Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud
‘Leaving Athens’: Narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis Menelaos Gkartzios* Centre for Rural Economy, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, NE1 7RU Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK
a b s t r a c t Keywords: Counterurbanisation Economic crisis Family Greece
The purpose of this paper is to explore counterurbanisation in times of crisis. While much of the Anglophone literature highlights the consumption of the rural through counterurbanisation as part of a complex mosaic consisting of pro-rural lifestyle choices, class aspirations and ageing processes, the current economic recession that western countries are experiencing might reveal new ways of conceptualising counterurbanisation. The paper draws on in-depth interviews with counter-urban migrants in Greece. The interviews highlight a ‘crisis counterurbanisation’ triggered largely by unemployment at origin, rather than pro-rural motivations and idyllic constructions of rurality. More importantly, the migrants’ stories highlight the importance of the extended family in counter-urban movements, in terms of the location of destination and the multiple support offered. This supportive family structure is pronounced in Greece, especially in times of crisis, but can be expected to be comparable to other southern European contexts where the role of family replaces responsibilities of the welfare state. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
literature (see for example: Benson and O’Reilly, 2009); instead, it also results from the current economic recession, spiralling unemployment levels and inner city dereliction. More importantly, this counterurbanisation story highlights the importance of the institution of family, in supporting these relocations through multiple means, such as housing provision, economic and psychological support. The paper firstly briefly reviews the literature on counterurbanisation and highlights an Anglophone bias in the way that counterurbanisation theory has been developed and reproduced. Secondly, the paper focuses on Greece, aiming at exploring the counterurbanisation story within the country’s socio-spatial profile and, more importantly, in relation to the current economic crisis. The methodology and methodological issues are then discussed before the analysis of the qualitative interviews with counter-urban migrants is presented. Finally, the conclusions illustrate the key characteristics of a ‘crisis counterurbanisation’ (for example the importance of the extended family in the migration decision).
Counterurbanisation, since its conceptual origins in the 1970s (Berry, 1976), has captured the imagination of rural social scientists, reflecting on trends (dominant or not) in most capitalist economies. Research on counterurbanisation is abundant, soon to enter its fourth decade. Despite of the output of this research activity, many researchers have highlighted that counterurbanisation theory has drawn heavily on English or Anglophone contexts (Brown, 2010), although in recent years various counterurbanisation stories have emerged from other European counties too (for example: Niedomysl and Amcoff, 2011; Bijker and Haartsen, 2011; Grimsrud, 2011; Herslund, 2012). This paper aims first to widen the lens of counterurbanisation research (Halfacree, 2008), by focussing on Greece, a country that has received little attention in academic debates on internal counterurbanisation trends, beyond the research that has explored the migration of international migrants in rural areas (Papadopoulos, 2012; Kasimis et al., 2003). Secondly, the paper aims to revisit the importance of economic and employment forces in conceptualising counterurbanisation. In this context, the paper explores the hypothesis of a ‘crisis counterurbanisation’ that is not triggered simply by lifestyle choices and idyllic constructions of rurality as normally reported in the
* Tel.: þ44 1912226615. E-mail address:
[email protected]. 0743-0167/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.06.003
2. Counterurbanisation: movements, typologies, stories 2.1. A review of the literature This section aims to discuss a shift in the counterurbanisation literature from a focus on typologies to stories, and, secondly, to highlight an Anglophone bias in the way that counterurbanisation theory has been produced. The research output that has been
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
generated around counterurbanisation is indeed impressive. Mitchell (2004) in her authoritative review of this extensive literature observes that counterurbanisation has been interpreted either as a migration movement or a process of settlement system change, resulting in a deconcentrated settlement pattern. Each of these interpretations draws on different methodological approaches and scales of enquiry. For example, early research focused on what might be termed here as statistical counterurbanisation, a preoccupation to describe counterurbanisation shifts, or a rural turnaround, drawing on quantitative analysis of national population data (for example: Champion, 1992; Cochrane and Vining, 1988; Fielding, 1989). However, research has increasingly explored case counterurbanisation as well, focussing on specific local case studies irrespective of wider urbanerural population dynamics (i.e. Halliday and Coombes, 1995; Rivera, 2007). Case counterurbanisation research has highlighted the spatially selective character of counterurbanisation (Boyle et al., 1998) and the uneven local and regional geographies of rural in-migration (Woods, 2005). Work here has embraced qualitative methodologies, particularly after the ‘cultural turn’ in rural studies. Nevertheless, researchers have also highlighted the need for more quantitative approaches to examine counterurbanisation in its national, regional and local contexts (see also Smith, 2007; Milbourne, 2007). Researchers have reported also on potential counterurbanisation trends (people’s desire to move to rural areas), even where the migration has not been realised (for example: Niedomysl and Amcoff, 2011). In explaining the motives behind counterurbanisation, several hypotheses have been suggested, recognising that while residential movements are the results of decisions made ‘freely’ by the individual migrants concerned, they also reflect a response to wider changes in economy and society (Champion, 1998). Early research centred around a dualism between economic (or job-led) and quality of life (or people-led) considerations of the migrants involved (for example: Grafton and Bolton, 1987; Moseley, 1984). More recently, Mitchell (2004) adopted a similar approach by suggesting a typology which distinguishes, inter alia, between economic and quality of life motives associated with the migration decision. For example, Mitchell proposed: the term ex-urbanisation to describe the movement of middle class commuters to accessible peri-urban rural areas, motivated by environmental amenities associated with rural living; the term displaced-urbanisation to describe relocations motivated by the need for employment, lower costs of living and/or affordable housing and taking place in any geographic location that provides for these needs; and the term anti-urbanisation to describe the movement of urban residents whose driving force is to live and work in a rural setting. These residents are motivated by anti-urban motives (i.e. urban crime, the rat race) and pro-rural perceptions about rural life. Similar classifications have been suggested (for example: Halliday and Coombes, 1995). However, Halfacree (2001) has argued that such typologies run the risk of narrowing down the reality and diversity of counterurbanisation. Irrespective of whether such classifications are accepted or contested, there is a general consensus that counterurbanisation is far from a homogenous movement and/or process (Champion, 1998; Mitchell, 2004). In essence, what appears to be a problem of defining and classifying might constitute an impossibility to conceptualise and internationalise in a lingua franca the diversity of global socio-spatial structures and systems which are linked with the experience of counterurbanisation. Halfacree (2008) suggested that while
159
