Rural-Urban Symbiosis
The evidence that exists does not support the belief that urban growth is the reason for rural decline. Rural populations across the entire Great Plains region of North America have been persistently declining for the last 60 or 70 years. The primary cause for the decline is the substantial increase in agricultural productivity that has occurred over the last 10 decades; agriculture now requires much less labour than it used to, which in turn means there are fewer people to support small towns and rural communities. In the absence of the emergence of new rural economic activity to absorb the surplus labour released from agriculture, the adjustment to this increasing agricultural productivity has been rural decline.
Today 85% of Saskatchewan's population lives within 100-km of an urban centre with a population over 10,000 people. Rural communities within these 100-km rings capture significant spillover benefits from the cities. Rural communities are attractive residential communities for 'urbanites' who commute to urban employment. Similarly, rural residents within commuting distance rely on cities for employment as well as for access to education, health and business services. Rural residents also benefit from their urban counterparts commuting out to rural areas for recreation and to purchase products produced in rural areas. Urban residents rely on their rural counterparts as a source of labour supply and to steward the rural environment - the land, water, wildlife.
All Saskatchewan residents benefit when rural communities are more viable. One way to achieve this, however, is through strategies for urban-led growth with benefits spreading beyond the cities. A July 2006 report by the Conference Board of Canada highlights the importance of urban-led growth in Canada's "hub" cities, which will lead to growth and prosperity in neighboring communities as well. In Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon are considered "hub" cities. Research has shown that the smaller cities in the province also produce positive spillovers in their surrounding rural areas - i.e., rural areas nearby urban centres experience more positive population growth than do their counterparts located at greater distances from urban areas.
A focus on the symbiotic relationship
between rural and urban areas, rather than the 'divide', suggests policies and
strategies that target continued urban growth with positive spillover benefits
accruing to rural areas. Economic activity is concentrating in urban centres
worldwide in response to a number of very compelling 'agglomeration' forces.
Rather than trying to 'buck the trend' and thereby eroding the ability of our
urban centres to grow, supporting the urban growth, together with facilitating
rural access to the benefits, is a better strategy. Urban-led growth strategies
are key to rural growth. However, rural areas must have a means of accessing
the urban-based growth. For example, an infrastructure policy that ensures
quality transportation access to urban centres for commuting to employment and
for access to public and private services would benefit rural areas. The same
transportation network would enhance urban access to rural areas. Governance
arrangements that allow both urban and rural residents to participate in
decisions regarding zoning, economic development, and infrastructure should be
pursued.
Urban-based growth is not the answer for all rural areas. There is still a place for rural policy. Some rural areas are too remote to benefit from commuting to urban centres for employment, for example. For these rural areas, other sources of economic viability must be pursued. But for the majority of rural residents, urban-based growth may be the best rural development strategy.
This blog entry was authored by Rose Olfert, a professor in the Department of Bioresources Policy, Business and Economics at the U of S. To read additional Illative Blog entries or to leave comments on this entry, please visit www.illativeblog.ca. The Illative Blog is an initiative by the Knowledge Impact in Society (KIS) Project based out of the University of Saskatchewan. Email correspondence can be sent to kis.project@usask.ca
When considering the relationship between urban and rural areas you notice the benefits to be gained by being part of each one. The amenities that an urban area provides will far exceed what a rural area can, however with changing communication technologies it will become easier to be part of rural communities.
At a 2006 Outlook on Agriculture conference put on by the USDA the Secretary of Agriculture stated that due to lifestyle changes and the high cost of living in urban areas, people are moving back out to rural communities. A good portion of jobs now a day can be completed if there is good access to high speed internet and phone service. The days of video teleconferencing are here and available for use at relatively small costs, meaning the need to be in a downtown high-rise is minimal. If this is the way of the future rural policy development must be focusing on ways to increase the infrastructure needed to allow employees to work from homes in rural areas. For example, consider a communications consultant who has a position in Washington DC, another in Denver Colorado and yet another in South Carolina. All these job duties can be performed from rural Saskatchewan with just high speed internet and good phone service. The world is a lot smaller than it was just five years ago!
Policy development seems to centre on urban centres and it only makes sense. Policy makers are to a high degree politicians who need to keep voters satisfied and they get the biggest bag for their buck through policies that promote urban infrastructure, living and social programs. As with my example above if rural communities have the infrastructure needed to draw in certain types of professional workers that can work from home, people will move back. Rural policy development must focus on real and attainable objectives that will result in the attraction of more individuals back to country living.
The increased technological possibilities of the 21st century referred to by Mr. Monchuck are best viewed in context of the needs of both humans and the economy. In-person interaction seems essential to maintaining and growing the human capital of a developed region's economy. Despite the increasing ability of technology to connect the world citizens, physically interacting with like-minded individuals has been part of civilization for centuries and is unlikely to change in a decade. As our economy increasingly relies on human capital for service, innovation, and intellectual property relative to the production of generic goods, prioritizing developmental options consistent with producing effective human capital becomes increasingly important.
Though it is true that an astounding amount of work may be completed from remote locations, the human capital required to complete that work requires human interaction with like minds for its maintenance and development. Apart from data entry, the skills required for electronic work are almost exclusively intellectual rather than physical. Isolated or small rural communities - farther than 100 km from an urban centre - rarely enable a sufficient critical mass of people to provide the type of human sustenance required for an economy based on technology and ideas. The historical role played by rural communities of resource development is inherently physical; though these jobs too are increasingly intellectually demanding.
In a goods and resource based economy, activity has centered on the sources and the ports - for both products and information. Visioning the role for rural/urban policy outside of a goods and resource economy must encompass the needs for information sources and ports. Despite the ability of technology to create virtual connections, the physical gathering places and amenities of larger centers surely creates marketplaces for the exchange of ideas that foster the source of information - human capital development. Universities are a testament to this need at the highest level. The source of the information economy ultimately begins with intellectual labour that is a product of human capital; rural communities may be able provide this source. Just as goods required navigable waterways as port infrastructure so too does information in the form of processing capacity. Owing to their size, large cities have inevitably become these information ports. Balancing rural and urban development policy to support the human capital needs of both sources and ports seems essential to wealth formation.
For centuries humans have existed in communities. Long-term rural development policy consistent with the human need for physical community seems appropriate in light of the changing makeup of our economy. In a developed economy, what is a sufficient community size for the source of information to create wealth beyond resource exploitation?