Hunger: urban bias

Almost forgot to post again -- I need to get the habit back.

I talk quite a bit about rural poor, rather than urban poor, and hunger. It's not just because I'm a vet, and therefore interested in (predominately rural) livestock. It's also because, globally, the rural populations have a higher incidence of hunger.

One of the main reasons is urban bias. This is the result of governments and organizations paying greater attention to the urban situation. There are perfectly good reasons for them to do so -- that's where they live, for one. Also, urban populations are more likely to be educated and politically active, so passing them over in favor of the uneducated and compliant rural population may be a recipe for governmental overthrow, or at least major protests. Plus, the infrastructure to get aid and development projects is more likely to be available in urban areas. If you want to start a school, isn't it easier to start it someplace that has 50 kids per square kilometer instead of 5? Hence the urban populace being more educated . . .

The importance of the rural/urban divide for hunger issues is that food is produced in rural areas, so development there is essential. It's a tragedy to leave a country's food producers to go hungry, but it often happens because the manufacturers and urban laborers are given priority.

No solution or action point here, just some food for thought.