research on counterurbanisation is still important, it should be carried out with the challenge of avoiding attempts to define what counterurbanisation is. This diversity of counterurbanisation has been promoted through constructing counterurbanisation as a story, a narrative of very different experiences and representations (Champion, 1998; Halfacree, 2008). Almost four decades of research on counterurbanisation stories have demonstrated, at least, the following interrelated elements of differentiation: First, locality. In an increasingly blurred and difficult to define rural territory, research has considered the distance of the relocation, highlighting cases of counterurbanisation from accessible rural peri-urban areas to more remote rural locations (i.e. Harper, 1991; Ford, 1999). Halfacree (1994) and Stockdale et al. (2000) examine both long distance and short distance counter-urban moves. Given that concepts such as ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ are heavily contested (Woods, 2005) and that these are also socially and culturally constructed (for social representations of ‘rural’ see Halfacree, 1993; for ‘urban’ as a social construct, see a discussion in Boudreau, 2010) research on counterurbanisation has focused on extremely diverse rural, market town and open countryside residential environments. Second, motivation. As mentioned already, counter-urban motivations usually reflect dualistic distinctions between economic/employment rationality and quality of life/lifestyle considerations, associated with the migration decision. Counterurbanisation in some cases tends to be associated with a very positive perception of rural living, emphasising the environmental, anti-urban and communitarian features of rural areas, and the existence of a ‘rural idyll’ has been used to rationalise the migration decision (Halfacree, 1994; Walmsley et al., 1998; van Dam et al., 2002). Beyond such (pull-led) motivations, research has also demonstrated the importance of other economic conditions (push-led) in counterurbanisation. Hugo and Bell (1998) for example discuss a welfare-led migration, where counter-urbanites take the opportunity of lower living costs in rural areas, while receiving public benefits. Fitchen (1994) too discusses migration to rural areas triggered not by employment opportunities, but by housing costs and low incomes. Third key element of differentiation is social groups. A significant body of research has focused on the diversity of people associated with counterurbanisation. For example, this includes the out-migration of an urban middle class (Urry, 1995), particularly in European and North American contexts (Woods, 2005). Work has also explored the counterurbanisation of case study groups, such as marginal settlers (Halfacree, 2001), lesbian households (Smith and Holt, 2005), artists (Mitchell et al., 2004), pre-retirement groups (Stockdale, 2006) and international return migrants (Ni Laoire, 2007). In this context, counterurbanisation has offered an exciting frame of change for studying wider social phenomena, such as the gentrification of rural space (Stockdale, 2010), the creative class thesis (Herslund, 2012) and the relationship between migration and neo-endogenous rural development (Bosworth and Atterton, 2012). 2.2. Anglophone imperialism? The conceptualisation of counterurbanisation in the 1970s was useful, at least initially, because it helped to draw attention to a phenomenon which had heretofore been the subject of limited research. Counterurbanisation became the subject of considerable research interest not only in the USA and UK but also soon in other
160
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
developed countries, ‘escaping’ its Anglophone boundaries (Boyle et al., 1998). Two points should be made here regarding the internationalisation of counterurbanisation. First, that despite the numerous research projects, comparative counterurbanisation studies have been less common or they draw on Anglophone countries (Brown, 2010). Second, the dominant research paradigm of constructing counterurbanisation draws on the UK and the USA (Woods, 2005), notwithstanding differences between the two countries (Champion and Brown, 2012). In a European context, a dominant narrative of counterurbanisation draws on England, whereby a prolonged counterurbanisation (Champion and Shepherd, 2006) is associated with class mobility, exceptionally idyllic constructions of rurality and, increasingly, the displacement of local people or exclusion of lower income groups from living in the countryside (Satsangi et al., 2010). The dominance of the English counterurbanisation story is apparent in the way many international researchers seek to position their narrative of counterurbanisation within a ‘taken for granted’ counterurbanisation (i.e. Bijker and Haartsen, 2011; van Dam et al., 2002) or against it (i.e. Grimsrud, 2011; Gkartzios and Scott, 2012). Essential in the English context has been the impact of social representations of the rural (and in particular the ‘rural idyll’) on counterurbanisation. For Halfacree (1994) features of the rural such as peace and quietness, openness, attractive scenery, naturalness, communitarianism and relaxation, all elements of an essentially English ‘rural idyll’, constitute a crucial element in the migration decision. Such constructions of the rural are usually associated with the country’s intense urbanisation and industrialisation history. Murdoch et al. (2003) argue that such constructs derive from the 18th century Romantic Movement and the view that the countryside should be saved from the industrial processes of the time. Satsangi et al. (2010) highlight that such constructs are very powerful, because ‘they shape views not only on what the countryside is actually like, but also on what it should be like’ (p. 10). In that regard, researchers have shown how such idyllic constructions of rurality have been adopted and reinforced in policy discourses (Murdoch and Lowe, 2003; Sturzaker and Shucksmith, 2011), resulting in a distinctive anti-development ethos in English rural policy for European standards (Gallent et al., 2003). In the English context, research has demonstrated two key features of counterurbanisation. The first of these is the age of the migrants involved, which, in line with the rural exodus of younger populations contributes to a ‘greying countryside’ (Lowe and Speakman, 2006). The second feature is the growth of urban middle-class residents relocating to the countryside (Newby, 1979), a trend commonly referred to as rural gentrification (Phillips, 2010). For Murdoch (1995), rural areas (apart from places of class mobility) also constitute places of class formation, suggesting that counterurbanisation is linked with the consumption of the rural as part of the migrants’ self-defining class identity. These two features of counterurbanisation, age and class, have had significant implications in rural communities. The increased demand for rural housing coupled with limited supply of housing in the rural context has created acute problems of affordability and the displacement of lower income and younger groups from the countryside (Best and Shucksmith, 2006), further enhancing the spatial inequality of the English planning system (Shucksmith, 2012). How relevant, however, are these phenomena internationally? Halfacree (2008) as well as other researchers (Grimsrud, 2011; Hoggart, 1997) have questioned the reproduction of counterurbanisation theory outside its Anglo-American (and, generally, Anglophone) experiences: Acknowledging how the production of any category is inevitably a selective process, we need to ask questions as to the
appropriateness of taking ‘counterurbanisation’ as a concept from village England to Spain, Norway, Greece, Romania . One may question just how well counterurbanisation ‘travels’ (Halfacree, 2008, p. 485). Indeed, research from other European countries has shown very diverse experiences and responses in their counterurbanisation stories. While in England counterurbanisation has been the dominant internal migration movement, other countries have shown persistent urbanisation trends (Kontuly, 1998). Gkartzios and Scott (2010, 2012) report significant rural residential mobility in the Republic of Ireland during the Celtic Tiger period, inclusive of counterurbanisation, which, however, did not prevent local people and lower income groups from living and building houses in the countryside, due to the country’s relaxed rural planning regime. In Scotland, Stockdale et al. (2000) highlight positive impacts of counterurbanisation (i.e. job creation, investment in the rural housing stock, demographic revival), that have not been the focus of policy makers and researchers. In Spain, Paniagua (2002) highlights that the counterurbanisation of the service class is not triggered by idyllic constructions of a Spanish rurality, but by a series of labour or economic factors such as career development. All these experiences highlight the need to widen the lens of counterurbanisation theory and include stories that embrace diverse economic, cultural and personal factors (Halfacree, 2008). 3. Counterurbanisation in Greece? In developing an endogenous Greek rural social science, special mention should be made to the seminal works of Karavidas (1978) and Damianakos (1987) who laid the foundations for critically engaging with a wide variety of social phenomena, beyond agricultural economic studies (see an authoritative review of the Greek post WWII rural studies literature by Bika, 2007). Damianakos (1997) in discussing the main elements of Greece’s rural economy and society points out the country’s unique perhaps ‘fluidity of cleavages between urban and rural zones’ (p. 193), instead of a separation of these, as exemplified in England and other industrial European regions (Murdoch and Lowe, 2003). The idea of a mosaic of blurred or coexisting urban and rural spaces and identities, essentially constituting an urbanerural continuum, are most developed in Damianakos (2001a, 2001b, cited in Zacopoulou, 2008) and in other Greek pioneering research projects (for example: Damianakos et al., 1997). In this continuum, urban and rural spaces, networks, socio-economic activities and identities were never truly separated, due to the county’s late urbanisation and industrialisation processes. Damianakos (2002), drawing on Karavidas, reports on the magnitude of social and geographical mobility of Greek farmers, who migrated to urban areas particularly after the 1960s, but never lost connections with their (rural) areas of origin. Thus, the peasantry has been a major influence of the Greek modern society, which at a national scale resembles the characteristics of a village society, a fact that, according to Damianakos (1997), not only separates Greece from the rest of western European societies, but also explains Greece’s own version of a ‘skewed’ capitalism. In this context, Damianakos (2002) rejects the term peasant in the Greek case (curikó2) and substitutes it with the term urban-peasant (assocurikó2) to highlight this fluidity of identities between urban and rural spaces. Examples of such urbanerural ‘double social identities’ constitute phenomena such as urban-based residents traditionally maintaining land, small farming activities (mainly for family-consumption) and housing in rural areas of origin, exercising voting rights in these rural areas and relocating to these rural areas when the census is taken (a sign also
