I'm trying to figure out how the three sociological perspectives would view this. Functionalism perspective, conflict perspective, and the interactionist perspective?
I would have to agree that solutions can only be found depending upon how one interprets a problem. Not all people tend to think in the same way; therefore, one could not apply a single perspective to all issues. Perspectives are simply based upon an individual's own feelings, insights, and history.
A conflict perspective would look at the broader forces of power and wealth that created conditions that caused people to leave the countryside for the cities. These might include government policies, deployment of capital in buying up small farms, the role of multinational corporations, etc. They would not simply be interested in conflicts in the countryside.
The solution would lie in how the problem is percieved. Why do people move to the city? From a functional perspective, they move there to get jobs and increase economic opportunities. If you don't want them to, create economic opportunities in the rural areas the people are moving from, for example. A conflict perspective would suggest that conflicts in the rural areas are leading people to leave, so you must deal with those conflicts.
I don't think that the perspectives would have a soution. They'd just say what it means. Functionalism would talk about how migration to cities fills the need for workers who could help the country industrialize. Conflict people would talk about it being caused by landlords in the country and about how it would lead to more conflict between rich and poor. Interactions say it will depend on how the people are perceived. Are the migrants perceived as a source of hope and labor or as a source of crime and other problems?