Type | Working Paper |
Title | Inclusive Rural–Urban Linkages |
Author(s) | |
Publication (Day/Month/Year) | 2014 |
URL | http://rimisp.org/wp-content/files_mf/1422296516InclusiveRural_UrbanLinkages_edited.pdf |
Abstract | The world has urbanized, but it has not done so exclusively or even mainly in large cities. Almost 2 billion people, 27% of the world’s total population or half of the world’s urban population, reside in towns and small and medium cities of up to half a million inhabitants. An additional 3.4 billion people are classified as living in rural areas, or 46% of our planet’s inhabitants. The majority of the world’s poor, perhaps as many as 70%, live in these towns and small and medium cities and the rural areas more proximate to them, and poverty rates are also higher in small and medium cities than in large urban agglomerations. This desk review is about the relationships involving 5.5 billion persons, three quarters of all of us on Earth, that live in the increasingly diffuse and porous interface of rural and urban societies. The study was commissioned by The Ford Foundation, and the terms of reference directed the authors to focus on four entry points to review rural-urban linkages: the changing nature and borders of rural and urban, food systems, labor markets, and domestic migration. The report is based on a thorough review of the literature on these four specific subjects (384 publications are referenced), seven commissioned papers and a limited number of interviews of experts from around the world. The following is a summary of the main findings of the report: 1. On the significance of rural-urban linkages. The livelihoods of the majority of rural households, including smallholder farmers, are hardly only rural; “rural” defines the main place of residence, but no longer encompasses the spatial scope of livelihoods. The same is true of a large number of “urban” households, whose livelihoods are intimately dependent on the rural parts of the wider places where they also conduct their life. “Rural” and “urban” defined in the traditional way, are conceptual lenses that distort our view of the reality of social processes and can only lead to sub-optimal policies and investments. This is fairly well established in the literature, yet rural development and rural livelihoods policy and practice, have for the most part not internalized it. Urban development has also adopted a metropolitan bias, either with urban as an undifferentiated category but with a distinctive de facto slant towards large cities, and with policy and investments disproportionally focused on large agglomerations. Deconstructing the rural-urban dichotomy is a necessary first step if any progress is going to be made analytically or policy-wise. 2. On the definition of rural-urban linkages and of spaces with a socially-constructed identity at the rural-urban interface. Rural-urban linkages are reciprocal flows of people, goods, services, money and environmental services. Under certain conditions, aided by geographical proximity, they can lead to interdependence between rural and urban, and to the formation of intermediate rural-urban functional areas (territories) that very often cut across administrative boundaries and that encompass a number of rural localities, as well as a few towns and small and medium cities. Such areas cannot be treated as rural or as urban; they share elements of 6 both, and are distinct from both. Breaking the analytical, policy, programming and investment silos between urban and rural development is essential to be able to promote the development of these distinct societies, of the 5 billion people that live therein, and of the spaces they occupy. 3. On rural livelihoods and inclusive rural-urban linkages. The evidence seems to show that stronger rural-urban linkages tend to be beneficial for poor people, both rural and urban. From the perspective of rural livelihoods, the potential benefits of rural-urban linkages include greater social diversity and greater access to: primary product markets and to manufactured goods and services beyond other neighboring rural villages; social services such as education and health beyond the primary levels; financial services, and; non-farm employment opportunities. Some of these benefits cannot be realized in rural areas that do not have significant linkages to an urban location. |
» | Malawi - Third Integrated Household Survey 2010-2011 |