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
of distorting technical distinctions between the urban and the rural) (Damianakos, 2002). In this context, Zacopoulou (2008) argues that, in the Greek case, the city never competed with the countryside, because these urban and rural spaces were never truly disconnected. In light of these urbanerural coexistences, the task of searching for counterurbanisation becomes even more exciting. Halfacree (2008) for example supports the need for acknowledging all these diverse social, spatial and cultural factors in the counterurbanisation story. The Greek literature has demonstrated evidence of such migration movements, highlighting the role of provincial towns in sustaining a rural population and in providing an alternative to residents from urban metropoles (see also Gousios, 1999; Koutsou and Anthopoulou, 2008). However, the population trend that is most prominent in rural Greece is the growth of international migrants in these localities, following the collapse of central and eastern European communist regimes (see research developed by Kasimis, 2010; Kasimis and Papadopoulos, 2005; Kasimis et al., 2003, 2010). These authors demonstrate the positive implications of such mobilities for the rural economy (particularly in agriculture, livestock and the construction industry), but also highlight the immigrants’ contribution to a wider social rural development (such as demographic revival of depopulated areas and maintenance of social cohesion), notwithstanding problems of xenophobia. Alvanides (2006) too observes population increases in regional rural areas especially after the 1990s and attributes these trends to the influx of international migrant workers, rather than an (statistical) urbanerural turnaround. In recent years, nothing has influenced the country’s political, economic and social landscape more than the current crisis, with regular and intense debates in national and international parliaments regarding the Greek and the Euro area sovereign debt. The country’s crisis is evidenced by spiralling unemployment levels, significant reductions in average compensations in both public and private sectors, and poverty (for official comparative data on the economic crisis in Greece and Europe, see EU, 2012). Unemployment for example in 2012 reached 26 per cent in total and 57.8 per cent for young people aged between 15 and 24 years old (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2013). The crisis is also linked with political instability, social unrest and civic alienation (see also EKKE, 2012; Marangudakis et al., 2013). In this context of an economic and social crisis, a recent study commissioned by the Greek Government (Ministry of Rural Development and Food, 2012) involving residents in Athens and Thessaloniki (Greece’s main metropolitan areas) demonstrated that: 68.2 per cent of respondents have thought of moving to the provinces (or eparchy, εparcía as described in the report); half of those willing to relocate (47.6 per cent) would like to work in the agricultural sector; 19.3 per cent of the respondents have already organised their relocation; 57.1 per cent is between 25 and 39 years old. The report appears to suggest the potential of a counterurbanisation trend with rather productivist characteristics and an engaged relationship with the land (or ‘back-to-the-land’, see also Halfacree, 2007). Indeed, a ‘back-to-the-land’ trend is heavily reported in the Greek (i.e. LIFO, 2012a, 2012b; SKAI, 2012) and international media (i.e. Guardian, 2012; New York Times, 2012). These representations of counterurbanisation are significant because, as Halfacree (2008) argues, the ‘more culturally imaginative dimensions of counterurbanisation also come through in the way the phenomenon is represented in popular tellings of the counterurbanisation story’ (p 489e490).
161
However, apart from these ‘back-to-the-land’ movements that appear to dominate media and policy discourses, less attention has been paid to a wider movement linked with the economic crisis, an urban exodus towards the countryside and the Greek provinces, which is not just associated with agriculture, but merely takes the opportunities of available housing and extended family networks. Greece would be a paradoxical case of both housing availability and strong family ties in a northern European context, but it would share similar characteristics with other southern European countries and, perhaps, Ireland (Alesina and Giuliano, 2007). The argument of a more family-oriented society in the European south is not new. King (2000), for example, highlights southern Europe’s ‘special case of capitalism’, characterised by late industrialisation, large agricultural and tourism sectors, speculative urban development and family-based informal economy. Dalla Zuanna (2001) talks about familism in Italy and the Mediterranean region, to describe societies where most people consider their own utility and family utility as being one and the same thing, resulting in distinctive social and economic phenomena when compared with the European North (see also Alesina and Giuliano, 2007; Reher, 1998). Allen et al. (2004) demonstrate how important, in southern Europe, the distinctive meaning of family is in relation to housing provision, particularly for young people when they get married and access owned (i.e. family) property. Indeed, levels of home-ownership in Southern Europe are exceptionally high (Mulder, 2007; Castles and Ferrera, 1996). In Greece, according to the Greek census (2001) the levels of home-ownership nationally are 80.5 per cent, while in the rural context the percentage of home-ownership increases to 97 per cent. Allen et al. (2004) also highlight the significant proportion of second homes found in rural areas in southern Europe. Apergis and Rezitis (2003) report that 14 per cent of Greek households, the highest percentage in the EU, own a second home. More importantly perhaps, the planning systems in southern European countries (Gallent et al., 2003) and in Greece (Economou, 1997) constitute weak regulatory regimes that facilitate (sometimes illegal) house-building and home-ownership in the rural context. In the remainder of this paper, these two interrelated key elements (availability of housing and strong family ties) are further explored in relation to the counterurbanisation of Athenian residents. The methodology of this research is discussed in the following section. 4. Research methodology and issues The research presented in this paper draws on qualitative, indepth, semi-structured interviews with 17 migrants (aged between 29 and 48 years old) who left Athens after the start of the financial crisis in 2008, either for rural areas in the Greek territory, provincial towns or island destinations. In brief, the interviewees were asked to reflect on their experience of counterurbanisation (without, however, specifically referring to counterurbanisation as this is not a term that carries any meaning in Greek), the impact of the economic crisis in their lives and to reflect on their quality of life before and after the relocation. A snowball sampling technique was used to identify migrants (i.e. Smith and Holt, 2005) with the added element that one of the interviewees suggested other migrants with similar counter-urban experiences through the use of the social medium, Twitter. The interviews took place in the summer of 2012. They were conducted in Greek, either by telephone or SKYPE due to problems of distance between the researcher and the interviewees (see Hanna, 2012). Their duration varied from 40 min to more than one hour. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated from Greek to English, and analysis of the transcripts revealed the common themes presented in the next section. It was not intended to capture a particular group of counterurbanites, apart from people who left Athens for the Greek
162
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
