The university internship program in rural areas, known as Erasmus Rural, has become one of the most prominent initiatives in recent years for bringing young talent to rural communities. However, a recent report by the DPZ Chair on Depopulation and Creativity at the University of Zaragoza reveals that, while the experience is highly valued, it is not enough on its own to encourage participants to stay and live in rural areas.
The study, presented at the Provincial Council of Zaragoza, analyzes the opinions of hundreds of students and organizations that have participated in programs such as DesafĆo, Arraigo, Campus Rural, UCLM Rural, Odisseu, RaĆces/Sustraiak, Talent Rural, and Impuls Rural. The results reveal a paradox: young people rate the experience highly, but point to structural shortcomings that hinder its long-term establishment.
A program with real impact but with limitations
Since its launch in 2018, the Erasmus Rural program has resulted in approximately 10% of students completing internships in small towns ultimately remaining there. Cristina PalacĆn, the deputy delegate for the Fourth Space, emphasized that these initiatives connect the academic and professional worlds and bridge the gap between urban and rural areas. The model has been replicated in provinces such as Huesca, Teruel, CastellĆ³n, Alicante, and Navarre, and even inspired the Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (MITECO) to create its Rural Campus program.
The Chair's director, Vicente Pinilla, pointed out that the fact that other administrations are copying the model demonstrates its positive reception. However, the report warns that the lack of job opportunities and basic services remains the main obstacle preventing young people from considering a future in rural areas.
The students' perspective: a good experience, but with shortcomings
Surveys of nearly 700 students reveal that the average rating for internships is 8,98 out of 10. The highest-rated aspects are the welcome provided by the host organizations (9,12) and the personal and professional connections made (8,95). Furthermore, young people consider rural municipalities attractive places to live, giving them a score of 8,02. However, job opportunities only receive a 6,74, and access to the internet and related services plummets to 5,4.
One of the report's authors, AdriƔn Palacios-Mateo, explained that there is a certain perceptual bias, as students compare leisure activities in villages with those in cities, when in fact they are different models. Even so, infrastructure and leisure options are key factors when deciding whether or not to settle in rural areas.
The entities, satisfied but without the capacity to contract
For their part, the 540 organizations that responded to the survey gave the programs a score of 9,30 out of 10. They particularly valued their work in demystifying stereotypes about life in rural areas. However, most acknowledged that they would not hire the students after their internships, mainly due to the impossibility of holding competitive examinations or a lack of financial resources. Vicente Pinilla added that the rural business sector is often weak and that the objectives of businesses and young people do not always align.
Despite this, the organizations welcome the idea of āāyoung people starting businesses in the area, although this option is not among the university students' priorities. The study also reveals a significant difference in the perception of living conditions: the organizations rate connectivity, housing, and services higher than the students themselves, suggesting that those already living in the area may be underestimating the barriers perceived by potential new residents.
Conclusions: a necessary, but not sufficient tool
The report concludes that rural Erasmus programs are a key component of a broader strategy for rural development and territorial cohesion. They help address the information gap and connectivity issues between skilled workers and areas in need of talent. However, to achieve lasting integration, it is essential to complement these programs with public policies that improve employment, housing, connectivity, and services in small municipalities.
The authors emphasize that a positive experience does not automatically translate into a decision to stay. Therefore, they insist that government agencies must work in parallel to eliminate the shortcomings that young people perceive as barriers. Only in this way can a positive experience be transformed into a real opportunity for repopulation.
In short, the Erasmus Rural program has proven to be a valuable initiative for bringing university students closer to the realities of rural life and for changing the perception of depopulation. However, the data from the DPZ Chair report are clear: without improvements in infrastructure, employment, and services, it will be difficult to convince these young people to become permanent residents of rural areas. The challenge now lies in the complementary policies that will accompany these programs.