There is an ongoing argument by some people that governments should invest more in infrastructure and create more jobs to encourage rural civilization, while others oppose that and argue that governments should focus more on enhancing the quality of living in urban cities. This essay will discuss both views and present the preferred opinion.
On the one hand, encouraging people to move to rural areas results in the improvement of already existing cities. The population of the urban cities would be reduced a lot if the government invested in rural development, which would encourage a lot of people to move there. For instance, there is a tendency within people to prefer living in rural areas if the living quality is equal. In my opinion, I agree with this argument because it makes the living conditions in both rural and urban cities better.
On the other hand, investing in existing cities may be efficient in terms of time and cost. Improving the urban cities requires significantly less time than the rural cities, as they already exist. For example, most of the roads, hospitals, and schools in populated cities are adequate and may just need maintenance, compared to the rural areas, where they require starting from scratch. By following this argument, governments will save money to improve other areas that are needed.
In conclusion, both arguments have their own advantages; enhancing the living quality of urban areas is cost-effective and time-saving, which results in saving the taxpayers’ money. while the other argument, in which I agree with results in the improvement in the overall condition of the countries by helping reduce the population of the urban cities.