In order to promote economic development, we should push people from the backward rural sector into the modern urban sector

Agree
19% (8 votes)
Disagree
81% (35 votes)
Total votes: 43

Comments

Push the people from rural sector to urban sector if the urban sector isn't ready to absorve the new workers is, obviusly, conterproductive

What have to be done is create a necesity of workers in the urban sector and rural people, for the nature of the market will move on their own to the urban sector. 

An alleged lack of workforce in the rural sector is easier to replace with technology, what will allows the rural sector still support the urban sector.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 2
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

The farmer organizations have progressed from an institutional point of view and have developed their ability couple face problems such as crop protection has been instrumental to the industrial development also in the city . For this reason we should not force the villagers migrate wings and cities is because all jobs are equally important and in a society where everyone needs links from below and above . That said, we need a balance between the two sectors and enhance the urban environment not to be considered better because the rural sector is very beneficial but sometimes it is not the deserved importance

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

All economic sectors are important. It is not a good idea to encourage people to go to the city, because in that case the primary sector would be destroyed. It always depends on each case , in Galicia for instance, agriculture is esencial in economic sense. That's why we need a balance between jobs in the city and in the countryside.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

Pushing people from one sector to other (sometimes against their own will) could be counter-productive. If they are not prepared to change the kind of job they already have, it will be hard for them to reach success. Without it, they are bound to lead a harsh life. This would only make sense if the urban area is well prepared and big enough to receive all the new workers without collapsing, which is not easy. 

Besides this, economic development does not have to be necessarily a synonym of urban growth. It can be reached with rural progress. Of course development cannot depend forever on the soil as if its resources were unlimited, but there are ways to obtain a balance and work to do in the rural areas to introduce more technology and improve the conditions to have a "healthier" rural production and life.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

In my opinion I do not think it's necesary to push people from rural areas to modern ones. Each country gives more importance to X productive sector than another depending on their resources and their commercial relationships with other countries. Workers are essencial in agriculture and animal husbandry and they'll be, because thanks to them we can eat everyday. However, I do believe that economic development is necessary to improve techniques, training and equipment ...with the aim progress and to become more beneficial  over the years

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

This experience has taken place in some communist regimes, such as Romania. On the other hand, it happened the opposite in others, for example in China during the Cultural Revolution. Apart from these two well-known previous experiences in Communist Regimes, on a general basis, this behaviour depends in the situation of the specific country. It could be useful if it is used to reach a balance between the rural and the urban sector. However, I believe that "pushing" it is not the best way to reach anything, and in case this measures are implemented in any given country they should be softer.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

pushing people from rural area to urban area is not a right way for economic development. many people want to live in urban area, as it offers better life conditions, however living in the city always means a high competition, and some people may not be able to find their place in the city. Also urban area is not unlimited. It cannot provide a place for living and working for the whole population. there is always should be a balance between rural area and urban. Moreover, some countries earn large amount of their GDP due to agricultural sector. in this case it is not beneficial at all to push people from rural to urban area

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

It is relative. 

I consider pushing people - we understand against their will -from the backward rural sector to the modern urban sector in order to promote economic development is not a good idea since both the rural and the urban sector are needed in order to promote economic development. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that there are enough jobs for the people moving from the backward rural sector  in the urban sector.

 

 

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

You can not just destroy one full sector of your economy pushing pepople to "modern" areas. First of all it goes against the individual freedom and de chance to choice your job, even when it couldn´t be the most efficient but most important part its the fact that you need this rural sector to your economy or you will depend from other countries.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

In cities, people meet people, exchange ideas, access networks and opportunities, etc.Rural life is not a hotspot for rapid technological development.

Yes, many people get stuck in slums. Let's make sure they have access to decent sanitation and access to electricity and IT services, and that their children can access education and health services of decent quality (consider Latin American experience in conditional cash transfers here).

If keeping people in rural areas and out of cities is identified as a social objective worthy of public money, I suggest improved access to agricultural consultancy and marketing services, access to input market including credit, and improved access to other public services such as health and education. Improved rural infrastructure, notably roads, will also make rural life a lot more attractive (or less unattractive) relative to city life. But that is all a lot more expensive in many cases because you do not benefit from economies of scale and, for example, clinics with 2,3, or 5 staff will obviously not be specialists, which are far more economical to have availability in urban areas.

What's wrong with rural people wanting to come to the city? The city is where we meet people, exchange ideas, and enjoy pooled access to diverse public and private sector services.

Economic geography, silicon valley like effects, etc., are very strong counterarguments to this principle. About five years ago, World Bank totally changed track on this and put out a lot of research showing many benefits of urbanization. Managing urbanization, notably high inequality associated with it, will be the challenge.

It is more common to try to figure out how to release significant shares of the population from farming (e.g., through increased productivity) so that they can participate in creating the prosperity linked to a broader economy through processes which far more typically occur in cities.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote