Neglect of the rural population is frequently attributed to globalisation.

But treating globalisation as the sole culprit averts attention from deeper policy failures that have widened spatial schisms within countries.

This post reflects on an article, “The Urban-Rural Gap and the Dilemma of Governance” by Anirudh Krishna, on that issue.

Although the article was published over a decade ago, its arguments are strikingly relevant today.

In this article, Krishna argues that the divide in today’s world is no longer only between countries but increasingly within countries.

It is spatial.

Wealth, opportunity and political influence are concentrated through the process of urban agglomeration and the creation of urban elites while rural areas stagnate in the background.

Fast-growing economies such as China, India, Indonesia and South Africa now contain both those who are elite and those who are poor by global standards.

Krishna shows that poverty rates are consistently higher in rural areas.

For instance, in Malawi, 57% of the rural population lives below the poverty line, compared with 17% of urban residents.

In Zambia, the figures are 78% rural versus 28% urban; in Vietnam, it’s 22% versus 5% in rural and urban areas, respectively.

Over the decade these numbers might have changed, but still the argument made then holds equally for PNG and its Melanesian neighbours, as World Bank data shows (Figure 1).

Access to basic services follows suit.

In Ethiopia, 97% of urban residents have access to improved drinking water, compared to only 42% of rural residents.

In India, 60% of city residents have improved sanitation facilities versus only 25% in rural areas.

In Papua New Guinea, rural sanitation is at 15% whereas urban sanitation rates hover at 49%.

Educational attainment is similarly unequal.

In Pakistan, 61% of urban residents complete secondary education, compared with half of that figure for rural residents.

Even when years of schooling are similar, learning outcomes are poorer in rural schools.

Rural areas are poorer, but urban areas are more productive.

According to Krishna, this results in a governance dilemma: should governments prioritise poor rural households or globally competitive households in capital cities? In theory, democratic systems should balance both.

However, not in practice.

Despite making up only a small proportion of the total population, urban elites’ preferences shape policy priorities, public investment decisions and national development narratives.

Governments build airports, information superhighways and elite universities in urban centres, but rural schools,....