Counter Urbanization as a Phase within the Urbanization Process
Van Den Berg(1982) noted that there are phases to migration in the urbanization process, who suggested a four phase model of urban development. They divided the settlement system in the urbanization process into phases depending on the stage of the migration process between the urban core, fringe, hinterland and rural areas. They then divided this migration process into four stages –
- Urbanization,
- Suburbanization,
- Deurbanization
- Reurbanization.
In these four stages, the urbanization process first begins with the fast expansion of cities with industrial development in a primarily agricultural area. The surplus agricultural labour thus flows towards urban areas followed by the centralization of residence within urban areas. Industrial labour requires centralized localization and tends to take in rural migrants, while in rural areas primarily agricultural labour tends to be more dispersed or more sporadically scattered.
This initial process is followed by a process of suburbanization when the migration pattern shifts to a spatial spread of the urbanization process from the urban core to peripheral suburban areas. This may be the result of individual choices which due to the availability of modern amenities move towards a preference for residence in these suburban localities, breaking the tight movement towards centralization.
The next shift brings us to the focal point of our discussion – deurbanization, or counter urbanization which is a shift in population migration and agglomeration from the urban core and suburban areas out to the rural areas and hinterlands (S. Hosszu, 2009). Many causes can be attributed to this, such as overpopulation or dense populations in urban areas, overcrowding in commutes, urban amenities being available in these areas such as through online shopping, greater peace and safety in these areas, rising real estate and residential costs in urban areas, deeply congested and traffic ridden urban areas, industrial meltdowns or shifts, opportunities for people to work from home, etc.
These and many factors can influence people to move out of populated urban areas and migrate towards rural areas and hinterlands. This phenomenon is called counter urbanization.
The fourth stage in Van Den Berg’s analysis is re-urbanization which occurs mostly in the most developed regions of the world. Re-urbanization is the movement of populations from rural areas back to urban areas implying a re-structuring of the cities, and can be observed in Nordic countries. Counter urbanization and re-urbanization are rare in most developing countries and it is only in the most developed countries that these can be observed more frequently.
Debating Counter Urbanization
Having said that counter urbanization is a rare phenomenon within developing countries, one of which is India, the question to ask is whether India needs more counter urbanization as opposed to urbanization. Although India is heavily and increasingly becoming incredibly urbanized, with the Indian economy heavily dependent on urban areas as centres for commerce, and the lack of a proper finance infrastructure hampering the availability of modern living in rural areas, would counter urbanization in this scenario be a good thing?
Although greater movement of populations from crowded urban areas to rural areas in India should sound like a good idea, counter urbanization can have certain effects in terms of changed living conditions and habitation.
Counter urbanization can turn villages in rural areas to suburbanize, forming what can be called suburbanized villages. There can also be a loss of agricultural land due to a sizeable number of houses being built on green fields. Rural areas can thus become more congested and polluted, taking away the charm and purity of the countryside.
Gradually with the passage of time rural ideologies can come up and dominate aspects of life in a counter urbanized locality, such as community ideas predominating employment opportunities in these areas. In this scenario, other economic interests and activities such as foreign entities might find it difficult to operate or local erstwhile small businesses might rise or become threatened. The way of life based on traditions will mutate to evolve into something different.
However, counter urbanization can lead to many positively beneficial effects as well, such as quality of housing and modern amenities improving in rural areas. These homes can offer people the option of a countryside home away from the hectic and pollution-ridden life in urban areas. The depopulation of cities can on the other hand act to increase quality of life in these cities and overall pollution levels could decrease. Transportation and connectivity via electricity lines for example could improve between urban and rural areas, bring the overall fruits of modern amenities becoming available in rural areas as well along with inter-connecting populations overall.
Contrary to what one might assume, the percentages of populations migrating from rural to urban areas in India is lower than in other countries with similar GDPs.
The India Human Development Survey in 2005 reported an annual rural to urban migration rate of 6.8 per cent in India. The Indian Demographic and Health Survey reported this figure at 5.3 per cent. The Demographic and Health Survey figure for Brazil in comparison is much higher – 13.9 per cent (Munshi & Rosenzweig, 2016). However, given that total population combined with overall population growth in India report astronomical figures compared to most other nations, even slight figures in percentages of rural to urban migration can have massive impacts in terms of overpopulation in Indian cities.
Excess migration of people from rural to urban areas in India leading to overpopulation in Indian cities can present immense problems. People living in congested areas in Indian cities can have problems in living conditions due to inadequate housing.
There can be problems such as pollutions, causing sanitation crises. The traditional way of living can also gradually become eroded, particularly due to the largely educated masses living in urban areas, turning rural areas into parochial backwaters. This rapid urbanization can also deemphasize the agricultural sector, with the economy paying more focused attention on other sectors of the economy in comparison to the agricultural sector (UPSC, 2014).
In India, although the rates of annual migration from rural to urban areas i.e., urbanization is less than in many other countries, the trend definitely is towards urbanization given how especially finance in India hinges towards urban centres of commerce.
In this counter urbanization might be a welcome development in terms of achieving a balance in between the flight of populations from rural areas to urban areas. Without counter urbanization and some semblance of suburbanization in rural areas, it can become very difficult for rural areas to gain access to modern amenities such as electricity, transportation networks and clean water.
Although counter urbanization is not without negative effects, a move towards counter urbanization, if not too degrading to rural lifestyles and environments, might be a great boon to overall rural development.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)