provinces during the period of crisis. This condition accords with Halfacree (2008) who suggests the avoidance of defining counterurbanisation, but also inherently adopts a framework of studying counterurbanisation similar to the one proposed by Mitchell (2004), whereby counterurbanisation is constructed as a physical movement from large (often metropolitan or urban) to smaller (often rural or non-metropolitan) places. Mitchell’s relative definition usefully avoids the duality of looking at migration movements between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ places, agreeing that these characteristics are complex and also socially constructed. Additionally, the researcher avoided focussing on particular rural localities (defined as such by either Greek institutes or by the migrants themselves) in studying counterurbanisation. While some of the interviewees expressed the view that they now live in a rural setting (sometimes described as a village, curió), this was not the case for all interviewees. However, all interviewees agreed that they had migrated to the province or eparchy (εparcía), which seemed a more valid concept in lay distinctions between the capital city of Athens and the periphery in the Greek context. In fact, while the interviewees hardly ever talked about distinctions between the ‘urban’ and the ‘rural’ (as usually discussed in the Anglophone literature), the interviewees drew mostly on differences between the city and the province, which, essentially is both urban and rural. This point agrees with earlier discussions on separating urbane rural spaces and identities in the Greek context (Zacopoulou, 1998). Damianakos (2002) discusses the uncertainty in classifying the Greek population as either urban or rural due to the spatial equivalence (rather than separation) of economic, political and socio-cultural identities in urban and rural spaces. It also highlights the difficulty in universally using concepts such as rurality (see also Laschewski et al., 2002), unless these are critically discussed in the social-cultural contexts they are applied to. Deconstructing the rural in the Greek context and language is not the focus of this paper (see, however, excellent discussions in Zacopoulou et al., 2008). However, it should be noted that, for this research, the concept of the province (or eparchy), has been used to describe the destination of migration movement down the urban hierarchy, in line with Mitchell’s (2004) interpretation of counterurbanisation. Arguably, most studies on counterurbanisation follow a centripetal model where counterurbanisation is studied in the rural context or at the destination. Contrary to this prevailing attitude, this paper adopts a centrifugal model (see also Fig. 1) whereby counterurbanisation is explored in relation to the origin of these relocations (i.e. the city of Athens). As a result of this focus, the destinations of these migrants are multiple (as the urban origins of centripetal models are multiple); for this paper in particular, they include rural areas, provincial towns and also island destinations. This is not to argue that counterurbanisation is not a spatially selective phenomenon. The reason for this selection was to highlight that current phenomena associated with the economic crisis, at least in the Greek case, are first and perhaps most severely felt in
urban areas rather in the periphery. Kasimis and Zografakis (2012) also argue that rural areas form spaces of refuge from the current economic crisis. This difference between Athens and the Greek provinces was also highlighted during the interviews: I see a tremendous difference in dealing with the economic situation between here and Athens. My sense is that here people are not as aware of what has happened. It’s like the illness in Athens is incurable, but here it is still treated with medication. It is completely different. People’s lives have not been affected as much here as in Athens (3) Because there is a lot of tourism here over the summer and the local economy is based on this tourism, we still haven’t seen here mass phenomena of poverty. I mean, what you see in Athens, people looking for food in the bins, is not something that you see here (8) Additionally, a centrifugal model of studying counterurbanisation highlights the interconnectivity between urban and rural places (Davoudi, 2002) and the need for rural social scientists not to distance their research from phenomena happening (or appear to be happening) only in metropolitan environments. In other words, while the academic debate on counterurbanisation has looked at these phenomena through particular ‘rural’ lenses, counterurbanisation has as many implications and impacts for the rural destination as for the urban origin. It should be noted that the dichotomy proposed in this paper between centripetal and centrifugal models is not aiming to provide an explanation for counterurbanisation (i.e. whether it is triggered by motives associated with the origin or the destination); instead, it is suggested to provide an alternative methodological viewpoint in selecting case studies and interviewees in counterurbanisation research. 5. Narratives of ‘crisis counterurbanisation’ This section explores a ‘crisis counterurbanisation’, drawing on the qualitative interviews. The term ‘crisis’ is justified by the motivation behind these relocations (such as unemployment), the deterioration of urban lifestyles in Athens (predominantly associated with urban crime and increased numbers of immigrants) and, for some interviewees, by an element of coercion in their relocation experience. Additionally, the interviews reveal the multiple support of the extended family in these relocations and, in line with the crisis/opportunity paradox, they present some of the opportunities of this crisis for community and personal development. 5.1. (Un)Employment As discussed previously, motivation is a common theme in counterurbanisation research. As a consequence of the economic crisis, a dominant theme in the counterurbanisation of the interviewed migrants was unemployment:
Fig. 1. (a) centripetal and (b) centrifugal model of studying counterurbanisation; (c) adapted for the Greek case.
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
Our moral was really low. My partner had a firm that closed down due to the economic crisis and I was let go from my job. We realised that we wouldn’t get another job with the money we were on. So we decided to leave Athens, as expenses in the city were very high (4) At the end of 2011 I became unemployed [.] I couldn’t survive with the rent. It is very hard to make it in Athens if you are unemployed. You know now that if you lose your job you won’t find another one easily and certainly not at a salary that can guarantee a normal life (3) For some interviewees, unemployment in Athens was combined with employment opportunities at destination or with the prospect of starting up a new business when the economy picks up. An interviewee who left Athens exemplifies this case: We are both agronomists and we felt we had more employment opportunities here [.] When I came back to work [after maternity leave], I realised that the work had declined substantially, that dismissals were on the way. I felt my days were numbered. I had no work to do, do you understand? There was no work; we were just too many people in the office. Finally, I was let go and then we left. We would have left no matter what, I suppose, but things happened faster than I thought (2) Whether it is employment opportunities at destination or unemployment at origin, the rationality expressed by these migrants hardly represents counterurbanisation movements typified as exurbanisation or anti-urbanisation (Mitchell, 2004). These movements most closely relate to Mitchell’s displaced-urbanisation, whereby these migrants move to any location that provides for housing and/or employment needs, although in these migrants’ experiences unemployment or employment difficulties at origin are pronounced, due to the high cost of living in Athens: If you don’t have a job, or two or three jobs, because Athens is an expensive city, and even before the crisis you needed to work in more than one job; if you don’t have enough money, you can’t survive Athens (9) 5.2. Crime and fear of crime Anti-urban motivations for leaving the city are rather common in counterurbanisation literature. Some of these themes were also highlighted in this research, as many interviewees referred to the increasing presence of immigrants and drug users in the city centre and their relationship with crime. The interviews also revealed the fast changing nature of these phenomena: People don’t go out any more. You know the problem with the immigrants, there are too many especially in the city centre and it is indeed quite dangerous out there (4) There is incredible insecurity; everybody can tell you a personal story of theft in a city that that did not have so much violence before. Houses are broken into everywhere. And, of course, this has to do with the crisis. But it wasn’t like this, do you understand me, there is so much dirt, abandonment, insecurity. It is just terrible (13) After 2004 [the year of the Athens Olympic Games] it started showing that there is no money around. Athens started looking dirty, although back then we hadn’t realised how dirty Athens can get. Drug users started becoming more visible in the city centre as well as immigrants in desperate living conditions, looking for food in the bins, etc. (14) The interviews revealed how fear of crime might be even more powerful than the incidents of crime in these situations: The areas where I used to live in Athens, working class areas in the city centre and in which I had never felt any danger, have changed
163
so much, really. It is fear. It is not incidents of violence that have changed people; it is the fear of violence (6) Over the last few years criminality gradually started to occur more often in the city centre, particularly in the form of thefts, burglaries and drug-related crime [.] Crime and fear of crime made me feel very unsafe in Athens (8) As highlighted by the interviewees, these phenomena are rather new in the Greek context (see Kasimis et al., 2010). However, crime or fear of crime did not emerge as a dominant discourse for explaining counterurbanisation. It was something that many interviewees referred to, but not as a reason for relocating.
