the paper being to develop a diachronic framework for regional change. Given the focus on identity and interest articulation, the role of regional political parties is a particular subject of the empirical investigation, with non-state nations and nation states linked by opportunistic relationships based on political and electoral support. We then consider what this might mean with regard to the capacity of non-state nations to build on the past to successfully negotiate future policy-making agendas. Finally, we reflect on the limitations of the study, and consider the implications of its findings for further research agendas

What kind of countryside do the public want: community visions from Wales UK?

This paper assesses how far community led rural visions accord with the current thrust of rural planning policy delivery in the UK. Adapting conventional visioning methods, qualitative techniques were used on eight different communities across urban, exurban and rural Wales to elicit views relating to the kind of local countryside(s) that were desired. The results show that the communities’ visions reflect an emerging consensus around local countryside priorities: multifunctionality, integration, wider countryside protection, development based on need, and local distinctiveness according with the thrust of current planning policy at national and local levels. However, there is a clear dichotomy between this and the reality of what communities actually experienced in developments affecting their countryside. Here, universal criticism was encountered over the type, pace and scale of development, the lack of rural specificity and the failure to take account of local community needs and priorities. It is hypothesized that tensions between national and local politics and stakeholder power relations are playing a crucial role in distorting the delivery of town and country planning. It is recommended that rural policy delivery must become more ‘‘joined up’’ and rural proofed at national and local levels concomitant with a change in the operational culture of agencies at the forefront of rural delivery. Essentially, effective engagement of top down approaches synergising with bottom up community led ideas is long overdue