Rural vs. Urban

April 22, 2008 4:28 PM

Can a rural area be developed?

I've been doing research on the Bhutanese concept of Gross National Happiness for my Buddhism class. Bhutanese people live mainly in rural areas (something like 80%), and these people are facing the changes that come along with modernization.

There's obviously a lot more to the issue but my question has to do development. When a rural area is developed, is it, by definition, becoming more urban? Or is there such a thing as a developed rural area? I hope this isn't too naive of a question...

posted by saoyama to society & culture (8 comments total)

When a rural area is developed, is it, by definition, becoming more urban?

That depends on what you mean by "developed." If you mean "more people per square mile," then yes, that is one common definition of "urban."
posted by The World Famous at 4:34 PM on April 22

No. Rural Germany, or rural Iowa, are about as "developed" as it is possible to be -- services, infrastructure, mechanized farms, high human development indices -- but with very few people per square kilometer. More development in those areas might mean a biodiesel plant, but probably won't mean many more people.
posted by Forktine at 4:41 PM on April 22

Even the most rural areas in the USA are developed compared to Bhutan. They didn't have television in Bhutan until 1999, according to Wikipedia.
posted by winston at 4:59 PM on April 22

Yeah, entirely depends on your definition of developed. If you mean in terms of infrastructure & basic utilities (i.e., kept-up roads, phone, electricity, land management/regulation beyond "you have 20 square miles"), there are certainly plenty of developed rural areas. Add water into that, and you get fewer and fewer. Add TV/internet (not via satellite) and it drops more. Add local fire/police/ambulance services and it drops more. Add active construction in the area and that number drops more. Add decently high density housing, and that number drops more.
posted by devilsbrigade at 5:05 PM on April 22

Development can mean anything from building a whole lot of houses (a new development on such and such area of land) to improving human rights, reducing poverty, improving energy efficiency, etc. (as in the UN Development Programme). My guess is that in this context, you are probably asking something closer to the latter definition, in which case, no: development need not, by definition, lead to increased urbanization. However, there is a general trend, as countries become more developed, for the population to shift from rural areas to urban areas (and for those urban areas to grow geographically).
posted by ssg at 5:07 PM on April 22

Here's a great National Geographic article on Bhutan and the concept of Gross National Happiness, from the March 2008 issue, that deals with this subject. Bhutan's goal (and development is a part of it) is to leap from the Middle Ages to the 21st century without losing its balance.
posted by amyms at 5:18 PM on April 22

Not sure if it is relevant but, where I live (Australia), specific zonings have been developed to allow a certain amount of development in previously rural areas. They call it a "Park Living" zone and there are restrictions on size of blocks (minimum 1 acre) and the blocks cannot be further subdivided, there are no sewerage or storm water provisions and there is no obligation on councils to provide things like parks and playgrounds that would normally be mandatory in suburban developments. The idea is to provide a buffer between suburban and rural areas and to create a "boundary" for the suburban footprint in an attempt to prevent the continued sprawl of populations.
posted by dg at 9:47 PM on April 22

The first thing that comes to mind is the history of the Tennessee Valley Authority. That story didn't turn out so well, but hey, it's a new century.
posted by salvia at 11:31 AM on April 23