5.3. The role of family The role of the extended family in these counterurbanisation stories is apparent, by the mere fact that in many cases these migrants either returned to a place of their origin or they took the opportunity of their partner who had extended family in the province: We came here because my wife has family here, a house; and also we knew some people around, there is a circle of people. We were thinking of having a kid in the future and wanted to be near my wife’s parents so they can help us with the kid (7) The type of family support expressed at the interviews is multiple and in line with academic literature around strong family structures in southern Europe (Alesina and Giuliano, 2007). Interviewees highlighted diverse cases of support, from economic to psychological and from helping out with the grandkids to providing food. The following quotes exemplify some of this support: There was a period where my parents helped me a lot; I would say that for a time I lived exclusively with money from my parents and savings I had from when I was in Athens. It was very important for me. The support was also psychological. I couldn’t imagine doing what I did without the support of my family (8) The grandparents have taken the responsibility of feeding their grandson fish, twice a week. I can’t afford to buy fresh fish twice a week. This is really a big help. The day before yesterday he [my son] needed new shoes; the grandparents bought them for him. How can I say this: the support might not always show, but it really makes a difference (2) The availability of family housing was also mentioned in a couple of interviews: (13): The only reason that I came here is my origin. I have roots here, I have, how can I say this, I have assets. I didn’t come to the province for a better quality of life, as they might say. I came back to my roots and I want to take advantage of goods that belong to me here. Interviewer: what kind of goods are you referring to? (13): I have a house, a full house here. I have land, a garden, a vegetable garden. I own things here; that’s what I mean. It is interesting to note in this extract this self-entitlement to ownership in family property. Allen et al. (2004) for example point out that in southern Europe ‘it becomes a normal expectation of family members to accede to ownership’ (p. 6). It becomes a family’s responsibility to provide housing for the next generations, given also the minimised role of the state in housing provision (see also Gallent et al., 2003 for similar phenomena in Italy, Spain and Ireland). Family property and extended family relations were not only a reason for not moving to other places in the country, but also a reason for not moving abroad:
164
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
My family was a very important factor for coming back here. If my own people weren’t from this area, I might have never come back. I would probably not even go to any other provincial place in Greece. I would either stay in Athens or go abroad. To tell you the truth, if I didn’t have these links, I would probably leave Athens to go abroad (1) Close family ties, of course, are not a new phenomenon in Greece or in other southern European countries. However, in the current context of economic crisis, it can be expected that the role of the extended family will be more pronounced. In that regard, the real refuge in times of crisis might not only be spatial, such as rural areas (as suggested by Kasimis and Zografakis (2012)), but the family itself: The crisis in Greece would have been so much worse if it hadn’t been for the family. There is always a pension, a civil servant in the family, previous generations had it easier in a way. This is the only thing that holds us together. I mean, we are not poor, but, here we eat food that other people, family, friends, neighbours are giving us. We eat for free through this network, which, however, has always existed (13)
5.4. Narratives of choice The interviews revealed multiple narratives of choice, and, most importantly, illustrated that these reflections can shift in time. Three main narratives have been identified: ‘free will’, ‘coercion’ and ‘shifting’. These three narratives are exemplified in the following quotes: We decided to make a new start; to go somewhere close to the sea, with a nice climate. I thought it would do us good. That’s how we decided it, it was our choice (11) I feel like we got kicked out, it was not a choice. I don’t know if I would like to go back to Athens, the situation there is really bad, but I would like to be able to make these choices myself. That’s what matters to me (3) Originally it was need that brought us here [me and my husband]. But there has been a change within us and now this feels like a choice. I mean, in a way, this need turned into choice because life here is more humane and because of our own idiosyncrasies (6) The discourses highlight the difficulty in classifying these movements as solely coercive or not. For some of the migrants interviewed, this was clearly a difficult and upsetting move, involving a great level of unwillingness. For others, the urban exodus was presented as a choice, a step to a better life, underpinned by a series of anti-urban motives as discussed earlier. More importantly perhaps, as the third quote illustrates, these perceptions are dynamic and consequently can change in time. These changes can reflect the migrants’ feelings around their new living experiences after the relocation, which impact on their overall selfreflection of the counterurbanisation movement. As Halfacree and Rivera (2011) argue counterurbanisation is an open-ended experience that does not stop when the physical relocation is completed. 5.5. Opportunity This was a rather bottom-up theme included in the later interviews, as the author was not originally planning on asking interviewees about opportunities around the economic crisis. However, the interviewees frequently referred to opportunities for both communities and individuals. First, on a community level, some interviewees expressed the opinion that there is more solidarity, which one interviewee described as ‘unprecedented’ in
Greek society affairs. This solidarity was expressed through participating in community meals, anti-austerity movements and general voluntarism. Second, some interviewees referred also to a ‘cultural renaissance’. This referred to increasing bottom-up collectives, exhibitions, theatre groups, film nights (Migrant 6) as well as the more frequent touring of established Athens-based artists and acts throughout the Greek provinces (Migrant 2). Many of these narratives underline the fact that the province in the Greek case, as a social construct, is associated with a ‘backward’ attitude. As one interviewee noted: There is something good about this crisis. It gave the opportunity to many people, young or old, who have lived for years in Athens or abroad, open-minded people with talent and ideas, to create something in this place. I mean artistic and cultural events and the new ideas that start to develop. There is a wave of new people here and this has really helped (8) On a personal level, a few interviewees talked about an opportunity to re-examine life, values and to prioritise needs accordingly. It is interesting to note how this opportunity is not presented outside the wider economic context but instead is positioned within an understanding of the difficulties that many people are going through. This suggests that narratives between the individual and the community are not as separate as usually thought: I see a need to re-examine our priorities. That was necessary for many and for me. What I mean is that our needs, material, spiritual, social and emotional, become clearer, more truthful. There is a sort of relocation of needs towards more fundamental and necessary things. I hope that this crisis will help us operate in a more positive way [.]. Of course this doesn’t mean that I want to see my employment rights disappearing, or everything we have fought for in this society, but I am positive about all these solidarity movements that are flourishing (6) Without overlooking real problems and difficulties, people losing their jobs, having economic problems, mortgages, etc., I believe in the connection between crisis and opportunity, to reflect on our lives, to change a few things, to give more meaning to our relationships. A lot of things can happen if you are healthy (13) 6. Discussion It has been argued that counterurbanisation is a spatially selective phenomenon; however, knowledge and research on counterurbanisation is spatially selective too, focussing on AngloAmerican and, more generally, Anglophone contexts. The current global economic crisis requires new ways of conceptualising mobilities (or immobilities), including counterurbanisation, beyond the ‘rural idyll’ explanations and gentrification impacts commonly cited in the literature. The economic and social crisis in Greece may add new dimensions conceptualising the diversity of such movements, irrespective of whether they are dominant or not. For example, due to the country’s recession, popular Greek and international media have reported on the increased mobility of younger populations, highlighting not only international migration and the fear of a ‘brain drain’, but also counter-urban movements within the Greek territory. In this context, this paper presents evidence of a ‘crisis counterurbanisation’, drawing on an exploratory research of qualitative interviews with ex-Athenian residents who left the city for other smaller-sized settlements, both urban and rural (an approach to counterurbanisation based on Mitchell, 2004). The methodology adopted in this paper is significant in suggesting a centrifugal model for studying counterurbanisation, by focussing on the origin of these relocations (rather than the destination). This approach promotes a more dialectic engagement with the ‘urban’
