Background of the Study
For a long time, rural urban development was considered separately. This is true for the scientific discourse,
in the context of which different social and economic dynamics where attributed to either urban or rural
areas. It is also correct for the development planning and policy making which has traditionally been
oriented by spatial development paradigms separating the urban and the rural (E.Dick, 2011).
Development researchers and practitioners alike have long considered rural and urban areas as opposed
rather than inter-linked categories, and as spatial entities with their unique problems and concerns (Schmidt-
Kallert, 2009). Some scholars have early pointed to problems associated with the dichotomization of the
“urban” and “rural” and the inadequacy of the usual criteria for rural-urban differentiation such as
population size, density and occupational structure (Tacoli, 2004).
The division of space to rural and urban has raised the heated debate among those who advocate urban or
rural spaces for the allocation of resources. However, both rural and urban have to be seen as a whole and
the linkages between them should be fostered (UNCHS, 2001). The strength of urban rural linkages to the
large extent can determines the condition and standards of living of the people.
In the context of a pro-urban view of planners and policy makers, cities were considered as engines of
growth and development, and urban development as crucial to reduce rural poverty. In contrast to this idea,
economic and infrastructure development was geared towards growth centers or poles. Although, the
intention was promoting a decentralized, spatially balanced development, in many developing countries
growth pole strategies ended up exclusively benefiting the large and often capital cities. In this way,
immense inter-regional welfare gaps and urban primacy became ever more accentuated (E.Dick, 2011).
In contrast, anti-urban view building on core-periphery and spatial polarization models, rural areas were
considered crucial for national economic development. Such view was also prompted by the fact that, at
least in many Sub-Sahara African and Southeast Asian countries, the largest part of the population still lives
in the countryside. Cities, particularly those on the top of the national urban hierarchy, were believed to be
removing the most capable human and natural resources from rural areas. While the first generation of rural development projects were focused towards agricultural promotion, this sectoral orientation was later
substituted by a more holistic approach: The so-called integrated rural development programs typically
included the improvement of rural service provision and transport infrastructure, together with agriculturebased
livelihoods (E.Dick, 2011).
The opposing paradigms of “urban management” and “rural development” were however not able to take
into the linkages between the two account (Schmidt-Kallert 2004: 5). For instance, from a rural household’s
perspective income earned by urban household members constitutes an integral part of economic survival.
As a result, declines in urban employment, e.g. in the context of structural adjustment projects, may have a
direct (and detrimental) effect on rural welfare (Lynch 2005: 174). “Allocating people to discrete categories
such as “urban‟ and “rural‟ assume that these categories accurately reflect their realities” (Lynch, 2005)