By Jayne Glass, Uppsala University, and Mark Shucksmith, Newcastle University
Mission-led governance has gained prominence as a paradigm for addressing complex, cross-cutting societal challenges, from climate adaptation to public health. Originating in innovation policy, a mission-led approach emphasises ambitious, time-bound objectives designed to catalyse systemic transformation through coordinated state intervention and multi-stakeholder collaboration. The UK government’s adoption of five national missions in 2024 exemplifies this trend, as does the European Union’s Horizon Europe programme, which structures research and innovation around targeted societal goals. Yet as mission-led frameworks proliferate globally, a pressing question emerges: can these transformative models deliver meaningful outcomes for local communities, or will they inadvertently reproduce spatial inequalities through place-blind implementation? As one commentator put it, can they pass ‘the Grimsby test’ and make a real difference to people’s lives?
The limits of conventional approaches
In our article in The Geographical Journal, we look at rural policy as a case in point. Rural policy has long grappled with structural barriers that undermine equitable development. Siloed governance, wherein responsibility for rural issues is assigned to agricultural ministries rather than integrated across government, persists across OECD countries. This fragmentation is compounded by urban-centric policy biases, where rural needs are treated as peripheral concerns, if acknowledged at all. Traditional tools like rural proofing have so far proven inadequate, often operating as advisory, reactive checks rather than mandatory actions towards proactive, cohesive strategies. Such mechanisms frequently reduce rural interests to narratives of ‘neediness,’ neglecting the diversity and agency of rural communities. But while missions offer the promise of systemic change through cross-departmental coordination, their top-down design also risks overlooking place-specific complexities, prioritising economy-wide goals like ‘economic growth’ and ‘clean energy’ without explicit mechanisms to address place diversity and spatial disparities, or to engage and empower local citizens.
Parallel to mission-led governance, national well-being frameworks have emerged in some countries as outcome-oriented approaches that similarly seek to coordinate policy efforts across government levels and sectors, so promoting vertical and horizontal integration. Inspired by the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report, countries such as Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and New Zealand have adopted frameworks that measure progress through economic, social, environmental, and democratic well-being rather than only GDP. Scotland’s National Performance Framework and Wales’ Future Generations Act, for example, aim to transcend GDP-centric metrics by prioritising holistic well-being outcomes. However, these approaches often struggle with implementation gaps and, without deliberate attention to rural spatial justice, they also risk perpetuating ‘spatially neutral’ policymaking for rural areas, where uniform targets obscure regional inequities. Nevertheless, there is now much experience from which to learn and our article identifies several lessons for rural policy.
Towards a hybrid model: integrating missions and well-being
At the heart of our article is the question of how mission-led governance can accommodate place diversity and agency in rural places. Geographers increasingly conceive of rurality as a social and cultural construct, with localities requiring ‘material coherence’ (institutional structures enabling collective action) and ‘imagined coherence’ (a shared sense of identity). Fostering these is fundamental to enabling place-based agency under mission-led governance.
How then to proceed? An ideal, but unlikely, option is a dedicated national rural mission, integrating elements of rural policy across ministries. Of course, such a mission still risks fragmentation or deprioritisation unless supported by strong cross-departmental mechanisms. At the other extreme is the option of rural proofing across national missions, as anticipated for England. But as we have seen, this approach often lacks accountability and stakeholder engagement, lacking incentives, compliance, and co-creation. Embedding rural considerations in such a way may improve coherence, but without robust monitoring and incentives, this risks being merely performative.
In between could be a hybrid, outcomes-based approach that combines mission-led governance with lessons from well-being frameworks, based on experience in other countries. The approach would draw on successful elements of mission-led governance by placing an emphasis on multi-level, cross-sectoral collaboration while addressing spatial justice through place-sensitive actions and flexibility. Thus, an effective rural strategy would have to be more than merely a technical performance framework, but rather a broad vision for progress shared by rural citizens and organisations, under the scrutiny of a multi-stakeholder Board. Incentive structures and budgets would have to be aligned with the proposed outcomes, with local flexibility, and agency so reflecting both national missions and place diversity.
From rhetoric to transformation
Mission-led governance holds genuine potential to revitalise rural policy, but only if reconfigured as a collaborative, multi-level endeavour. By combining the strategic clarity of missions with the participatory ethos of well-being frameworks, policymakers might finally bridge the gap between national ambition and local agency. The alternative would be a continuation of fragmented, top-down approaches, which will fail rural communities.
Such changes demand significant institutional reform but are necessary to avoid replicating spatial inequities. Public bodies could be enabled and assisted by new powers and support from a Rural Commissioner, analogous to Wales’ Future Generations Commissioner. The task ahead is therefore not merely technical but profoundly political: to reimagine rural governance as a vehicle for spatial justice rather than an afterthought in urban-centric agendas. As the international experience of well-being frameworks demonstrates, this requires long-term commitment, adaptive learning, and above all, a willingness to cede power to the communities these policies purport to serve.
About the authors: Jayne Glass is a Researcher in the Department of Earth Sciences; Natural Resources and Sustainable Development at Uppsala University. Mark Shucksmith is Emeritus Professor of Planning in the School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape at Newcastle University.
Suggested further reading
DEFRA (2025). The government’s approach to rural proofing, 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rural-proofing-the-governments-approach-and-priorities/the-governments-approach-to-rural-proofing-2025
Glass, J., and Shucksmith, M. (2025) Reimagining rural policy through mission-led governance. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.70053
PACAC (Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, UK Parliament) (2025, May 20). Mission Government Inquiry: oral evidence. Hansard. https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/15948/pdf/
Woods, M. (2023) Rural recovery or rural spatial justice? Responding to multiple crises for the British countryside. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12541
How to cite
Glass, J. and Shucksmith, M. (2025, November) Reimagining rural policy through mission-led governance. Geography Directions. https://doi.org/10.55203/AFLG4073
Geography Directions 