As Western democracies become increasingly polarized, rural and small-town voters are regularly pitted against their counterparts in larger urban centers. While this is not a new phenomenon — and certainly not the only factor affecting voting patterns — the rural-urban divide is a significant driver of today’s culture wars. This dynamic, which economist Andres Rodriguez-Pose evocatively described as the “revenge of the places that don’t matter,” suggests that the ongoing populist surge largely reflects geographic disparities.
How did the rural-urban divide come to dominate so many countries’ political discourse and development? How could we address it? Part of the answer lies in structural economic shifts that have made urban living more lucrative. In today’s knowledge-based economy, where value is increasingly derived from intangible sources, gathering people in densely populated urban areas often results in positive spillovers, creating so-called “economies of agglomeration” that offset the inconveniences of city life. While cities have clusters of low-paid service jobs and pockets of severe poverty, they are magnets for highly paid professionals and university graduates.
The economic upheavals of the past 15 years — the Great Recession of 2008-2009, fiscal austerity, the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis and the inflationary surge of last year — have accelerated this trend. People living in “places that don’t matter” have seen quality jobs disappear, public services eroded and their economic prospects rapidly diminish. Seen in this light, today’s populist backlash is hardly surprising, especially when many politicians are part of the thriving urban elite.
To address these ongoing failures and weaken the appeal of populist narratives, Western countries must revitalize small towns and rural communities and ensure universal access to essential public services. However, this must also be part of a broader national effort that unites citizens from all segments of society around the common cause of enhancing collective well-being.
In a recent report I co-authored with Stella Erker and Andy Westwood, we document deep disparities in access to essential amenities such as buses, broadband Internet, hospitals and higher education across English local authorities, and explore how to revive small towns and rural areas in the UK by investing in universal basic infrastructure. We also identify infrastructure and services — both public and privately owned — that are vital for enabling residents to commute to work or medical appointments, provide education for their children, maintain good health and enjoy a decent quality of life.
The provision of public services and infrastructure has a greater redistributive effect than taxation. Hence, by ensuring access to a basic level of infrastructure and services, we could provide everyone with opportunities to improve their own lives and those of their families.
While governments are responsible for delivering public services and infrastructure such as roads and ports, utility-type services such as broadband Internet are often provided by private companies. Public infrastructure, however, has been grossly underfunded for decades, and private infrastructure is increasingly exploited by asset managers and private equity owners who hike service charges and cut back on maintenance. This has contributed to a widespread sense that broad social and economic progress stopped in the late 20th century.
Given the corrosive effect of this narrative, it is crucial to reinvest in the future. As Robert J. Shiller and others have argued, positive narratives have the power to improve economic outcomes. A shared sense of optimism could boost public morale and fuel GDP growth.
This is especially true in today’s complex economies. As economist Paul Seabright wrote in his 2004 book The Company of Strangers, humans today are increasingly interdependent. Economic production is now spread across vast and dispersed ecosystems, and virtually every item we use, from our shirts to our smartphones, comprises materials and components sourced from many countries. Many of us regularly purchase items from strangers online, despite having no idea who they are or where they live, and for the most part, this process unfolds without a hitch.
However, the transition to an intangible digital economy has underscored the complexity and fragility of these economic ecosystems. The rise of data-driven digital services has made our lives increasingly intertwined, resulting in network effects that make individual gains contingent on the actions of others. Consider, for example, a ride-sharing platform: The more drivers there are, the more users benefit and vice versa.
Ultimately, the case for prioritizing a country’s collective interests over profits is primarily political, given that deeply polarized societies such as ours often face a bleak future. Still, there is an economic case to be made for investing in public services and the infrastructure that sustains them. By recognizing that a shared sense of optimism and a basic faith in the possibility of social mobility fuel economic growth, we could repair the economic damage of the past two decades. A country that overlooks “places that don’t matter” risks becoming irrelevant.
Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, is the author, most recently, of Cogs and Monsters: What Economics Is, and What It Should Be.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
In competitive sports, the narrative surrounding transgender athletes is often clouded by misconceptions and prejudices. Critics sometimes accuse transgender athletes of “gaming the system” to gain an unfair advantage, perpetuating the stereotype that their participation undermines the integrity of competition. However, this perspective not only ignores the rigorous efforts transgender athletes invest to meet eligibility standards, but also devalues their personal and athletic achievements. Understanding the gap between these stereotypes and the reality of individual efforts requires a deeper examination of societal bias and the challenges transgender athletes face. One of the most pervasive arguments against the inclusion of transgender athletes
When viewing Taiwan’s political chaos, I often think of several lines from Incantation, a poem by the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature, Czeslaw Milosz: “Beautiful and very young are Philo-Sophia, and poetry, her ally in the service of the good... Their friendship will be glorious, their time has no limit, their enemies have delivered themselves to destruction.” Milosz wrote Incantation when he was a professor of Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He firmly believed that Poland would rise again under a restored democracy and liberal order. As one of several self-exiled or expelled poets from
Taiwan faces complex challenges like other Asia-Pacific nations, including demographic decline, income inequality and climate change. In fact, its challenges might be even more pressing. The nation struggles with rising income inequality, declining birthrates and soaring housing costs while simultaneously navigating intensifying global competition among major powers. To remain competitive in the global talent market, Taiwan has been working to create a more welcoming environment and legal framework for foreign professionals. One of the most significant steps in this direction was the enactment of the Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals (外國專業人才延攬及僱用法) in 2018. Subsequent amendments in