CITIES AND COUNTRY

Hokitika Guardian, 4 December 1928, Page 8

CITIES AND COUNTRY

(Auckland “Star.”) Throughout the world at the present time there is a. - tendency to deplore the movement of population from the rural districts towards towns and cities-. The fact is almost universally admitted, and not only 'in the older countries, but in Australia, and even in New Zealand, it is often assumed that this “urban drift" is wholly injurious to the national interests and to the country’s progress. Last week Professor A. G’. Fisher, addressing the Auckland Economic Society, defended the contrary view that the “urban drift” is inevitable and desirable, and that it contributes to the natural economic development of the country. Tt may he said at once that there is a good deal of force and weight in Professor Fishers’ arguments, especially as applied to other countries, but they must he accepted with reservations. Xo one is likely to deny that the extension of land settlement and the exnansion of primary industries are indispensable to the progress <d a young country like- our own. or that wo live mainly by the sale of our primary products in an oversea- market. |>ut it is equally certain that no country can develop along the lines of a rational and efficient civilisation unless population is concentrated at certain convenient points in large masses, and thus towns and cities are formed. More than a hundred and fifty year ago Adam Smith reminded the world that without cities there can be no rapid or permanent political or social or intellectual progress, and thal among a population widely scattered over great areas lack of personal contact between the members of the community prevents the spread of ideas and the diffusion, of culture. Growth of cities implies the development of that “home market’’ which, because it is close at hand and constant, is. as Adam Smith shows, the best of all markets in proportion to its size. And if the farmer has occasion to complain ol the scarcity of agricultural labour, he ‘hoiiid remember that Ibis is partly due to the displacement of manual processes by machinery, which, even in the primary industries, has deprived large numbers of rural workers ol employment and driven them to the towns for re luge. Tf we add to these the surplus immigrants who through a mistaken policy have been attracted to the country before any adequate provision has been made lor them, and who have therefore never been able to “ get on the land’’ we have gone some way toward'-’ explaining the “urban drill.”

. It must lie admitted that when the movement of population from the rural distrets to the towns reaches a point at which the primary industries begin to decay, this “urban drill” may become a serious eyil 'and a national (lunger. In an economic sense it is desirable that something like an oven balance should he maintained between the primary and secondary industries. neither class being subordinated to the other. But. as Professor Fisher and Pro lessor Segar pointed on) recently, most of the critics who declaim against the “ urban drift’’ lose sight of tin' important fact that the use of machinery, the application ol scientific methods in the primary industries, and the consequent increaw* in a country’s productive capacity, all tend to diminish the relative iinmlrr of .farmers. Of course nothing of thD affects tin l general question of the need for closer settlement and the encouragement of our primary industries, which should be the fundamental features of our national policy.