We had a very animated discussion today at the talk with Vijayalakshmi of Development Alternatives. Vishwanath, one of the people at Arghyam posited the following (I am condensing a lot of animated discussion and argument):
The background 'juggernaut' phenomenon that is playing out in India is urbanization and rural migration. This has historically happened in all countries, and we too can expect a 80-20 mix soon, from the current 35-65. So all development and government action must be taken in the context of this phenomenon. It could be as extreme as cutting out a lot of the aid and investment that goes to villages and instead spending that on facilitating the smooth absorption of the migrant workers in the city and the planning and implementation of cities to be sustainable equitable places to live and work.
This is a hugely subversive statement (for people like me, and many many others) who have taken as obvious that "India lives in her villages" - kind of thing, and that huge amount of money and effort can and should go into the development of villages. But the basic argument above seems quite sound on the face of it.
Something to try to absorb and verify.
Vishwanath is a very nice guy. His background is rainwater harvesting, here are some of his stuff:
http://www.rainwaterclub.org
http://rainwaterharvesting.wordpress.com
2 comments:
I tend to some what agree with Mr. Vishwanaths view and his work on rain water harvesting seems really cool.
Some thoughts with no deep economic intuition ...
People will choose to live where they have access to economic centers. Agricultural economic centers can only support so much and in the presence of alternative and more lucarative economic centers migration is inevitable in a free state (China in contrast has rules for settlement, I gather.) And it makes a lot sense to plan around this migration.
I suppose the development of highways in India has the potential to change things dramatically. For example, I used to know more than a few people who used to live in Kolar and commute by train to work in Bangalore. These type of life styles can become more prevalent as our infrastructure develops.
In the long term, it is actually not clear to me that India will be entirely an urban economy. To argue with an analogy consider that essentially many jobs in India are basically jobs where people live in India but telecommute to the US. I think this trend will develop within India to a large extent as well. And it may well be that less developed areas are attractive for certain jobs. As the economy develops and as education gets better across the board, call centers for example will move out of cities.
Arvind
I disagree with Vishwanath :):) but the Finance Minister of India Seems to have an even bigger dream for India
Here is a part of his interview in Tehelka dated May 31 2008 with Shantanu Guha Ray and Shoma Chaudhary (SC)
SC: To come back to a question that vexes everyone. In a country as complex as ours, what is your vision for eliminating poverty? Does it mean the co-existence of rural and urban economies?
Urbanisation cannot be stopped. It is an inexorable process. All you can do is mitigate the harmful effects of mindless urbanisation by building new cities, by limiting the size of cities, by creating more green and open spaces in cities. I don’t think it’s within the power of any country or people to stop this natural progression. We must try to manage it rather than interfere with it. My vision of a poverty-free India will be an India where a vast majority, something like 85 percent, will eventually live in cities. Not megalopolises but cities. In an urban environment it is easier and more efficient to provide water, electricity, education, roads, entertainment and security rather than in 6,00,000 villages. I also believe a significant number of Indians would want to live in the countryside and continue farming. That should be welcome and we should encourage it, but it would be a much smaller number than people who have moved to cities. My vision again is that we must continue to emphasise the imperative need of growth over a long period of time. We get weary easily. We have three to four years of high growth and we sit back as though it is a given. Growth is not a given. You have to work hard for it. We have to ensure that the growth process continues for the next 20-30 years. When we have eliminated poverty, illiteracy, some of the most debilitating diseases, when we have immunised every child, when we have eliminated very basic deficiencies like lack of drinking water, electricity, rural road connectivity — at that point of time, the process will become automatic and people will themselves ensure that growth continues at a fairly sustained pace. But for that that moment to arrive, to get rid of poverty in our lifetime, we need to work very hard to sustain a growth rate of nine percent moving up to 10 percent. If you want to get rid of poverty over the next hundred years, you can have a different model or system. But if you want to get rid of it in the next 20 years, we have to work very hard for it.
Post a Comment