Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["Moses Ochieng, Team Leader - INCOME" <<address removed>>]

James Biscoe raises an interesting question or is it provoking response on
rural-urban migration issues.  It is not simply a question of 'providing
employment opportunities' in rural areas that will address the urban
problem.  The reason why people, and here I mean economically active, and
'entrepreneurial' rural people- not necessary poor, move to urban areas can
be attributed to a plethora of factors chiefly perceived and real better
income opportunities, access to services, proximity to central government,
and the lure of the city (I'm avoiding infrastructure here).
 
This is a phenomena that has been occuring throughout the world over the
last 20 years or so and is not unique to developing countries.  Indeed
countries such as the UK and much of Europe are grapling with the same issue
despite more developed infrastructure (road and communication).  From a
policy point of view, whether it is DFID/development partners or government,
the  most viable option is not to 'stop' rural-urban migration but provide
better services for would-be migrants in cities.  Evidence shows that for
example in China as economic progress is achieved and growth in industrial
and other manufacturing sectors realised, many poor rural people 'trapped'
in the drudgery of peasant agriculture will take the next available bus to
the city in search of better employment opportunities.
 
The argument that providing employment opportunities in rural areas would
attract 'economically rational' people simply does not work. You only have
to look at Europes rural and peripheral areas, despite of much more
developed transport and communication, to realise the level of skills
shortage in such environments. It is a fact that agglomeration economies
provided by urban and geographic concentration of factors of production acts
as a magnate for the most economically active leaving 'laggards' behind in
rural areas.  I shiver at the thought of developing countries going back
20-30 years in their thinking yet we can seize the opportunity provided for
us through learning to develop a much more futuristic strategy.
 
Indeed if all this discussion or debate is just about providing employment
opportunities as oppossed to better returns for agricultural produce then
I'm afraid we have been barking at the wrong tree.  Rural employment
opportunities in agriculture and agricultural related industries simply is
not feasible.  I see the common thread holding the discussion forum leading
to only one thing in the medium to long-run.  More mechanisation, less
labour-intensive production, consolidation of land (the poor selling off to
the better off due to low or no return from their meagre holdings- there is
just so much that you can intensify in very small land holdings such as
those in Bangladesh), and more flight into cities and urban environments.
 
However, it is my contention that this does not necessarily lead to a
'doomsday scenario' but rather large food processing and allied industries
(I don't see the future for small local food processors, mainly
microenterprise types except in niche markets) setting shop in urban areas
to take advantage of increased rural productivity thereby creating more and
better employment opportunities to the migrant population.  The question is,
why can't they set up in rural areas?  The answer is that most skilled
labour, technical support organisations, research institutions, educational
institutions, hospitals, donor agencies, government etc are all based in the
'comfort of urban environments.  There is therefore very little motivation,
except for a few patriotic social entrepreneurs, to set up a small/medium or
large firm in a rural area (unless there is significant government subsidy,
and most such firms tend to close shop immediately the subsidy runs out).  
 
What should DFID do?  Encourage land reforms that prevents division and
sub-division of land into uneconomic units, encourage clustering of villages
to allow for more land to be rented from those with small holdings and
enable economic provision of infrastructure, encourage experimentation of
'farming zones' where residential buildings would be discouraged etc.
 
 
Is there any link between all these themes to population control as a means
of ensuring sustainable land resource use and indeed addressing poverty?
 
I'm I still within the discussion topic/theme? I can only blame James Biscoe
for inviting my wrath!
 
Moses Ochieng