AbstractThis paper aims to analyse to what extent the level and dynamics of development of rural regions located in two firmly different countries, Austria and Portugal, differ. In order to do this, an index to measure the ‘structural strength’ of rural regions was created. This index is a more holistic measure of socio-economic development than the traditional GDP per capita. After the identification of structurally weak regions in both Austria and Portugal, the paper compares them in the context of challenges faced by such regions.

This paper focuses on the increasing regional disparities in Ireland, especially since the great recession and assesses the degree to which the recovery has been concentrated in urban areas. Ireland was initially affected by the recession to a greater extent than other countries but has recovered strongly. However, this recovery has not been evenly distributed, with some regions showing greater economic resilience. Using descriptive statistics of GDP per capita (PPP), GVA and employment, this paper examines the extent to which the recovery has been a two-tier recovery. The paper finds evidence to suggest that the recovery has been heavily concentrated in Dublin, and to a lesser extent in Cork and Galway, resulting in an urban-rural divide.

This paper examines the factors that contributed to the economic resilience of rural regions in Portugal following the recent crisis. Portugal has for a long time faced the issue of regionalisation. However, rural regions in Portugal are not homogenous. Rural regions in Portugal are very diverse and experience very different economic realities. This paper adds to the growing body of literature on regional resilience by focusing exclusively on rural regions. Using an adaptation of Martin’s (2012) sensitivity index as a measure of resilience and bivariate analysis this paper examines the determinants of resilience in rural regions. In terms of economic structure, the paper interestingly finds that reliance on agriculture was beneficial while innovativeness hindered resilience. As for measures of social capital, the paper presents some contradictory findings. Higher rates of crime had a negative impact on resilience, however higher political participation also had a negative impact.

Relevance. Much research was undertaken on regional economic resilience after the financial crisis of 2008. The current crisis caused by Covid19 provides an opportunity to understand further the nature of regional economic resilience. It also provides an opportunity to analyse the urban-rural divide of economic resilience for two recessions. Research objective. There are two main objectives of this study Firstly, to understand if resilience to one recession provides a good indication of resilience to a subsequent recession. The second aim is to understand the urban-rural differences in regional economic resilience in Ireland. Data and methods. This is a quantitative study which uses data from the Irish Central Statistics Office regarding unemployment and population distribution. To understand economic resilience a sensitivity index is used and to check for correlation the Pearson coefficient is used. Results. Results show that there is no correlation between resilience to the financial crisis and resilience to the Covid19 crisis. Population distribution was not a determinant of resilience to the financial crisis. However, population distribution was a determinant of resilience to the Covid19 crisis. Counties with high population in ‘independent urban towns’ or ‘rural areas with moderate urban influence’ were more resilient while counties with high population in ‘satellite urban towns’ or ‘rural areas with high urban influence’ were more vulnerable. Conclusions. Economic resilience to one recession is not a good indication of resilience to future recessions. Counties with population in urban centres or more reliant on urban areas were less resilient to the Covid19 crisis.