Home » Opinion » Book review
Ideal world needs both better cities and villages
By Wang Yong |
July 9, 2011, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
"WHEN a city has really high housing prices relative to income, you can bet there is something nice about the place," writes Harvard University economics Professor Edward Glaeser in his 2011 best-selling book "Triumph of the City."
As with the quote, the book itself boils down to half-truths. A colorful global travel experience enables Professor Glaeser to see what is best in cities and how they benefit people and the planet.
But his travels apparently have not convinced him of the power of the rural, sometimes bucolic, part of the world.
A car-dependent city does no good to its people or the earth, he says, but he goes on to assert, "Even when compared to the most dire urban poverty, conditions in rural areas are usually worse." He also claims that, by most standards, such as health and life expectancy, the urban poor fare better than the rural poor.
Let's first look at his quote about housing prices.
At first glance, it sounds great. It reminds me of myriad Shanghainese gentlemen and gentlewomen - from scholars to white collars to taxi drivers - I've met over the past seven "fat" years of rocketing housing prices.
With glowing pride, they convey the message: "Shanghai is not the Shanghai of China only, it's the Shanghai of the entire world. The entire world loves Shanghai, so its housing prices always go upward."
Land sales
These gentlemen and gentlewomen were later proven to be half right at most, since Shanghai's high housing prices were found to have less to do with the world's love than with corrupt officials' love of bribes or with incompetent officials' reliance on land sales as a major source of public revenue.
Many economists do not recognize reality apart from their ideal-world modules.
When he says "there is something nice about the place" if it "has really high housing prices relative to income," Professor Glaeser assumes away possible corruption, among other variables.
If I were able to assume away anything I don't like, I would venture to say that there is something nice about a lady if she prices herself sky high in a marriage market.
When you read the following quotes from the book, you will recognize that something has also been assumed away:
1. "It is natural to see the very real problems of megacities and think that the people should go back to their rural villages, but cities, not farms, will save the developing world."
2. "Life in a rural village might be safer than life in a favela (Ed: hillside shanty towns), but it is the safety of unending poverty."
In a word, Professor Glaeser's ideal world has no place for the countryside. But without the countryside, who will feed us urbanites?
China has an old saying: In peaceful times, life in a city may be easier, but during war or disaster, city dwellers starve to death first. That's why the bulk of Chinese farmers refuse to be urbanized although they come to cities for temporary jobs.
Professor Glaeser rightly observes that lack of agricultural opportunities ("many poor nations suffer ... poor soil quality") has driven the rural poor to the cities, as evidenced in China and Africa.
But any stronger argument against the countryside would require research into whether this lack of opportunities is temporary or permanent, and why most families of Chinese migrant workers retain arable land in their home villages.
Unending poverty?
The countryside has many problems, as Professor Glaeser correctly notes, but the countryside is not synonymous with "unending poverty," nor are the cities synonymous to prosperity and freedom.
"Our culture, our prosperity and our freedom are all ultimately gifts of people living, working and thinking together - the ultimate triumph of the city," says the professor.
But are not most farmers, at least in China, also "living, working and thinking together"?
When many urbanites shut themselves up in air-conditioned computer game rooms or segregated apartments, it's often the farmers who gather in a rural temple or around a bridge for friendly chatting - the very crackle Professor Glaeser values for an enlightened life.
While he appreciates an overheard remark in a coffee shop, a mass cheer and shared song at a soccer match, he seems to forget that farmers the world over have similar if not more party life.
We should ask ourselves what kind of a city and what kind of a village is best for human life and planetary health.
Drawing a sharp distinction between cities and villages is misleading. A nation such as the United States or China cannot be all rural or urban. What we need are better cities and better villages, not cities at the expense of the villages.
Anyone who's been to Hangzhou City of Zhejiang Province would find it defies simple definition as a city. Hangzhou is indeed half city and half countryside, with tea farmers and other farmers working and living in the center of the city.
Call it a rural city or an urban village. Whatever, Hangzhou is among China's few places so conducive to the good life of mankind, animals and the planet.
As to what makes a great city, Professor Glaeser has many brilliant ideas. If only the world's urban planners followed his advice in preserving cities with ancient walls - like Florence or Jerusalem - where narrow, curving streets mean citizens must walk.
