In some countries, governments are encouraging industries and businesses to move to regional areas outside the big cities. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages?

Increasing local incomes and decreasing gapping of social are occurred, being the benefits if the government offers businesses to replace to rural areas. However, those have the negative in controversy of local people' land and natural sources. Displacement of industries and businesses to remote areas from big city leads to increase local income, making prosperous society. That is to say, if there are some new infrastructure buildings, needing employees, those owners will take from local people, although those buildings are more likely to lead land disputes with local communities. For instance, in the last ten years in Serdang Bedagai North Sumatra, 3 food factories and 2 well-known clothing businesses require more than 1, 000 workers, and most business owners are looking for local employees, as well as many local residents are setting up restaurants around the company. Thus, they obtain an increase in earnings. In addition, social inequality will disappear with equal distribution of jobs if the authority recommends businesses to redeploy their location to suburban areas. This is because the equal distribution of community welfare is realized evenly in the villages, although the exploitation of natural resources in rural areas will occur. For example, in Samosir island North Sumatra, the poverty in there had started to decrease around 80% due to many visitors getting holiday since many tourism locations were built in 2010 compared to Medan, having more tourism locations. Therefore, people in there had the permanent livelihoods to fulfill their daily needs. In conclusion, the positive impacts from businesses moving to remote areas are rising incomes and discrepancy of local people, while those have disadvantages with unpleasantness' owners and enviroment. Can the government maintain those benefits over time?