/nginx/o/2024/02/07/15872399t1hc823.jpg)
Maintaining a sufficient population density in rural areas is not justifiable from a purely economic standpoint, yet from a defense perspective, it holds significant merit, Mihkel Kunnus, editor of the «Human and Nature» section of Fookus, argues.
The ideas of Minister of Regional Affairs Madis Kallas (SDE) to redistribute funds from wealthy local governments to less affluent ones have been jokingly associated with Robin Hood. It would be utterly foolish to quibble over the accuracy of this cultural cliché with historical precision. However, the comparison is apt in more ways than one. In the late Middle Ages, from which the legend of the noble thief originates, the state was not merely a sparse business environment or a guarantor of effective competition, let alone a socialist mother hen, but rather concerned with the same issue that is sharply relevant for us today in 21st-century Europe – invasion by marauders and barbarians. (Perhaps there should be a tax for being neighbors to Eastern barbarians or for existing on the civilization's eastern frontier? This would be understandable, necessary, and also a strong foreign policy message to the world.)
National defense is widely recognized as a straightforward economic expense. Money is spent not for acquiring tangible benefits, like a pastry, an industrial robot, or a highway, but for preventing something negative. One can only grit one's teeth and pay because the alternative is worse.
Since the capital city and its affluent surrounding area have «taxed» other regions by drawing away human capital, giving a little back is only fair.
Võro native Kaido Kama recalls, «I once worked at the Ministry of Defense dealing with mobilization issues. In any crisis today, the primary concern is how to protect the civilian population when the usual consumption chain and infrastructure fail. State governors didn't have this problem during the last war. Farms were autonomous units capable of solving all their own provisioning and energy issues. The relatively small urban population had a 'rearguard' in the countryside – relatives from whom they could get eggs and potatoes. And to whom they could flee from the city in the direst need – which is exactly what a large portion of Tallinn's residents did right after the March bombing.» («Pärimuskultuur kui ellujäämisõpetus», Akadeemia 2013, no. 12)
Analysts with an eye for demographics believe that Russia has significant offensive capabilities for another 10–15 years. This is another reason to stretch urbanization – which is undoubtedly economically beneficial and largely happens naturally – to its limits. The more people, houses with intact roofs, and ideally homes with piles of firewood, wells, and cellars in rural areas, the better. Even if they are pensioners. And why is the proportion of pensioners is so high in many areas? Because their children have moved to the (capital) city. Since the capital with its affluent surrounding area has «taxed» other regions by drawing away their human capital, giving a little back is only fair. For those skeptical of the Robin Hood analogy, it could be described as a rearguard fee. And, among other things, that is exactly what it is.