By Roberta Fortugno
Experiences of rural development have traversed a complex landscape, shaped by historical contexts, economic theories, and the relentless march of technological progress. Theories of rural development have evolved in response to these diverse experiences, making it challenging to determine a one-size-fits-all approach for countries or regions. This article delves into the multifaceted history of rural development, exploring different perspectives and strategies that have emerged over time.
The aftermath of World War II witnessed the emergence of theories such as the Lewis model, which emphasized the transfer of surplus labor from rural to urban areas as a catalyst for economic growth. This structural change view portrayed rural areas as passive contributors to development, with their role limited to supplying labor to burgeoning urban centers. However, the reality in post-colonial countries revealed a different narrative, with many experiencing rural regress rather than progress.
Contrastingly, certain East Asian countries defied these theories by achieving robust industrial growth grounded in radical land redistribution after World War II. This challenged the prevailing notion, suggesting that rural development could play a leading role in a nation's economic transformation. The Green Revolution in the 1960s further shook traditional perspectives, showcasing that rural labor productivity could be an independent and preceding force, rather than a residual outcome.
The diversity of experiences has given rise to a multitude of theoretical frameworks for rural development, resulting in the coexistence of the classical model with non-classical models spurred by technological changes and globalization. As a consequence, strategies for rural development must adapt to the unique circumstances of each region, considering the high dependence of agriculture on local conditions.
One of the central challenges in formulating effective rural development strategies lies in the ambiguous demarcation between rural and urban areas. Population size, density, and predominant economic activity are commonly used criteria, but their applicability varies across different countries. The article underscores the problematic nature of these distinctions and emphasizes the need for flexible approaches that consider the specific conditions of each area.
When examining global experiences, one can categorize three primary models of rural-urban spatial integration: the classical model, the greenfield model, and in-situ urbanization.
The classical model, aligned with the Lewis model, involves urbanization through migration;
The greenfield model envisions the growth of new cities in previously rural areas;
The in-situ urbanization model stands in contrast to the two previous, as it focuses on improving the standard of living for rural populations without migration or conversion, challenging traditional notions of urbanization.
The trajectory of rural development is dynamic, shaped by historical legacies, technological advancements, and global dynamics. The evolving nature of rural-urban distinctions and the diverse models of spatial combination underscores the complexity of the rural development landscape. Within its mission, OCCAM analyzes and navigates the evolution of perspectives on rural development, fostering a deeper understanding that can guide sustainable strategies tailored to the unique needs of each region.