Corrigendum to ‘Under-capacitated and over-powered? Rural austerity and asymmetrical negotiating relationships in US wind energy development’ [J. Rural Stud., 119 (2025) 1–14]

The authors regret that there is an incomplete sentence in the abstract of the article, and request that the portion “, and counties incre” be deleted from the abstract (found at the end of the sentence beginning with “However …”). The portion to be deleted is underlined and bolded below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Current abstract: Though rural local governments are central actors in renewable energy development, local governments in the United States (US) remain systematically under-funded. This paper considers what the manifestations of austerity in local governments broadly and rural localities specifically mean for renewable energy development and for energy transitions. Drawing on a survey of 262 elected county officials with experience with wind energy in eight US states, this paper asks how local officials understand the impacts of wind development, how local governments are involved in wind energy negotiations, how the resources and expertise needed to navigate negotiations are distributed among counties, and analyze the relationship between local capacity, access to resources, and involvement in negotiations. We find that local officials express simultaneously affective and material concerns with the impacts of wind development and see negotiations with the developer as central to realizing local benefits. However, the expertise and staffing needed to negotiate with developers is less accessible to poorer or sparsely populated counties, and counties with lower overall revenues have narrower scopes of negotiation, and counties incre. Our results suggest that uneven rural capacity heightens an already asymmetrical relationship between localities and developers. In analyzing how infrastructure developments are shaped by relationships between localities and developers that are conditioned by austerity and (under)capacity, this paper contributes to and bridges scholarly discussions on rural austerity, rescaling, and renewable energy transitions. These results challenge conventional wisdoms around centralizing energy siting processes, contextualize popular and academic debates about opposition to renewable energy development, and highlight the need for rural reinvestment to realize meaningfully participatory energy developments.