I would just point out how Henri Lefebvre would talk about the city-country dynamic.

I think he would say that until the nineteenth century, even the city was situated in a rural mindset.  City-dwellers knew the countryside was never far away and they realized that their urban energy was an accumulation of countryside production.

Modernity, however, has changed that.  In most of the developed world--and, importantly, in the "developing" world--"country folk" do not see themselves as primarily rural, but, rather, as producers for the city, for the market.  Lefebvre's point being that, while the city-rurual dynamic is in place in terms of physical space, the way humans think of themselves (no matter where they live) is completely urban.

Urban dwellers interested in sustainability now find themselves in the ironic position of having to convince rural folk to grow organic, skip petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, and "get in touch with the land."  This is not because farmers don't understand these concepts, but market forces have selected farmers over the last 150 years that embrace modernization and the "green revolution" (not green at all).  To compete with agribusiness and embrace seemingly rural values, farmers have had to adopt attitudes and self-defeating practices of fertilization associated with the urban in its worst forms.  So now enlightened urban dwellers realize they have to change their markets in order to influence those who see themselves as the producers for it.

(this is not to say that farmers were not producers for the city from the very beginning, simply that it was only certain farmers limited to nearby regions.  Transport has changed all that, and, more fundamentally, it has changed thier attitudes...)

Again, great work.

One of the great dilemmas for rural communities, at least in my country, has always been the great brain drain to the cities.  The general decline in the agrarian economies has meant diminished opportunities for young people.  At the same time, the lure of (at least perceived) greater opportunities in industrial or professional careers in urban centers has led many if not most rural youth to move away.  And it always seems that the best and brightest are the most likely to go.  

My job used to involve a lot of driving, all across western and southern Oklahoma.  A common and depressing aspect of that was the many, many small towns in rural Oklahoma that were and are in obvious decline.  Closed businesses, abandoned or poorly maintained housing, general signs of neglect and decline were all too common.  On the other hand, the larger urban centers of the state like Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman, are thriving.  New business activity and new housing developments are the rule in all of our larger urban centers.  The contrast with rural areas is striking.

Over time it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.  As more and more of the younger generation moves away, general economic activity declines, resulting in further diminished opportunities for those who stay.  That seemingly inexorable trend has been a reality for most rural communities for a couple of generations now, at least, and probably much longer than that.

I suspect that none of the above is unique to my country or my state.

We all bleed the same color.