The link between economic strength and urbanization
can be seen in the concentration of the world's large cities in
its largest economies (see Table 1). In 2000, the world's five largest
economies (USA, China, Japan, India and Germany) had nine of the
world's 16 largest cities (the so called 'mega-cities' each with
10 million or more inhabitants) and nearly half of all the cities
with one million or more inhabitants. By 2000, all but two of the
world's 16 mega-cities and more than two thirds of its million-cities
were in the 20 largest economies. Similarly, within each of the
world's regions, most of the largest cities are concentrated in
the largest economies - for instance, Brazil and Mexico in Latin
America and China, India, Indonesia and the Republic of Korea in
Asia. Note that this association of large cities and large economies
does not relate to the average income per person but to the total
size of the national economy.
There are certain features of urban areas that
might be considered parasitic. For instance, they may concentrate
a disproportionate share of public investment in infrastructure
and services, so provision for water, sanitation, health care, schools
and other key needs are better there - although this is not always
the case - see later. Cities may be considered parasitic in an ecological
sense, as they can impose high environmental costs on their surrounds,
drawing resources and dumping wastes. This is not inherent to cities
however, but is related to the actions of particular groups in cities
and to poor governance. As a later section discusses, there are
many positive links between rural and urban areas, especially between
urban demand and the prosperity of farmers. Certain groups within
each national population that are exploitative (or may be judged
to be) are usually concentrated in cities - the very rich including
large landowners and owners or shareholders in successful industries
or service enterprises, corrupt politicians and civil servants -
but it is not the city they live in that is exploitative. Certainly,
there is a need for development patterns and governance structures
that are less exploitative, that uphold poorer groups' civil and
political rights, that build in transparency and accountability
to undermine possibilities of corruption, that ensure better working
conditions and that prevent industries and urban concentrations
passing on ecological burdens. But this does not imply a need for
anti-urban policies.
It is still common to see "bright lights"
theories used to explain rapid urban growth (rural migrants being
attracted by cities' bright lights) but more than three decades
of careful research shows how most migration flows are rational
responses to changing patterns of economic opportunity or social
advancement (especially through education) - or simply responses
to severe deprivation or exploitation. Assumptions are often made
that urban poverty grows because poor rural migrants flock to cities
and live in squatter settlements yet most of the inhabitants of
many squatter settlements are city-born. They live there because
they cannot afford better accommodation, not because they have arrived
recently from the countryside. And what goes unnoticed is the dynamism,
innovation and investment that so many 'poor' people bring to cities.
The 'urban poor' are responsible for building most new homes and
neighbourhoods in most cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America
over the last few decades. The scale of their investment in the
city as they build and develop their own homes and neighbourhoods
(and often small enterprises) is generally far higher than the investments
made by governments and international agencies. The total investment
per person per year made by most urban governments is the equivalent
of less than US$10; it is often less than US$1. The value of the
investments made each year by most low income households who have
managed to obtain land on which to build is considerably larger
than this.
The world is less urbanised in 2000 than was
expected and one reason why is the slow economic growth (or the
economic decline) that many low and middle income nations have experienced
since 1980. This helps explain slower population growth rates for
many cities in Africa and Latin America. Part of this is related
to structural adjustment policies that brought declines in employment,
real incomes and urban welfare, and proved to be less successful
than hoped in stimulating economic growth.
The changing distribution of large cities around
the world reflects changing patterns of economic advantage. Table
2 shows the changing distribution of the world's largest cities
by region over the last 200 years. The rapid increase in the number
of 'million-cities' in Asia between 1950 and 2000 and Asia's much-increased
share of the number of the world's largest cities reflects its much
increased share of the world economy during this period.
The fact that what are often termed 'developing
countries' have most of the world's largest cities is often raised
as a cause of concern. But historically, these countries have always
had many or most of the world's largest cities; what is more unusual
is the brief period during which first Europe and then North America
came to concentrate so many of the world's largest cities. During
most of the 8,000 years or so of recorded urban history and pre-history,
Asia has had a high concentration of the world's urban population
and most of its largest cities. In 1800, it had more of the world's
largest cities than it has today (see table 2) although its share
in the world's largest cities is increasing and is likely to continue
increasing, reflecting its increasing share in the world economy.
Many of Asia's largest cities today have very long histories as
important cities, including Tokyo (and its historic predecessor
Edo), Beijing (formerly Peking), Guangzhou (formerly Canton) and
Istanbul (formerly Constantinople). By comparison, Calcutta and
Mumbai may be relatively new - but they still have urban histories
of several hundred years. North Africa has also had several of the
world's largest and most important cities for long periods - Cairo,
Alexandria, Fez and Tunis (formerly Carthage). Historically, what
is today called Latin America has long had most of the largest cities
in the Americas - both before and after the European conquests.
In 1800, Latin America had three of the world's 100 largest cities
and North America had none.
[ top ]
|