When we reflect about what makes the countryside so different from a city, we think of small population or low population density, ageing , smaller choice when it comes to shopping or medical services, a lower cost of living, lower wages and more poverty, lots of nature and natural resources.

However, countryside and cities are inextricably linked. This has been the case since at least the Middle Age, as the destiny of each city has always been strictly linked to its countryside. Cities need food supply that come from the country, roads and channels that cross the country, wood and other commodities. Cities have also traditionally invested in the countryside to make it more productive and also hospitable.

Today, some may think that global urban centers can cut loose from their rural backyard, as the driving forces of today’s economy, such as finance and knowledge, are increasingly immaterial. But this temptation would be dramatically shortsighted: the border and interdependence between cities and countryside is more important than ever.

Think about politics and the distribution of votes in the elections that led to “Brexit”, the election of Donald Trump and the increased support for the far right presidential candidate in France. The results of these elections illustrate the gap between the cosmopolitan city and the economic peripheries of the world. The definitive decline of the Westphalian system means that being British, American or French does not define people’s beliefs, values, opportunities and political identity more than their level of access to the opportunities and risks of globalization, associated with living in cities or the countryside.

“In the past, it was dispersed rural interest groups who favored free trade, and concentrated urban producers who wanted protection for their new industries. Now, in the age of the knowledge economy, the relationship has reversed. [...] Moreover, much like manufacturing in an earlier era, the knowledge economy has grown up in a very geographically concentrated way in certain city centers. These are the places that now benefit most from globalization and free trade. We’re back to debates about trade and protection that occupied Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, although the geographic location of the interests has changed over time. Changing economic geography has shaped our political geography in important ways, and contributed to an increase in urban-rural polarization.”

[The Urban-Rural Divide, Why Geography Matters, A Conversation with Jonathan Rodden, The Edge]

Think about the climate crisis. While climate change is a planetary issue that affects everyone, its impact is set to have a particularly dire impact on cities. The recent exceptional high tide that affected Venice demonstrate that urban life will have to adapt to more extreme weather conditions which is likely to put strain on existing infrastructure in areas such as water supply, drainage, health, energy and public transport. At the same time, no adaptation to the challenges of changing climate can be effective and sustainable without the resources provided by the countryside. No other global issue requires a strong partnership between cities and the rural world, even in this case beyond the traditional demarcation of borders.

Think about migration and displacement. International migration is increasing overall and at the same time migration patterns are changing. Some areas have seen a more marked increase of migration in recent years. Sao Paulo in Brazil, Moscow in Russia and Cape Town in South Africa are all cited as cities with a growing international population. However, migration has been almost exclusively seen as an urban phenomenon. The city is a lighthouse that attracts people with its wealth, opportunities and lights. Nevertheless, if the world wants to reap the benefits of migration and manage the movement of people well, the issue of migration cannot ignore the role of rural areas.

Political polarization, climate crisis and migration illustrate powerfully the need to forge a new alliance between cities and countryside. If we don’t bring together the cosmopolitan city and the economic peripheries of the world, inequalities cannot be addresses, climate change cannot be mitigated and migration cannot be sustainably managed. What we need now is not the idea of a migrant city, but a global nomadic city, a city that serves inhabitants on both side of the urban-rural border.

The fact that more than 50 percent of the world’s population now lives in cities has become an excuse to ignore the countryside. I have long been fascinated by the transformation of the city, but since looking at the countryside more closely in recent years, I have been surprised by the intensity of change taking place there.

[Rem Koohlaas]

This will be possible also with investments, infrastructures and assets that facilitate exchanges of all kinds and transform the vast non-urban territories of the countryside in the new frontier of change. Failure to do so will not result only in crumbling roads and bridges, as well as shuttered post offices and railway stations, but also in fueling resentment, exacerbating the impact of climate shocks on the most vulnerable and creating ever growing constituencies of exclusion.

[Typed in Nairobi]