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
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.