Given a great leap forward in urban expansion and car acquisition in most Chinese cities, Professor Glaeser has good reason to fear, "If carbon emission in India and China rose to American per capita levels, the world's carbon consumption would increase by 139 percent."
As with the quote, the book itself boils down to half-truths. A colorful global travel experience enables Professor Glaeser to see what is best in cities and how they benefit people and the planet.
But his travels apparently have not convinced him of the power of the rural, sometimes bucolic, part of the world.
A car-dependent city does no good to its people or the earth, he says, but he goes on to assert, "Even when compared to the most dire urban poverty, conditions in rural areas are usually worse." He also claims that, by most standards, such as health and life expectancy, the urban poor fare better than the rural poor.
Let's first look at his quote about housing prices.
At first glance, it sounds great. It reminds me of myriad Shanghainese gentlemen and gentlewomen - from scholars to white collars to taxi drivers - I've met over the past seven "fat" years of rocketing housing prices.
With glowing pride, they convey the message: "Shanghai is not the Shanghai of China only, it's the Shanghai of the entire world. The entire world loves Shanghai, so its housing prices always go upward."
Land sales
These gentlemen and gentlewomen were later proven to be half right at most, since Shanghai's high housing prices were found to have less to do with the world's love than with corrupt officials' love of bribes or with incompetent officials' reliance on land sales as a major source of public revenue.
Many economists do not recognize reality apart from their ideal-world modules.
When he says "there is something nice about the place" if it "has really high housing prices relative to income," Professor Glaeser assumes away possible corruption, among other variables.
If I were able to assume away anything I don't like, I would venture to say that there is something nice about a lady if she prices herself sky high in a marriage market.
When you read the following quotes from the book, you will recognize that something has also been assumed away:
1. "It is natural to see the very real problems of megacities and think that the people should go back to their rural villages, but cities, not farms, will save the developing world."
2. "Life in a rural village might be safer than life in a favela (Ed: hillside shanty towns), but it is the safety of unending poverty."
In a word, Professor Glaeser's ideal world has no place for the countryside. But without the countryside, who will feed us urbanites?
China has an old saying: In peaceful times, life in a city may be easier, but during war or disaster, city dwellers starve to death first. That's why the bulk of Chinese farmers refuse to be urbanized although they come to cities for temporary jobs.
Professor Glaeser rightly observes that lack of agricultural opportunities ("many poor nations suffer ... poor soil quality") has driven the rural poor to the cities, as evidenced in China and Africa.
But any stronger argument against the countryside would require research into whether this lack of opportunities is temporary or permanent, and why most families of Chinese migrant workers retain arable land in their home villages.
Unending poverty?
The countryside has many problems, as Professor Glaeser correctly notes, but the countryside is not synonymous with "unending poverty," nor are the cities synonymous to prosperity and freedom.
"Our culture, our prosperity and our freedom are all ultimately gifts of people living, working and thinking together - the ultimate triumph of the city," says the professor.
But are not most farmers, at least in China, also "living, working and thinking together"?
When many urbanites shut themselves up in air-conditioned computer game rooms or segregated apartments, it's often the farmers who gather in a rural temple or around a bridge for friendly chatting - the very crackle Professor Glaeser values for an enlightened life.
While he appreciates an overheard remark in a coffee shop, a mass cheer and shared song at a soccer match, he seems to forget that farmers the world over have similar if not more party life.
We should ask ourselves what kind of a city and what kind of a village is best for human life and planetary health.
Drawing a sharp distinction between cities and villages is misleading. A nation such as the United States or China cannot be all rural or urban. What we need are better cities and better villages, not cities at the expense of the villages.
Anyone who's been to Hangzhou City of Zhejiang Province would find it defies simple definition as a city. Hangzhou is indeed half city and half countryside, with tea farmers and other farmers working and living in the center of the city.
Call it a rural city or an urban village. Whatever, Hangzhou is among China's few places so conducive to the good life of mankind, animals and the planet.
As to what makes a great city, Professor Glaeser has many brilliant ideas. If only the world's urban planners followed his advice in preserving cities with ancient walls - like Florence or Jerusalem - where narrow, curving streets mean citizens must walk.
Given a great leap forward in urban expansion and car acquisition in most Chinese cities, Professor Glaeser has good reason to fear, "If carbon emission in India and China rose to American per capita levels, the world's carbon consumption would increase by 139 percent."
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