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
across rural social scientists and highlights the interrelationship of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ spaces in studying counterurbanisation, which is more pronounced in the Greek case (Zacopoulou, 2008; Damianakos, 2002). Key characteristics of this ‘crisis counterurbanisation’ are, first, the migrants’ motives (and particularly unemployment), placing it close to economic explanations of counterurbanisation (Moseley, 1984; Hugo and Bell, 1998) or to what Mitchell (2004) describes as displacement-urbanisation. Second, the counterurbanisation stories of the interviewed migrants suggest some anti-urban considerations. In that regard, migrants referred to increased numbers of immigrants in the city centre and fear of crime, although in many cases their relocation was not directly attributed to these phenomena. Relocations in some cases were also triggered by perceptions of better quality of life in more provincial settings, a fact that supports that the migration decision is associated with factors in both the origin and destination (Massey et al., 1998). Third, the stories recounted in this paper highlight the role of family in the counterurbanisation move. This role is most evident in the location of the destination, which in many cases was the origin of the migrants involved or that of their partners. The support of the extended family is diverse and includes many elements such as economic support, psychological backup, provision of food and housing, but also support with new businesses and child-minding. It is suggested, consequently, that the family itself provides a refuge in times of economic crisis, at least for people who have access to these family networks. The Greek case is rather characteristic, in a northern European context, in the way that family in many cases replaces state welfare responsibilities (Castles and Ferrera, 1996) but this wouldn’t be unusual in southern Europe (Allen et al., 2004; Katrougalos, 1996). This finding is important as it adds a new dimension in the counterurbanisation story, but more international comparative research is necessary to explore the role of family in these relocations, particularly in countries where familism prevails. More importantly, this ‘crisis counterurbanisation’ introduced in this paper should not be interpreted as Greece’s only counterurbanisation story. The explorative results draw on qualitative interviews with a small sample of migrants and, indeed, counterurbanisation research may reveal many contrasting and diverse stories. However, the results are significant in suggesting a counterurbanisation that is not just productivist (i.e. ‘back-to-the-land’), at least in the way that the trend is currently reported in media and policy circles, but instead is linked with opportunities of family networks and housing availability. Similar observations have also been made by Kasimis and Zografakis (2012), pointing also to the case of urban households returning to the countryside, but not necessarily to agriculture. The results highlight the need for more quantitative research (Smith, 2007; Milbourne, 2007) to explore the nature and extent of Greece’s counterurbanisation stories (instead of a story), as well as the need for rural case study (i.e. centripetal) research. The research could also focus on the ephemeral or prolonged duration of these geographical movements linked with economic cycles of growth and recession. Given Greece’s geography, research might also reveal counterurbanisation movements to islands or ‘back-to-the-sea’ movements. Further research is necessary to reveal implications for these migrants from returning to family property and settings. For example, on one hand, the availability of family networks and housing discussed in this paper suggest a form of support and inclusion for the people who relocate in times of crisis and have access to such networks and resources. On the other hand, this ‘crisis counterurbanisation’ might also highlight the social exclusion of people who have no alternative options, but to count on family connections, excluding them from pursuing their own goals and dreams in life, a form of ‘exclusion of dreams’ as described by Shucksmith (2004).
165
Research on counterurbanisation in times of economic recession can also provide useful policy insights, as decentralisation of the Greek civil service and promotion of the province have long been at the core of a policy agenda towards a national plan for sustainable development. In that regard, the paper’s initial results on opportunities associated with counterurbanisation amidst economic recession, particularly in relation to increased levels of solidarity, communitarianism and creativity, might provide useful insights in furthering a discussion on how to promote rural and regional development in times of crisis. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to the participants of the research who generously talked to me about their lives. I am grateful to Charalambos Kasimis, Philip Lowe, Kyriaki Remoundou, David Brown and Gary Bosworth for their critical comments on earlier drafts and presentations of this paper. Thanks are also due to the editor and the three anonymous referees for their extremely insightful recommendations. References Alesina, A., Giuliano, P., 2007. The Power of the Family. Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion Paper No 2750. Available on: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2750.pdf (accessed 17.08.12.). Allen, J., Barlow, J., Leal, J., Maloutas, T., Padovani, L., 2004. Housing and Welfare in Southern Europe. Blackwell, Oxford. Alvanides, S., 2006. Geographical Analysis of Population Changes of Communities in Greece: 1940 to 2001. Available on: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/s.alvanides/ grpopchange/ (accessed 17.08.12.). Apergis, N., Rezitis, A., 2003. Housing prices and macroeconomic factors in Greece: prospects within the EMU. Applied Economics Letters 10, 799e804. Benson, M., O’Reilly, K., 2009. Migration and the search for a better way of life: a critical exploration of lifestyle migration. The Sociological Review 57, 608e625. Berry, B., 1976. Urbanisation and Counterurbanisation. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Best, R., Shucksmith, M., 2006. Homes for Rural Communities: Report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Rural Housing Policy Forum. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Bijker, R.A., Haartsen, T., 2011. More than counter-urbanisation: migration to popular and less-popular rural areas in the Netherlands. Population, Space and Place 18, 643e657. Bika, Z., 2007. A survey of academic approaches to agrarian transformation in postwar Greece. Journal of Peasant Studies 34, 69e90. Bosworth, G., Atterton, J., 2012. Enterpreneurial in-migration and neoendogenous rural development. Rural Sociology 77, 254e279. Boudreau, J.A., 2010. Reflections on urbanity as an object of study and a critical epistemology. In: Davies, J.S., Imbroscio, D.L. (Eds.), Critical Urban Studies: New Directions. State University of New York, Albany. Boyle, P., Halfacree, K., Robinson, V., 1998. Exploring Contemporary Migration. Longman, Essex. Brown, D., 2010. Rethinking the OECD’s New Rural Demography Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No. 26. Newcastle University. Available on: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/discussionpapers/pdfs/dp26%20Brown.pdf (accessed 17.08.12.). Castles, F.G., Ferrera, M., 1996. Home ownership and the welfare state: is Southern Europe different? South European Society and Politics 1, 163e185. Champion, A.G., 1992. Urban and regional demographic trends in the developed world. Urban Studies 29, 461e482. Champion, T., 1998. Studying counterurbanisation and the rural population turnaround. In: Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.), Migration into Rural Areas: Theories and Issues. Wiley, Chichester. Champion, T., Brown, D.L., 2012. Migration and urbanerural population redistribution in the UK and US. In: Shucksmith, M., Brown, D.L., Shortall, S., Vergunst, J., Warner, M.E. (Eds.), Rural Transformations and Rural Policies in the US and UK. Routledge, New York. Champion, A.G., Shepherd, J., 2006. Demographic change in rural areas. In: Lowe, P., Speakman, L. (Eds.), The Ageing Countryside: the Growing Older Population of Rural England. Age Concern, London. Cochrane, S., Vining, D., 1988. Recent trends in migration between core and peripheral regions in developed and advanced developing countries. International Regional Science Review 11, 215e243. Dalla Zuanna, G., 2001. The banquet of Aeolus: a familistic interpretation of Italy’s lowest low fertility. Demographic Research 4, 133e162. Damianakos, S. (Ed.), 1987. Processes of Social Transformation in Rural Greece. EKKE, Athens (in Greek).
