Saving the districts is about saving the Norwegian economy

City dwellers depend more on districts than they think.

commentary

This is a comment. Comments are written by BT commenters, editors, and guest commentators, and express their own opinions and analysis.

Like the ice of that village Deep down, I want the districts to prosper. The villages are located there, as beautiful as before. But those who live there are getting fewer and older.

And that? The transfer from one town to another has taken so long that it seems like a law of nature.

Well, the problem is that Norway is more dependent on districts than many urban dwellers think: 70 percent of the country’s export earnings, excluding oil, come from the industries of four maritime districts (shipyards, etc.) , process industry, seafood and tourism.

You can read this in NOU 2020: 12, one of two district reports the government has received in recent weeks.

The district uprising that has raised the Center Party to new heights is not, therefore, a demand for handouts from town to town. The people of the city should see it as an aid to self-help, or if you want: that the districts get a little more of that to save AS Norway’s ass.

Here, the aforementioned committee (Brandtzæg committee) has an excellent solution: let the municipalities retain more of the values ​​that are created locally.

Solberg Government They should have done it because they have seen the district uprising begin. The districts lack a clear enemy, something they can point to as a motive for saying their own misery.

The many government reforms have been well adapted, although the problems in Norwegian districts are mainly due to other longer-term development characteristics. As the Norman committee points out, villages have been a machine for feeding cities since the 16th century.)

The problem with the reforms is that they heavily attack the public training works in the districts and therefore strengthen development.

All these jobs will not disappear overnight, but the merger of municipalities, regions, police, courts and universities and the centralization of tax collection will create potential savings in the future.

For the districts, these jobs are worth their weight in gold, because they facilitate the attraction of highly educated people to work in the private sector. There is a pair it usually depends on the fact that there is also a job for the couple, and highly educated people tend to marry each other.

However, it is reasonably useless to maintain bureaucratic jobs that are not needed as an employment measure. But this also applies to the ever-growing central administration in Oslo. I wanted to start there.

It could also ease press problems in the capital.

Norway will do so in the future they need all the export earnings the country can get. That the problems in the districts are finally being taken seriously is therefore good news.

The big question is what can be done to stop the eviction, or “thinning” as it is called now (because development is so slow).

Both committees propose placing more government positions in the districts. They also emphasize how important it is to have higher education institutions there, both to be close to industries and because it increases the chances that students will be on the terrace of the area.

An interesting point The Norman committee notes that district universities can provide urban youth with “rural experience.” In the future, districts will depend on attracting urban youth, because they will no longer be able to reproduce.

So many young people have moved to the city in the last 20 years that not enough children are being born. So it’s no longer just about holding on to your own youth. If the decline stagnates, districts must also get urban youth to move.

It will not be easy. The Norman committee warns against districts attempting to emulate city life. They believe that you should rather try to attract people who want a different life.

When more and more people in the cities You must live in sad housing estates far from the city center, because the prices there are too high, this should not be impossible. A fantastic home with great views, fresh air, and freedom for children should appeal to many.

But for people to move or move, a big house is not enough. There must also be work for both parents, there must be enough people in the city for a good social life, and there must be school, store and other offerings.

Also, it should be easy and cheap to go out into the world and home. The Norman committee argues, among other things, that the state subsidizes tolls, broadband development and flights. In addition to free SFO, child care and the note for 16 years.

The uprising of the Norwegian district it is not only due to the reforms of the Solberg government. Here too there is a certain infection from abroad.

Both Brexit and the election of Donald Trump in the United States have sparked an exchange of words about the marginals as losers from globalization.

But unlike Britain and the United States, the problem is not job shortages or poverty. By contrast, the districts are short of manpower, something that has made them dependent on frontline workers from Eastern Europe.

The fact that there are jobs should make it easier to solve the problem in Norway.

It is so important that development in the districts is now recognized as indeed a problem, and that it also has economic value that takes people throughout much of the country.

Therefore, the government must take the reports it has received seriously and show that they meet the threat goal of the Center Party with practical policy and not just talk.