Population, territory and sustainable development

178
As for the effects of metropolitan concentration, specifically the strong primacy of the metropolis,
that is, the degree of demographic concentration of a country’s capital city, there is widespread consensus
in political and academic circles as to the problems associated with this phenomenon (IDB, 2011).
Among other areas of convergence, it is widely accepted that this degree of concentration would be an
obstacle to economic growth once a certain threshold of development is reached (Williamson, 1965;
Wheaton and Shishido, 1981; Henderson, 2000). With very little variance, these authors conclude in their
studies that there is an inverted-U relationship between economic development and urban concentration
that represents the most obvious expression of territorial disparities. According to this relationship,
economic growth drives urban concentration until a saturation point is reached at intermediate per capita
income levels, at which point urban concentration levels begin to fall.
There is further consensus on the “urban deficits” analysed in chapter VIII and their association
with swift population growth and mass migration from the countryside, although these are no longer
significant factors for many large cities, a topic that is examined later. As explained in chapter VIII, rural
to urban migration dominated the attention of governments, analysts and public opinion during the second
half of the twentieth century. This type of migration was studied much more than any other and was also
the subject of the most drastic interventions, generally designed to discourage or redirect it. 3
This interest can be attributed to a number of different factors, including evidence of the
enormous number of immigrants who arrived in these cities, fuelling rapid and sustained population
growth. However, even more significant were the obstacles, lack of capacity and even negligence on the
part of metropolitan authorities in meeting the needs of this tidal wave of immigrants. People migrated in
search of work and better living conditions, which supposedly could be had in the cities but most
certainly could not in their places of origin, from which they were virtually expelled owing to lack of
opportunities or even worse situations. Regarding access to employment, as explained in the description
of the analysis of rural-to-urban migration, jobs became harder and harder to come by in the formal
sector, propelling rapid growth in the informal sector, which despite the lack of job security offered better
pay and prospects than did rural or small town economies. Until the 1980s, weak job creation in the
formal sector was basically offset with low quality jobs in the informal sector. This changed, however,
with the debt crisis and the “lost decade” because the economic collapse was so deep that not even the
informal sector went unscathed. As a result, unemployment climbed into the double digits in several
countries and national job creation capacity floundered for several years. In fact, not even the five-year
boom between 2003 and 2008 was enough to get regional unemployment back under 7%.
In any event, practically since mass migration to the large cities began, there has been no doubt
that the government’s traditional role in providing public services, social protection and social services is
crucial, given immigrants’ impoverished living conditions and precarious tenure, whether in the city or on
its outskirts, often as a result of invasions, takeovers, or squatting. However, structural deficiencies and
weaknesses in the delivery of goods, services and protection have left an indelible mark on Latin
America’s cities. The clear manifestation of this holdover debt is the image of chaotic large cities; of
aggressive large cities, especially metropolises and megalopolises; of poor and neglected peripheries; and
of informal settlements with no services in high-risk areas. Despite the achievements made by these cities
3
Mexico’s first population programme, which was launched under the General Population Act of 1973,
introduced a demographic growth target of 1% for 2000 and established the first National Population Council
(CONAPO) in the region. The slogan of this programme with respect to migration was known as “the three r’s”:
retention of population, especially in the countryside and small cities; relocation of population, especially to
coastal areas and along the northern border, including migration from large cities, and redirection of migration
flows, in order to diversify them and prevent concentration in the capital.