Generate text that refutes this claim: Restrictions would benefit rural areas  Unlimited rural-urban migration erodes the economy of the cities, as shown in the previous argument, and limits their economic growth and available resources. On a national level, this causes decision makers to prioritise the cities, as the country relies more on urban than rural areas, thus preventing them from investing in the country-side. [1] China is a good example of this where urban privilege has become entrenched with ‘special economic zones’ being created in urban areas (though sometimes built from scratch in rural areas) with money being poured into infrastructure for the urban areas which as a result have rapidly modernised leaving rural areas behind. This leads to a whole culture of divisions where urbanites consider those from rural areas to be backward and less civilized. [2]  Moreover, there will be little other reason to invest in rural areas, as the workforce in those areas has left for the cities. By preserving resources in the cities and keeping the workforce in the rural areas, it becomes possible to invest in rural communities and change their lives for the better as these areas maintain the balanced workforce necessary to attract investors.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.  [2] Whyte, Martin King, “Social Change and the Urban-Rural Divide in China”, China in the 21st Century, June 2007,  p.54
economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should
The argument is based on the idea that there is a lot of investment that is just waiting to be made in rural areas. In reality, this is not so. Until there are real investors who are prepared to change the conditions of rural areas in developing countries, it is morally bankrupt to force people to remain in an untenable situation as marketing material for hypothetical investment.