World Development Report 1984
World Development Report 1984
World Development Report 1984
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
development in areas already settled, on improve- interest loans to promote capital-intensive indusments<br />
in urban policies and management, on elim- try, for example-may also exacerbate urban<br />
ination of price distortions (such as keeping food problems by encouraging rural-urban migration<br />
prices low) that encourage urban population without creating enough new urban jobs.<br />
growth, and on development of effective family Whatever the cause, the drift from countryside<br />
planning programs to reduce rates of natural pop- to city is a concern to governments. A 1983 UN<br />
ulation increase. survey of 126 governments of developing coun-<br />
Projections of urban growth (which were shown tries found that only 3 considered the distribution<br />
in Table 4.3) are not meant to predict what will of their populations "appropriate." Moreover, all<br />
actually happen-merely what would happen if three were governments of small island nations:<br />
historical trends continued. As such, projections Barbados, Malta, and Nauru. Concern was greatare<br />
sensitive to small changes in trends. There is est in Africa, the Middle East, and low-income<br />
evidence that the rate of urban growth in develop- Asia: virtually all governments in these regions<br />
ing countries slowed slightly after 1973 in response considered population distribution either "partito<br />
the world economic slowdown. That decrease ally appropriate" or "inappropriate." As a remcould<br />
produce a much smaller urban population edy, more than three-quarters of all respondents<br />
than shown by the projections. Though this would stated that they were pursuing policies to slow<br />
make urban growth easier to cope with, it would down or reverse internal migration.<br />
(without a compensating decline in the overall Between 1925 and 1950 at least 100 million peopopulation<br />
growth rate) imply faster rural growth. ple in the developing countries-about 10 percent<br />
of their rural population in 1925-migrated from<br />
The benefits and costs of urbanization the countryside to towns and cities. During the<br />
following twenty-five years, the numbers rose to<br />
Urban growth gives rise to economies of scale. an estimated 330 million, equivalent to almost a<br />
Industries benefit from concentrations of suppliers quarter of the rural population of the developing<br />
and consumers, which allow savings in communi- countries in 1950. Population movements within<br />
cations and transport costs. Large cities also pro- rural and urban areas, and temporary migration,<br />
vide big, differentiated labor markets and may have undoubtedly involved even more people,<br />
help to accelerate the pace of technological innova- although their numbers are not reliably known.<br />
tion. They also allow economies of scale for such<br />
services as water supply and electric power to be The role of internal migration<br />
exploited. Evidence from India suggests that substantial<br />
economies of scale are found in cities of up Current high rates of urban growth in developing<br />
to 150,000 inhabitants. The point at which dis- countries are only partly due to rural-urban migraeconomies<br />
creep in, because cities are too big, has tion. Natural population increase is estimated to<br />
not been clearly demonstrated. account for 60 percent of the rise in urban popula-<br />
Against these benefits, unemployment tends to tions, according to a UN sample of twenty-nine<br />
be higher in urban than rural areas. In a survey of developing countries. Perhaps another 8 to 15 perfourteen<br />
developing countries, only one (the cent is attributable to the reclassification of rural<br />
Islamic Republic of Iran) had a higher rural unem- areas to urban status. Additional evidence from<br />
ployment than urban unemployment rate; in six India, Kenya, and several West African countries<br />
countries the urban unemployment rate was more confirms this pattern.<br />
than twice the rural rate. Surveys confirm that air Although fertility rates are on average lower in<br />
pollution, congestion, social disturbances, crime, urban than in rural areas, differences within counand<br />
similar problems also increase disproportion- tries between urban and rural fertility tend to be<br />
ately with city size. But these problems are often small (see Chapter 6). Thus the effect of urbanizaaggravated<br />
by poor urban management. Typically, tion on aggregate fertility is limited in the short<br />
governments reduce the absorptive capacity of cit- run, especially because migrants tend to be of<br />
ies by intervening in labor markets (for instance, childbearing age, raising the number of births in<br />
through minimum wage legislation, and licensing cities even when the rate of fertility is lower. Naturequirements<br />
and restrictions on small busi- ral increase in urban areas is therefore substantial.<br />
nesses), and by pursuing inappropriate pricing Migration then puts even greater strain on the<br />
policies for public services. National economic pol- capacity of cities to cope with rapidly growing<br />
icies-which provide fiscal incentives and low- numbers. In broad perspective, the shift of people<br />
97