Population, territory and sustainable development

196
familiarity with surroundings are assets for people and are lost in other territorial contexts because they
are not transferable. For this very reason they should be protected by public policies and compensated if
such policies lead to their loss.
As explained in chapter IV, the main finding concerning rural areas, their population dynamics
and their relationship with sustainable development is persistent flight from the countryside that runs
contrary to predictions of rural population recovery based on agricultural revitalization and
macroeconomic evidence of burgeoning output in many primary sectors (most of which are in rural
areas). A similar paradox was seen in the 1950s to 1970s, during the big government push for land reform
and agricultural modernization in the region. Against original expectations that both processes would
increase retention, emigration from the countryside continued, if not escalated.
Both this finding and the recurrent paradox suggest that public policy faces serious constraints in
boosting population retention in rural areas. They also suggest that even market-driven restructuring of
agriculture faces the same obstacles. The reasons lie in a complex mix of historical factors, especially
land concentration and the low productivity of family farming, with the end result that gains from higher
rural productivity only marginally reach or benefit most of the rural population.
On top of this, which is essentially a push factor, there is a marked and stubborn gap between
living conditions and opportunities in rural and urban areas, always to the detriment of the former. Special
processing of the few available censuses from 2010 confirms that these inequalities remain and still act as
a magnet drawing inhabitants from the countryside to urban areas.
A third factor behind the minimal impact of efforts to retain population in the countryside is the
increasing feasibility of working in primary activities while residing in an urban area. Better connectivity
and transport are making this possible, with a profound effect on the nature of primary activities. Many such
activities are strictly seasonal, run for a number of continuous weeks and are relatively well-paid. All of
these factors favour residing in one place and working in another. Primary activities often use advanced
technologies or require a certain degree of training, which is more frequently found in urban areas than in
rural ones. There are also activities that require a good deal of space but are not labour-intensive (except at
certain times), such as building, harvesting (soybeans, grain and fruit for export) and forest planting; these
tend to drive out smallholders and lend themselves to irregular hiring of rural labour.
Soaring productivity in rural areas thus brings but small and occasional benefits for the
inhabitants. In certain cases the gains are beyond the reach of the workforce residing in the countryside.
Even so, the report cites examples of direct dividends of the primary sector boom, ranging from
Paraguay’s so-called “agro-cities” to extractive cities in the Andean countries. These tend to be located
near the sites and open opportunities —though also risks, especially for the surrounding rural population.
Programmes for sustainable urban development and for equipping these cities and providing them with
infrastructure can become a powerful policy instrument for improving rural living standards.
Acknowledging the weaknesses of action to retain the rural population is not a call to refrain from
such action, but intervention should not focus on net rural emigration per se but rather on how it impacts
the rural population structure. The report provides direct estimates of these impacts, drawing on
innovative methodologies in a few countries with suitable recent data (2010 censuses). Clearly, net
emigration from the countryside is the demographic factor behind premature population ageing and
gender imbalance (high male-female ratio) in rural areas. Besides, it tends to erode an already-low
educational capital. These impacts are cause for concern because they can fuel poverty traps. All of the
above is reason to take action against this chronic emigration. But what rural areas need more than