Your Answer ▼ It is true that a wide range of states persuade their industries and businesses in urban regions to transfer into the less developed places. Some people say that the policy has more beneficial results than negative aspects. However, I totally disagree with the view for the following reasons.
The main reason that supports my view is that the policy causes serious environmental pollution. This is because it is similar to destroying green belt areas. In urban areas, a lot of factories and the use of private car contribute to air pollution remarkably. Meanwhile, with lack of urbanization in undeveloped regions, the risks of air pollution is lower smaller. Also, individuals in this regions less suffer from noise pollution as there are low level noise about car engine and horn sound. Then, the governments should preserve these areas for the Earth (지구를 의미할 경우에는 대문자 시작입니다.) this areas for the earth and following generations.
Another reason is that major businesses can invade local economy, for the businesses are full of convenience. Precisely, in Korean cities, it has been creating to a number of makrets which sell various products such as kitchen, bath and office equipments. Although individuals would be able to buy these equipments quickly and conveniently, other stores that sell only one type of products would have difficulty in obtaining income. If major businesses are introduced in the less developed areas, original markets will eventually lose competition. The This shows that the movement of major industries may rather worsen their economy.
To conclude, I can assume that movement of industries and businesses by authorities will result in uncontrollable problems due to the fact that serious environmental pollution may happen in the undeveloped regions and major businesses interfere with local economy. (단점이 장점을 웃돈다~를 명확히 밝혀주세요!)
|