Canada has under-invested in rural communities for decades. Many analyses have delved into different aspects of rural neglect, including policy and planning at multiple scales. But a factor often overlooked is how much a funding program’s design drives where money actually goes — or doesn’t.

When it comes to accessing funding, rural communities face distinct challenges and disadvantages. For example, putting together all the information required for a government funding application requires capacity, which is often limited in rural communities.

Read more: In Canada’s 2025 federal election, is anyone paying attention to rural communities?

Funding programs open for any community to apply put rural communities in direct competition with urban ones — where capacity is higher and where the impact will be proportionately larger and therefore more attractive to funders.

Even in rural communities, success tends to build on itself, while setbacks can make it harder to recover. Over time, this means more money flows to places that are already doing well, while others are left further behind. The design of programs also often fails to reflect rural realities in terms of priorities, fundable activities and reporting metrics.

This issue is pervasive across the funding landscape and is currently worth consideration given the push for “nation-building” infrastructure projects.

Patterns of investment

Let’s take the example of public transit. Across Canada, public transit is a patchwork of unequal access — robust in some areas, virtually non-existent in others.

Rural and small communities are inequitably served and inequitably funded. Rural transit is on average more expensive, due to large distances, low population densities and fewer potential riders. Recent statistics indicate access to........

© The Conversation