166
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167
Damianakos, S., 1997. The ongoing quest for a model of Greek agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 37, 190e208. Damianakos, S., 2001a. Villageois et citadins de Grèce, «l’autre et son double». Strates (10). Ladyss, Paris (in French). Damianakos, S., 2001b. Les équivoques de la statistique: dépeuplement et double appartenance sociale en Epire, 1961e1991. In: Damianakos, S. (Ed.), Villageois et citadins de Grèce, «l’autre et son double». Strates (10). Ladyss, Paris (in French). Damianakos, S., 2002. From Peasant to Farmer. In: The Greek Rural Society Against Globalisation. Exandas-EKKE, Athens (in Greek). Damianakos, S., Zakopoulou, E., Kassimis, C., Nitsiakos, V. (Eds.), 1997. Authority, Work and Memory in Three Villages of Epirus. the Local Dynamics of Survival. Plethron, Athens. Davoudi, S., 2002. Urbanerural relationships an introduction and brief history. Build Environment 28, 269e277. Economou, D., 1997. The planning system and rural land use control in Greece: a European perspective. European Planning Studies 5, 461e476. EKKE, 2012. The Social Portrait of Greece. National Centre for Social Research, Athens. Available on: http://www2.ekke.gr/images/PDF/Social_portrait_2012. pdf (accessed 9.04.12.) (in Greek). European Commission, 2012. European Economic Forecast. Available on: http://ec. europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee2012-1_en.pdf (accessed 17.08.12.). Fielding, A.J., 1989. Migration and urbanisation in Western Europe since 1950. The Geographical Journal 155, 60e69. Fitchen, J.M., 1994. Residential mobility among the rural poor. Rural Sociology 59, 416e436. Ford, T., 1999. Understanding population growth in the peri-urban region. International Journal of Population Geography 5, 297e311. Gallent, N., Shucksmith, M., Tewdwr-Jones, M. (Eds.), 2003. Housing in the European Countryside: Rural Pressure and Policy in Western Europe. Routledge, London. Gkartzios, M., Scott, M., 2010. Residential mobilities and house building in rural Ireland: evidence from three case studies. Sociologia Ruralis 50, 64e84. Gkartzios, M., Scott, M., 2012. Gentrifying the rural? Planning and market processes in rural Ireland. International Planning Studies 17, 253e276. Gousios, D., 1999. Rural areas, agricultural space and small towns. In: Economou, D., Petrakos, G. (Eds.), The Development of Greek Cities. Thessaly University Press, Gutenberg, Volos, Greece (in Greek). Grafton, D.J., Bolton, N., 1987. Counter-urbanisation and the rural periphery: some evidence from North Devon. In: Robson, B. (Ed.), Managing the City: the Aims and Impacts of Urban Policy. Croom Helm, London. Grimsrud, G.M., 2011. How well does the ‘counter-urbanisation story’ travel to other countries? The case of Norway. Population, Space and Place 17, 642e655. Guardian, 2012. Greek Farmers Rent Patches of Land to Citydwellers in Scheme to Combat Crisis, [14/6/2012, by Jon Henley]. Available on: http://www.guardian. co.uk/world/greek-election-blog-2012/2012/jun/14/greek-farmers-rent-landcrisis (accessed 17.08.12.). Halfacree, K., 1993. Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies 9, 23e37. Halfacree,K.,1994.Theimportanceofthe‘rural’intheconstitutionofcounterurbanisation: evidencefromEnglandinthe1980s.SociologiaRuralis34,164e189. Halfacree, K., 2001. Constructing the object: taxonomic practices, ‘counterurbanisation’ and positioning marginal rural settlement. International Journal of Population Geography 7, 395e411. Halfacree, K., 2007. Back-to-the-land in the twenty-first century e making connections withrurality.TijdschriftvoorEconomischeenSocialeGeografie98,3e8. Halfacree, K., 2008. To revitalise counterurbanisation research? Recognising an international and fuller picture. Population, Space and Place 14, 479e495. Halfacree, K., Rivera, M.J., 2011. Moving to the countryside . and staying: lives beyond representations. Sociologia Ruralis 52, 92e114. Halliday, J., Coombes, M., 1995. In search of counterurbanisation: some evidence from Devon on the relationships between patterns of migration and motivation. Journal of Rural Studies 11, 433e446. Hanna, P., 2012. Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: a research note. Qualitative Research 12, 239e242. Harper, S., 1991. People moving to the countryside: case studies of decision making. In: Champion, T., Watkins, C. (Eds.), People in the Countryside: Studies of Social Change in Rural Britain. Paul Chapman, London. Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2013. Press Release: Workforce Research Unit (14 March 2013). Available on: http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE (accessed 04.06.12.). Herslund, L., 2012. The rural creative class: counterurbanisation and entrepreneurship in the Danish Countryside. Sociologia Ruralis 52, 235e255. Hoggart, K., 1997. Rural migration and counter-urbanization in the European periphery: the case of Andalucia. Sociologia Ruralis 37, 134e153. Hugo, G., Bell, M., 1998. The hypothesis of welfare-led migration to rural areas: the Australian case. In: Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.), Migration into Rural Areas. Wiley, Chichester. Karavidas, C.D., 1978. Agrotika: Study of the Economic and Social Morphology in Greece and in Neighbouring Slavic Countries (1st edition 1931). Papazisis, Athens (in Greek). Kasimis, C., 2010. Survival and expansion: migrants in Greek rural regions. Population, Space and Place 14, 511e524. Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., 2005. The multifunctional role of migrants in the Greek countryside: implications for the rural economy and society. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31, 99e127.
