Influence of Urban Bias - Assignment Example

Review Review The progression of rural areas in a country is the agenda, going onfrom centuries and centuries. During the time of 19th century, the issue of urban areas into an industrial picture was into abundance over and over again. Even the writers such as, Gandhi, Blake, Tolstoy and Ruskin claimed to stop this thought of industrial development in a strong way. Gandhi was the man, who came up with solid reviews under this issue. He pointed the modernization as a sin city, abounding the traditional and moral terms. According to Gandhi; railway system was a source of germs, doctors were the people who exercise sin on daily basis and machinery used by the companies were termed as snake-hole. Gandhi stated that, the actual meaning of civilization is ‘good conduct’, which can only come through the existence of villages. These were the people who outwardly argued with their views on the thought urban renovation. According to Jane Jacobs, the survival is impossible from World Bank. Considering the levels of urbanization and GDP per capita, they both are directly linked with each other. Due to it, the argument about the development of countryside areas on their expenses itself, has been in light from ages. The development, social justice and status discrimination (cities dominating the countryside) crisis also relate the argument. Cheap food coming out of the agriculture and their import export has also been the factor of criticism by 2008, where most of the countries imposed ban on the exports by increasing the subsidy on crops. That is the reason which backs the idea of under-funding of agriculture. Overviewing the entire scenario, Urban Bias Thesis (UBT) came into being, to resolve the crisis against Gandhi’s claim, food crisis and price issues associating the rural development. Lipton was the man who analyzed this thesis into details. The claims of Lipton involved the price issue on rural commodities which were decrease, and those of the urban bias increased outside Latin America. In 2000, the extreme increase of urban bias in China has been seen. The main discussion point of Lipton was that, reduce in urban bias haven’t been fulfilled, considering the terms of economic liberation and structural adjustments. This debate took peak under the light of four circumstances; matters of measure & definition, urban poverty, causes & consequences of urban growth and the value of rural & and urban in complex livelihood strategies & interdependencies. The main understanding which should be look up to here is the mobility benefits & cost to household & poorer individuals. There are many claims which reside here, because approximately 70% of the poor population lives in rural areas. So, does it mean that 70% of the spending should also be done in these areas comparing the urban? The answer is that, the poverty reduction strategies have fail in many ways in analyzing the definitions of both urban & rural. By analyzing the UBT in 1970s & 1980s, Lipton brought up the new theory of ‘Why poor people stay poor (WPPSP)’, in rural and urban sectors. On researching Lipton found out that, the actual battle is fought between the classes (Third World) of rural & urban, instead capital & labor. Where the urban wins as they consume power, organization and enunciate, and rural only consume low cost sources & poverty. Lipton’s early theory of UBT involved disposition & allocation whereas, his new reviews states that the government earns higher from the countryside if off-farm employment is created, as compared to the cities. He claims that over 300 years, poverty is a result of improvements in rural incomes (high small farms productivity). During these years, a series of price twists was also imposed by the government, which resulted in over expensive urban goods or services in rural areas. Due to it UBT again faced the worse condition in most of the developed countries. By 2005, the government spending in urban areas was again changed. At the end Lipton claimed at the wrong twisted prices in the collapse of urban bias. Lipton’s WPPSP theory held numerous criticisms claimed by other writers. Considering the section of urban thesis revitalized, there is no doubt that UBT links the geography, price and numbers to power. The agreement of Lipton while working with Robert Eastwood concluded that, “the price liberalization reduces price distortion against tradable”. Their work resulted that, the high distortion in relation to the input & output of agriculture is fair, as it minimizes the gap between urban and rural sectors. Lipton agreed with the fact of bias high income trade policies against rural areas. India is the country, where the government had failed to twist the prices which would work against their farmers. Lipton on his part profoundly accepted the UBT. Lipton’s work with Eastwood further argues the points; increase of inequality in the country along with policies adjustment, offsetting of increase is not done by abandoning the rural-urban inequality, the inattention of offset in countries like Latin America should be considered by making the increase against countryside and the ‘second offset’ should be taken as the proof of persistence power up the public policies. According to all the arguments, there has been seen some ratio as a suggestion where urban/rural sectors falls for some unity. Eastwood & Lipton suggested that, by open and hidden subsidy to only urban land developments and not to the village people could be an example to this unity. Where in one hand Lipton agrees with only making the changes in prices, Kanbur & Braverman disagrees on the other hand. The claim made by these two states that, only considering the pricing twists could turn into welfare loss for the farmers. Because in developing countries, most of the farmers production is exported for government economic growth purposes, and rest of it stays intact. Hence, Lipton theory of WPPSP remains as part of criticism; because there are developing countries where poor people stay poor too, basing the Kanbur & Braverman claim. Therefore, Lipton & Eastwood focused on the issue that why people stay poor in urban developing countries. According to Garret, Hadded & Ruel, the poverty is rapidly increasing I urban areas with different perspectives, instead of rural. It is true that, almost half of the population in developed countries is poor. Lipton identifies, the rapid increase in urban poverty is due to the increase in urban bias. The UBT twisted and transformed according to the situations. Lipton stayed unfulfilled in some areas. He initially agreed with the UBT itself, then claimed that there still policies which can lead the countryside into development platform. Then Lipton brought into light the reduced matter of agriculture aid y 2001, where the agenda raises that agriculture might not be the department to rely on growth with. Then the decline of migration aid from rural to urban, last but not the least, the issue of urban poverty in developing countries. The questions which arise here are that, whether urban bias is the issue to ague on? There is no doubt in saying it that, urban bias thesis does involve some areas which can be strengthen. Even if the Lipton theory overcomes one major issue of urban poverty, then this UBT wins in one zone. But the problem which lies with UBT is that, it is mostly married with the economic terms, which damages the people residing in rural areas. One of the suggestions which can be given to rural resident is that, they can diversify their lifestyle by moving onto the economic regions. Another factor of urban bias related to the way of placing goods or services in urban areas in comparison to the rural, collapse in itself. There are effective strategies, through which the good or services can easily be planted into countryside in many forms. There are certain economies of scale to process the things efficiently, not all the output of biases is a result of deliberate distortion, regarding public policy. Most of the statements in urban bias thesis can be restated instead of running back them into the generalized pattern. Most decisively, UBT has brought up the major issues of economic dynamics and urban poverty existing in the developing countries. (Corbridge, 2010) The thesis requires a balanced form picture, the attention of government in the required areas. New economic geography should be formed, that can overlook economic power & bring up the advantages to the strategies of house livelihood and to development of regional economies. The recognition of poverty should be exercised by going onto the particular places. The causes of gaps between urban and rural areas must be find out and abolished. The farmers in the rural areas must have a voice of their own to confront the rights. Agriculture movements must not be ignored in order to stabilize the country’s economies. Both urban and rural sectors, should be utilizing the government expenditure on equal levels. The discrimination of inequality should be abolished in exercising the process of UBT. Bibliography Corbridge, G. A. (2010). The continuing debate about urban bias: the thesis, its critics, its influence and its implications for poverty-reduction strategies. http://www.sagepublications.com. Read More