Làm thử Đề thi thử tốt nghiệp THPT · Tiếng Anh · Đề 104

Question 14. a. "As a result, more universities now offer flexible online courses so that working professionals like this accountant can update their skills without leaving their jobs."
b. "Lifelong learning has become essential in a world where technology changes so quickly."
c. "For example, an accountant might need to learn new accounting software every few years just to remain qualified for the job they already have."
d. "This means that people can no longer rely solely on the qualifications they earned in their twenties."

Question 15. a. "Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts, so let me know when you're free to chat."
b. "Dear Minh,"
c. "I hope you're doing well. I'm writing because I've just been offered an internship at a marketing agency, and I wanted your advice before I decide."
d. "The main problem is that it would mean postponing my final exams by a semester, which worries me a little."
e. "Best wishes, Lan"

Question 16. a. "Despite these concerns, many experts argue that AI will create as many jobs as it displaces."
b. "Artificial intelligence is transforming the way people work across almost every industry."
c. "In manufacturing, for instance, robots now handle tasks that used to require dozens of workers."
d. "New roles such as data analysts and AI trainers, for example, barely existed a decade ago."
e. "However, this rapid change has also raised fears about job losses among manual workers."

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

In cities across Asia and Europe, more and more building walls are being covered with living plants instead of concrete or glass. These structures, known as vertical gardens, first appeared on a handful of experimental buildings around the turn of the century, but they have since become a familiar sight on office towers, shopping centres and even car parks. One of the most striking examples is a 24-storey apartment block in Milan, whose balconies hold more than eight hundred trees and thousands of smaller plants. When the tower opened in 2014, engineers were still testing the irrigation system, and the architect later said the plants had grown faster than expected.

Built on a lightweight steel frame attached to the outer wall, a vertical garden usually consists of layers of felt or plastic pockets that hold soil and root systems in place. Water and nutrients must be pumped up to every level by an automated irrigation system, since rainfall alone cannot reach plants several floors above the ground. Engineers also have to select species carefully, since a plant that thrives on a windy balcony may not survive in a shaded corner near street level.

The benefits go well beyond appearance. A wall covered in greenery can lower the surface temperature of a building by several degrees, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed for air conditioning in summer. Plants also filter dust and absorb carbon dioxide, so a single large vertical garden can noticeably improve air quality in a busy street. Because they attract insects and birds that would otherwise struggle to find a home among concrete and glass, vertical gardens have quietly turned many city blocks into small pockets of biodiversity.

Despite these advantages, vertical gardens remain expensive to install and maintain. The irrigation systems require constant checking, and dead or diseased plants must be replaced quickly before they affect their neighbours. For this reason, most vertical gardens so far have appeared on high-profile commercial buildings rather than ordinary homes, where the up-front cost is harder to justify. Still, as cities look for cheap ways to cut heat and pollution, architects expect the idea to spread further.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.

Several forces continue to pull people toward cities. [I] Employment is usually the strongest pull factor, since urban economies tend to offer a far wider range of jobs than farming or small-scale trade in the countryside can provide. [II] Education is another powerful draw, as universities and specialised training institutes are disproportionately concentrated in major urban centres. [III] Many young people, having grown up watching relatives struggle to make a living from agriculture, come to see a move to the city as the only realistic path toward a stable income. [IV] Improved transport links have also made the move easier, cutting travel time from days to hours.

These flows of people bring clear benefits to both the cities that receive them and the villages they leave behind. Migrant workers typically send a portion of their wages back home, and in many developing countries these remittances now add up to a sum larger than the country's entire earnings from foreign aid. Cities, meanwhile, gain access to a large and often young workforce that keeps industries and services running. It is this workforce, more than any single policy, that has allowed many Asian megacities to expand their economies so rapidly over the past thirty years.

Yet rapid urban growth also creates serious strains. Housing supply in many cities has been unable to keep up with demand, pushing rents beyond what many newcomers can afford and forcing them into informal settlements that often lack reliable water or electricity. Public services such as hospitals and schools, originally built for a smaller population, quickly become overcrowded. When a city's infrastructure expands more slowly than its population, the resulting gap tends to fall hardest on the poorest and most recently arrived residents. Traffic congestion, air pollution and rising crime are also often linked, at least in the public mind, to rapid growth rather than to a city's size alone.

Governments have responded to these pressures in different ways. Some have invested heavily in affordable housing and public transport, hoping that better planning can absorb future arrivals more smoothly. Others have tried, with limited success, to slow migration by improving rural conditions so that fewer people feel compelled to move at all. Few experts believe migration to big cities can or should be stopped altogether; the more realistic goal, most agree, is to manage its pace so that cities grow without leaving residents behind.