The ‘rural-to-urban migrationʼ

paradox
Michael Makabenta Alunan October 24, 2017

The burgeoning urban-poor problem and all its other attendant social
problems like squatter-housing congestion, joblessness, criminality, drugs,
prostitution, traffic, street-children and juvenile delinquency are blamed
partly on the massive “rural-to-urban migration.”

City glitters as magnets. Past efforts to reverse migration proved

ineffective. Former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos, then-Metro Manila
governor, transformed the metropolis into the “City of Man” and even
ridiculously offered free fares back to the provinces only to fail.

The more she beautified the city, the more its glitters attracted
rural folks who were lured by the promises of a better life, stable jobs, neon
lights, shopping malls and other amenities.

Location theory in economics asserts that urbanization is a natural direction

and is actually good for business, on one hand, as it creates bigger markets
and concentrates them for easier distribution of goods and services.

Growth in urban demographics also made it more lucrative for real- estate
developers of condominiums and housing, and for business-process
outsourcing industry and other foreign investors. In turn, it triggers
more jobs, need for education, health services and other amenities.

Push-pull factors worsening problems. While all these demographic

movements are welcome to business, on the contrary, they are unwelcome,
particularly from the same well-heeled and scented crowds of business.

Expectedly, the magnetic attraction triggers a backlash as it reinforces the

problem of rural-to-urban migration and the “eyesores” it creates.

The problem is not only caused by the magnetic pull, but there are also
“push factors,” like agricultural backwardness, devastations caused by
natural disasters like Supertyphoon Yolanda and severe droughts or the
raging insurgency wars and military onslaughts in the countryside.

It is no wonder you have pockets of ethnolinguistic groups in many slums, or

even indigents living on street pavements, particularly the sea-faring
Badjaos who donʼt have basic skills, but to beg in the streets.

In short, it is widespread countryside poverty, which accounts for 76.1

percent of total poverty, that is pushing younger rural folks to seek
“greener pastures” in the “concrete jungles,” leaving behind their parents,
thus, farmers are on the average older at 58 years old.

Land reform partly causing problem? Land reform, a milestone program

of former President Corazon C. Aquino, aimed to solve problems in
agriculture, but, on the contrary, it has created new problems, not only
because of poor support services, but because land reform hastened land
parceling, thus, reducing efficiency and reversing the benefits
of economies of scale.

Unless farmers bond together into cooperatives to keep lands contiguous,

being fragmented will deprive them of the benefits of economies of scale.
Even landowners, allowed retention limits per child, were also forced to
fragment their lands, and further more with their grandchildren.

Contributing further to the problem are more and bigger farmer families from
succeeding generations, all dependent on the same piece of land, thus
increasing inefficiently the man-to-land ratio. Obviously, productivity drops
steadily, inevitably forcing younger generations to move to the cities, and
reinforcing pressures toward farmers getting older on the average.

Rising disguised unemployment? Increasing family labor for the same

piece of land indicates increasing “disguised unemployment” or “surplus
idle labor.” More so, with prevailing backward farm practices limited to
planting and harvesting, manifesting so much idle time in-between
seasons.
Another paradox happens when backward agriculture is modernized. We
must willingly welcome change and modernization as we are not Luddites,
who oppose technologies, but consider modernization as the only way to
bail out agriculture from backwardness, although it is also true that
mechanization will partly displace rural workers.

As more rural folks get dislocated with modernization, the more they will
migrate to the cities, and, thus, the dilemma. But never stop modernization
as it is the right thing to do, but we must also bolster industry and socially
necessary services to absorb displaced rural labor.

Benefits of rural-to-urban migration. As we complain about rural-to-

urban migration, it actually also offers benefits. For one, it increases city
labor supply and expand urban markets, benefiting consumer industries.

Although still earning less, their sheer volume as part of the urban
poor still accounts for the bulk of consumers. Even if they canʼt spend
much and seldom go out shopping, their huge numbers still fill up malls
and fast-food chains. Even during the crises years, they bolstered fast
foods and telcos, the latter which gained for the Philippines the monicker
text capital of the world. Other businesses benefit from the explosion in
urban demographics.

Second, faster money circulation in the metropolis allows money to pass

through many hands among the poor, including the jobless and
marginalized like jeepney barkers, watch-your-car boys, street children, etc.

Third, once they start earning, many of them remit back home to the
provinces, thus improving disparity of income between urban and rural folks.
Fourth, an expanded urban market triggers bigger demand for food, thus,
boosting back agricultural production. Last, resulting rural growth helps
provide jobs and higher incomes for rural folks, thus cushioning
partly the rural-to-urban migration.

Right not to be left behind? While policy-makers worry about stemming

the flow of rural folks leaving their farms, we must respect peopleʼs right to
migrate or make choices, in another right, in pursuit of happiness and not be
left behind, even if it means escaping rural misery only to end up in
urban poverty.

The problem is the same with the 12 million Filipino migrants and overseas
Filipino workers, who seek greener pastures, mostly in the brown deserts of
war-torn Middle East countries. Nobody can stop them, and whatever they
do, even for selfish reasons, they contribute a lot to their families and to
the Philippine economy.

Regardless, about who are left behind and whose rights must be protected,
it is urgent we give attention to agriculture, where 76.1 percent of those
living below the poverty line reside.

E-mail: mikealunan@yahoo.com.