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.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.