Kasimis, C., Zografakis, S., 2012. ‘Return to the land’: rural Greece as refuge to crisis. In: Paper Presented at the XIII World Congress of Rural Sociology, July 29 to August 4, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal. Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., Zacopoulou, E., 2003. Migrants in rural Greece. Sociologia Ruralis 43, 167e184. Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., Pappas, C., 2010. Gaining from rural migrants: migrant employment strategies and socioeconomic implications for rural labour markets. Sociologia Ruralis 50, 258e276. Katrougalos, G.S., 1996. The south European welfare model: the Greek Welfare State, in search of an identity. Journal of European Social Policy 6, 39e60. King, R., 2000. Southern Europe in the changing global map of migration. In: King, R., Lazaridis, G., Tsardanidis, C. (Eds.), Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe. MacMillan, London. Kontuly, T., 1998. Contrasting the counterurbanisation experience in European nations. In: Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.), Migration into Rural Areas: Theories and Issues. Wiley, Chichester. Koutsou, S., Anthopoulou, T., 2008. Rural in-migration and productivist systems: spatial and social reproductions of rurality. In: Zacopoulou, E., Kasimis, C., Louloudis, L. (Eds.), Rurality, Society and Space. Plethron, Athens (in Greek). Laschewski, L., Teherani-Krönner, P., Bahner, T., 2002. Recent rural restructuring in East and West Germany: experiences and backgrounds. In: Halfacree, K., Kovach, I., Woodward, R. (Eds.), Leadership and Local Power in European Rural Development. Ashgate, Aldershot. LIFO, 2012a. Back to the Village [1/2/2012, in Greek]. Available on: http://www.lifo. gr/mag/features/3061 (accessed 17.08.12.). LIFO, 2012b. Young People Chose the Countryside [28/3/2012, in Greek]. Available on: http://www.lifo.gr/now/society/8367 (accessed 17.08.12.). Lowe, P., Speakman, L. (Eds.), 2006. The Ageing Countryside: the Growing Older Population of Rural England. Age Concern, London. Marangudakis, M., Rontos, K., Xenitidou, M., 2013. State crisis and civil consciousness in Greece. Report Submitted to the Hellenic Observatory of the London School of Economics. Available on: https://forum.aegean.gr/download/file.php? id¼11696 (accessed 10.05.13.). Massey, D.S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouchi, A., Pellegrino, A., Taylor, J.E., 1998. Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford University Press, New York. Milbourne, P., 2007. Re-populating rural studies: migrations, movements and mobilities. Journal of Rural Studies 23, 381e386. Ministry of Rural Development and Food, 2012. Press Release 27/3/2012 [In Greek]. Available on: http://www.minagric.gr/index.php/el/the-ministry/grafeiotypou/ deltiatypou/516-dt27032012.html (accessed 17.08.12.). Mitchell, C.J.A., 2004. Making sense of counterurbanization. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 15e34. Mitchell, C.J.A., Bunting, T.E., Piccioni, M., 2004. Visual artists: counter-urbanities in the Canadian countryside? The Canadian Geographer 48, 152e167. Moseley, M., 1984. The revival of rural areas in advanced countries: a review of some causes and consequences. Geoforum 15, 447e456. Mulder, C.H., 2007. The family context and residential choice: a challenge for new research. Population Space Place 13, 265e278. Murdoch, J., 1995. Middle-class territory? Some remarks on the use of class analysis in rural studies. Environment and Planning A 27, 1213e1230. Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., 2003. The preservationist paradox: modernism, environmentalism and the politics of spatial division. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28, 318e332. Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N., Marsden, T., 2003. The Differentiated Countryside. Routledge, London. New York Times, 2012. With Work Scarce in Athens, Greeks Go Back to the Land [8/12/2012, by Rachel Donadio]. Available on: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/ 01/09/world/europe/amid-economic-strife-greeks-look-to-farming-past.html? pagewanted¼all (accessed 17.08.12.). Newby, H., 1979. Green and Pleasant Land? Social Change in Rural England. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Ni Laoire, C., 2007. The ‘green green grass of home’? Return migration to rural Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 23, 332e344. Niedomysl, T., Amcoff, J., 2011. Is there hidden potential for rural population growth in Sweden? Rural Sociology 76, 257e279. Paniagua, A., 2002. Counterurbanisation and new social class in rural Spain: the environmental and rural dimension revisited. Scottish Geographical Journal 118, 1e18. Papadopoulos, A.G., 2012. Transnational immigration in Rural Greece: analysing the different mobilities of Albanian immigrants. In: Hedberg, C., do Carmo, R.M. (Eds.), Translocal Ruralism. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 163e183. Phillips, M., 2010. Counterurbanisation and rural gentrification: an exploration of the terms. Population, Space and Place 16, 539e558. Reher, D.S., 1998. Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review 24, 203e234. Rivera, M.J., 2007. Migration to rural Navarre: questioning the experience of counterurbanisation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 98, 32e41. Satsangi, M., Gallent, N., Bevan, M., 2010. The Rural Housing Question: Communities and Planning in Britain’s Countrysides. Policy Press, Bristol. Shucksmith, M., 2004. Young people and social exclusion in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 43e59. Shucksmith, M., 2012. Class, power and inequality in rural Areas: beyond social exclusion? Sociologia Ruralis 52, 377e397.
M. Gkartzios / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 158e167 SKAI, 2012. The ‘Return Wave’: Young People in Villages [27/3/2012, in Greek]. Available on: http://www.skai.gr/news/greece/article/198805/68-ton-ellinonskeftetai-epistrofi-sto-horio-/ (accessed 17.08.12.). Smith, D., 2007. The changing faces of rural populations: ‘“(re) fixing” the gaze’ or ‘eyes wide shut’? Journal of Rural Studies 23, 275e282. Smith, D.P., Holt, L., 2005. ‘Lesbian migrants in the gentrified valley’ and ‘other’ geographies of rural gentrification. Journal of Rural Studies 21, 313e322. Stockdale, A., 2006. The role of a ‘retirement transition’ in the repopulation of rural areas. Population, Space and Place Population 12, 1e13. Stockdale, A., 2010. The diverse geographies of rural gentrification in Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 26, 31e40. Stockdale, A., Findlay, A., Short, D., 2000. The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 243e257. Sturzaker, J., Shucksmith, M., 2011. Planning for housing in Rural England: discursive power and spatial exclusion. Town Planning Review 82, 169e193.
167
Urry, J., 1995. A middle-class countryside? In: Butler, T., Savage, M. (Eds.), Social Change and the Middle Classes. UCL Press, London, pp. 205e219. van Dam, F., Heins, S., Elbersen, B.S., 2002. Lay discourses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living: some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies 18, 461e476. Walmsley, D.J., Epps, W.R., Duncan, C.J., 1998. Migration to the New South Wales North coast 1986e1991: lifestyle motivated counterurbanisation. Geoforum 29, 105e118. Woods, M., 2005. Rural Geography. Sage, London. Zacopoulou, E., 2008. The triumph of the peasant: Damianakos’ thesis on Greek rurality. In: Zacopoulou, E., Kasimis, C., Louloudis, L. (Eds.), Rurality, Society and Space. Plethron, Athens (in Greek). Zacopoulou, E., Kasimis, C., Louloudis, L. (Eds.), 2008. Rurality, Society and Space. Plethron, Athens (in Greek).