Agriculture in above question means expanding agriculture to boost income and support residents'diet.

Interesting question.

Food sufficiency is important for developing countries since it releases the pressure on the import budget. In this respect, I believe that agriculture should not be compromised, but rather further developed using modern techniques and logistics to boost the income of the rural population and also productivity. On the other hand, urbanization is also important since it should, at least in theory, provide well being for its population. Ideally, a balance between the rural and the urban areas in terms of state intervention in the fields of education, healthcare, other governance issues and social cohesion is preferable.

History of urbanisation reveals that as producutivity in agriculture per unit of land and labour increases, it releases capital and labour. Capital taking advantage of scale and market is invested in non primary activities initially in industry in urban centres and labour released from agricuture is employed in these industries. Latter these centres become powerhouse of economic growth of a country. As in developed or emerging economies, contribution of primary production is much less than that by urban centred industries. It is why in developed countries from 5 to 15 per cent of their workforce engaged in agriculture could afford a high standard of life. However, it depends on a country's resources, especially its human capital. Using properly its human capital, Japan almost without no natural resource is a developed country.

Good question. I concur with the above contributors. But like to add:

No one can deny the importance of agriculture for developing countries as economy of these countries depend largely on agriculture. And good economy would ultimately support development. Therefore, I find agriculture more important than urbanization for developing countries. In other words, agriculture is need whereas urbanization is nice.

Both are absolutely necessary for the development of a country. But then, if you must choose, one can't survive without food.

If urbanization occurs through loss of arable fertile lands, then it is NOT welcome & it is more logical to reduce villagers' migration to cities by developing the villages.

However, if there is insistence upon "invading" the cities, an equation has to be solved in which we can have heavily populated cities occupying less space & allowing for adequate green spaces which give benefits to all of those living there. This requires more vertical expansion than a horizontal one.

Urbanization is not about simply increasing the number of urban residents. It is a positive development, as urban area provides more opportunity to live, learn and grow than rural areas. Rapid urbanization that is currently occurring in many developing countries can outstretch the capabilities of cities to absorb and cater for an ever growing number of inhabitants. This boost in urbanization and population growth could further increase the vulnerability of urban dwellers to sudden shocks in agricultural markets. To avoid such scenario cities has to adapt to their new realities and policy makers have to react to these risks by adopting new strategies like urban agriculture that ensure food security. More importantly, I think urbanization is a complete change from rural to urban life style in terms of industry, employment, environment and agriculture.

Many thanks for all the responses! A balance between these two topics as Mohamed and Mohammad have suggested, or a perfect interaction between them are generally welcome.

This is an extremely complex question even if it looks simple. As the contributors above mentioned, both are important and interlinked. In the good scenario - a 'positive development' - agriculture becomes more productive and capital intensive releasing labour to urban centres where higher value added activities in industry and services develop. As agriculture intensifies it generates needed income for the investment in, not only better, agriculture but the infrastructures of the cities, through income for the state to develop them. Agriculture becomes a tax revenue source until the industry and urban centres with their services develop, up to the point where rural preservation becomes important, that is when developed countries start subsidising agriculture....

Unfortunately, this process is not guaranteed, what we observe in a number of countries is a development of agriculture in the sense of agricultural land consolidation and productivity growth, often export oriented, but not a development of the necessary infrastructure, education and services in cities to absorb the new influx of urban inhabitants, nor the creation of high value added sectors. This leads to ever growing slums.

The worse case is when also the movement to cities is fuelled by poverty in rural areas, erosion and land degradation. Then we only have negative developments on all sides.

Summary: Agriculture is often the motor of initial investment (but not exclusively - see Singapore, see other non-agriculture, but resource rich countries), urbanisation is in turn central to high end development, but the right steps are necessary to mange the transition from an agrarian to a developed urbanised economy.

While I agree this is an interesting question.  I believe there is no right answer.  I think the challenge is always to find a balance that works in a given situation. 

This is an excellent question about economic sustainability. Research into the conflict between urbanization and agriculture has revealed that urbanization is failing on a large scale internationally. While rural communities and agriculture continue to see high levels of population mobility the areas remain economically sustainable from one generation to the next. 

Recently urban centres have begun to implement community social economic development programs in an effort to revitalize their areas. It is these urban centres that are seeing economic sustainability which indicates that agriculture and rural communities have more sustainability over traditional urbanization. 

I believe that for a sustained economic growth, there is a need for a balanced development of urbanization and agriculture since they are interdependent during the growth process.

Thanks.

Mansur Masih

In very olden days, when ther ewere no urban areas people were living mainly from agriculture; I mean most of the people were producitrng their own food, the few surpluses that were created were exchanges with neighbouring tribes. When the first urban areas came up an increase population emerged that did not grow their own food. In other words: those growing food now did agriculture for their own needs plus for the needs of an urban population. Food output per farmer needed to increase. This could be done by cultivating bigger areas, or by increasing the productivity of the exsting fields.

Urbanization this led to incteasing productivity in agriculture. Today urban areas are expanding often into the agricultural regions at the rim of cities. Industrial and residential areas are often built on former agricultural land. This takes land out of production and on the remaining land productivity needs to further increase. There ar elimitations to this. Even if fertilizers can add nutrients to the soil at a particular level of further increase in fertilizers does not result in increasing yields. Over time the productivity of th eland can even go down.

Expansion of urban areas should not be allowed to depend too much on land use changes from agriculture. This of course requires good urban and regional planning that protects agricultural land (and land for water storage)

many political leaders in developing countries tend to be shouters and not deep thinkers. as a result they fail to analyze well between term development and agriculture. development can be in agriculture or infrastructure. both are development is their ways. harmonization is the matter to work on.

we cannot avoid both, because they both are interdependent

http://learncanola.com/wp-content/uploads/canolaDocs/Canola_Urbanization.pdf

http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/897/1/WP-78-005.pdf

Both have a role to play in the development of any place.

Urbanization should not eat into the land for agriculture.

both are necessary, it is necessary to establish the priorities and vocation of land use for each territory to be evaluated

Urbanization is integral to economic growth. People engage easily in dense environments, live better in proximity, and in a diverse setting. Urbanism is the healthiest mode of living, and if designed and governed well, the happiest. It is efficient, good for the ecology, better for the economy.

Both urbanization and agriculture are very integral to the development of a country. Urbanization can contribute to sustainable growth if managed well by increasing productivity, therefore giving space for innovation and new ideas to emerge. It is generally known that economic growth helps in the expansion of modern industries and also increases the urban population. In turn, urbanization also promotes economic growth to some extent. Also, Urbanization allows more people to have access to environment-friendly facilities and services at affordable prices. Fourth, urbanization drives innovation, including green technologies. In the long term, environment-friendly equipment, machines, vehicles, and utilities will determine the future of the green economy. Also, out of agriculture, cities, and civilizations grew, and because crops and animals could now be farmed to meet demand; Agricultural development is one of the most powerful tools to end extreme poverty, boost shared prosperity, and feed a projected 9.7 billion people by 2050. Growth in the agriculture sector is two to four times more effective in raising incomes among the poorest compared to other sectors.

Article Urbanization and its implications for food and farming