Population, territory and sustainable development

126
As has been seen, the net rural-urban transfer can be estimated by applying the indirect survival
ratio method. 8 If the resulting value is then interpreted through the lens of the rural population (20% of the
population of the region), as in chapter IV, the levels point to a continuation of the rural exodus. If, on the
other hand, they are examined from the perspective of the urban population (80% of the total), the
conclusion is muddied, as it becomes clear that this is not a “rural avalanche,” although it is still an
important trend. The main finding and the main distinction that arise from this analysis is that the net ruralurban
transfer is not the main source of urban population growth, because it explains around 30% of the
increase (see table VIII.2). The remainder is explained by natural growth of the urban population itself.
Table VIII.2
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (20 COUNTRIES): RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION
OF NET RURAL-URBAN TRANSFER TO URBAN POPULATION GROWTH, 1980-2010
(Percentages)
Country
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Argentina 29.0 29.0 25.2 24.6
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 55.5 57.0 24.9 30.4
Brazil 40.3 41.9 37.5 38.1
Chile 8.0 11.2 22.6 23.1
Colombia 30.6 34.0 31.2 32.8
Costa Rica 42.7 45.1 45.7 46.3
Cuba 61.4 59.4 44.8 45.2
Dominican Republic 27.9 27.9 42.6 52.3
Ecuador 45.5 47.8 38.0 38.6 24.2 24.6
El Salvador 56.0 55.1 81.5 76.1
Guatemala 39.9 42.1 55.3 54.9
Haiti 48.3 50.9 58.2 118.5
Honduras 42.2 49.0 41.5 45.6
Mexico 40.1 34.3 32.4 32.9 20.5 30.6
Nicaragua 23.8 27.7 28.9 37.8
Panama 36.3 40.6 51.5 51.9 30.7 32.7
Paraguay 45.6 50.6 42.4 48.0
Peru 32.3 35.0 38.3 41.1
Uruguay 37.5 35.5 30.9 35.9
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 20.6 23.3 19.2 20.4
Total 37.1 37.6 35.1 36.1
Source: Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) - Population Division of ECLAC, on the basis of
census data using indirect survival ratio procedures.
These percentages vary by country. In some, rural-urban transfer still represents over 50% of
urban population growth; in others the share is less than 30% (see table VIII.2). The countries where
rural-urban transfer accounts for a higher relative share of urban population growth are generally less
8
These estimates are orders of magnitude and not precise figures, since they are based on procedures whose
assumptions are not robust. Moreover, they provide the net rural-urban transfer rate, which combines the net
rural-urban migration balance and the reclassification of localities. The results therefore tend to be overstated,
because the reclassification of localities usually involves the “upgrading” of localities from rural to urban due to
population growth.