Thompson Reprise: Migration in a' System of Cities A number of ideas that seem to dominate the discussion of population distribution policy can be brought together usefully in a simple schematic figure and summarized as follows: a) The de-population of rural areas should, at least on theoretical grounds, lead to higher returns per worker and higher levels of money income and well-being, as shown by point A. Logically, rural areas should be left with not only fewer farmers but also the best farmers, b) If rural out-migrants were to locate in middle-sized urban areas (D), they would tend to increase the money income (productivity) and probably further increase the real income of the inhabitants, as the growing local market permits greater range of choice in goods, services and occupations. If the place of out-migration is in the stage of diminishing returns and the place of in-migration is in the stage of increasing returns, and wages (income levels) are by implication higher in the latter place, everyone benefits: those who move, those left behind and those being joined. Migration here (from A to D) is clearly in the public interest. c) The most discussed case of the day is the migration from small towns (B) to very large cities (E). Such moves usually bene-fit the migrant who rises from welfare level 3 to E but could leave everyone else worse off. Those left behind in the small town, growing smaller, face higher costs of utilities and higher taxes for those hard-to-cohtract (indivisible, heavy-fixed-cost) opera-tions, and a reduced range of choice of goods, services and 27 May 1971

DOI link for Thompson Reprise: Migration in a' System of Cities A number of ideas that seem to dominate the discussion of population distribution policy can be brought together usefully in a simple schematic figure and summarized as follows: a) The de-population of rural areas should, at least on theoretical grounds, lead to higher returns per worker and higher levels of money income and well-being, as shown by point A. Logically, rural areas should be left with not only fewer farmers but also the best farmers, b) If rural out-migrants were to locate in middle-sized urban areas (D), they would tend to increase the money income (productivity) and probably further increase the real income of the inhabitants, as the growing local market permits greater range of choice in goods, services and occupations. If the place of out-migration is in the stage of diminishing returns and the place of in-migration is in the stage of increasing returns, and wages (income levels) are by implication higher in the latter place, everyone benefits: those who move, those left behind and those being joined. Migration here (from A to D) is clearly in the public interest. c) The most discussed case of the day is the migration from small towns (B) to very large cities (E). Such moves usually bene-fit the migrant who rises from welfare level 3 to E but could leave everyone else worse off. Those left behind in the small town, growing smaller, face higher costs of utilities and higher taxes for those hard-to-cohtract (indivisible, heavy-fixed-cost) opera-tions, and a reduced range of choice of goods, services and 27 May 1971

Thompson Reprise: Migration in a' System of Cities A number of ideas that seem to dominate the discussion of population distribution policy can be brought together usefully in a simple schematic figure and summarized as follows: a) The de-population of rural areas should, at least on theoretical grounds, lead to higher returns per worker and higher levels of money income and well-being, as shown by point A. Logically, rural areas should be left with not only fewer farmers but also the best farmers, b) If rural out-migrants were to locate in middle-sized urban areas (D), they would tend to increase the money income (productivity) and probably further increase the real income of the inhabitants, as the growing local market permits greater range of choice in goods, services and occupations. If the place of out-migration is in the stage of diminishing returns and the place of in-migration is in the stage of increasing returns, and wages (income levels) are by implication higher in the latter place, everyone benefits: those who move, those left behind and those being joined. Migration here (from A to D) is clearly in the public interest. c) The most discussed case of the day is the migration from small towns (B) to very large cities (E). Such moves usually bene-fit the migrant who rises from welfare level 3 to E but could leave everyone else worse off. Those left behind in the small town, growing smaller, face higher costs of utilities and higher taxes for those hard-to-cohtract (indivisible, heavy-fixed-cost) opera-tions, and a reduced range of choice of goods, services and 27 May 1971