- Email: [email protected]
Development and Urbanization
Development and Urbanization Diane E Davis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Alexander M Keating, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This article is a revision of the previous edition article by D.E. Davis, volume 6, pp. 3560–3566, Ó 2001, Elsevier Ltd.
Abstract This article examines the interrelationship between economic prosperity and the growth of cities, tracing the field from its original preoccupation with overurbanization and underdevelopment in the 1950s and 1960s to its current fixation on dynamic global cities with redeveloped property markets that showcase new forms of wealth creation. The historical change in emphasis chronicled here is understood to be combined product of three different causalities. The first is the shift from industrialization to financial and other services as the principal source of wealth creation in the post-1980s era. The second is the changing territorial scale of accumulation, reflected in the shifting importance of global markets vis-à-vis national markets and in the increasingly key mediating role that cities play in facilitating this transition. The third is the rescaling of state power, seen not just in terms of decentralization but also in the declining capacities of national states to discipline global investors in an era of intensifying economic liberalization. The article ends with a discussion of the emergent social and spatial problems that accompany these shifts, ranging from the rise of urban informality to dispossession and displacement to newfound struggles over urban property rights.
Economists, sociologists, political scientists, and anthropologists as well as demographers and planners have long theorized a direct connection between national development, understood economically and/or politically, and the growth of cities. But there has been little consensus about the nature and direction of the relationship, the desirability of analytically linking these processes, and how to define both terms. Reigning ideas have shifted in the face of new theoretical paradigms and as the territorial scope and essential character of markets, states, and cities themselves transform. Unresolved issues include which urban dynamics most enable or constrain developmental patterns, and whether the global phenomenon of rapid urbanization, intensifying economic globalization, and worldwide population concentration in cities have changed our theoretical or empirical understanding of these processes.
Historical Antecedents Most scholarship on the relationship between development and urbanization traces its intellectual origins to writings by nineteenth- and early twentieth-century sociologists and economic historians who sought to account for the development of capitalism, the nation-state, and social modernization in early Europe, and who posited a direct and positive role for cities in these fundamental transformations (see State Formation, Theory of; Modernization, Sociological Theories of; Capitalism).
Cities and Development in the Early Modern World In early modern Europe, cities emerged from and fueled processes of capital accumulation, by virtue of their role as exchange nodes in local, national, and international trade (Pirenne, 1936; Weber, 1927). Their growth also was tied to the demise of feudal or absolutist orders (Weber, 1958) and the rise of the modern nation-state (Tilly, 1975). By the late
282
nineteenth century, cities also served as the sites in which the social relations of modernity materialized (Durkheim, 1933; Simmel, 1950), in turn transforming markets and states.
Twentieth-Century Developments In the twentieth century when nationalism, war, empire, trade, democracy, and fascism required European attention, many US scholars turned to the study of cities. This was a time when American society demographically tipped its balance to become more urban than rural, and when new waves of postwar black migration combined with renewed streams of international migration to spark interest in the social relations of urban life. Initial research concentrated on the social process and experience within cities, ranging from ghetto life, immigrant social clubs, and gang organization to criminality. Few social scientists chose to examine the larger political and economic processes that engendered patterns of urbanization in the US, as occurred among European urban scholars; and even fewer tried to link urbanism or urbanization to patterns of national development, understood either politically or economically. It was only when US sociologists began studying cities comparatively and historically, starting in the 1950s and during a period of post-WWII expansionism, that debates over the relationship between development and urbanization garnered a central place. When the March 1955 (Vol. 60, No. 5) edition of the American Journal of Sociology published an entire volume on ‘World Urbanism’, the importance of these themes was firmly established. The desire to examine other parts of the world was partly grounded in a passion for testing ideas drawn from the European-derived grand theoretical narratives of sociology. Practically the only counterfactual cases available for confirming prevailing propositions about the connection between urbanization and developmental progress – whether understood in terms of democratic state formation, capitalist development, and/or ‘modern’ social values – were the countries of
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10102-3
Development and Urbanization
the so-called underdeveloped world of Latin America, East Asia, and Africa. These were countries of the world racked with poverty, limited industrialization, and governed primarily under oligarchic pacts or by despotic or authoritarian governments (see Attitudes Political: Authoritarianism and Toleranced). To the extent that their urbanization patterns also differed across country contexts, scholars were inspired to revisit general claims about development and urbanization, as well as to ascertain how these two processes were articulated in practice. Working under the influence of the Chicago School, initial scholarship on what were then called Third World cities focused primarily on the folk-urban continuum and urbanization as a social process, including the ways that urbanization produced individualism and severed kinship bases of social organization (see, e.g., Hauser, 1957; Redfield, 1941, 1953). Over time, interest grew in urbanization as a demographic and spatial process, with scholars examining patterns of population concentration and the growth of cities in a wide variety of comparative and historical contexts (Berry, 1973; Hauser and Schnore, 1965), occasionally linking them to general propositions about national development. In addition to Hauser and Schnore’s seminal The Study of Urbanization (1965), the Chicago-based journal Economic Development and Cultural Change served as an important outlet for new ideas on the topic.
Twentieth-Century Dilemmas: Questioning the Nature and Direction of Causality It was one thing to quantify urban population patterns across time and place (Davis, 1969; Hoyt, 1962), to identify the extent to which urbanism, as a social attribute, materialized in different localities around the world (Breese, 1966; Mangin, 1970), and to elucidate growth processes in these cities (Gugler, 1978; McGee, 1971). American social scientists were quite good at these tasks, especially the first; and their successes helped catapult the field of demography onto the disciplinary map in the 1960s and 1970s (see, e.g., Goldscheider, 1971; Goldstein and Sly, 1979). It was quite another to demonstrate a direct relationship between urbanization and patterns of economic development, especially within the confines of the nation-state, the unit that most social scientists were then using for assessing such issues. It was on these latter counts that scholars were least successful, and that longstanding propositions about the positive relationships between urbanization and national development began to generate widespread skepticism. As Third World cities burgeoned over the 1960s and 1970s, scholars faced the fact that even with high urbanization rates, developmental gains in most of the late industrializing world remained minimal, not just in comparison to the modal patterns established in Europe and the United States, but also as measured in per capita income, gross national product, and practically all other standard macroeconomic indicators (Friedmann, 1967). With dependency theory taking center stage at about the same period of time, certain attributes of both urbanization and national development were thus traced to colonial or mercantile relations that spanned national
283
boundaries rather than to political, social, and economic conditions within the formal confines of the nation-state (see Dependency Theory). These transnational relations modified urbanization and development processes, at least when compared to early modern Europe, even as they raised new questions about the best unit of analysis to study the nature and direction of the proposed relationship. Did urbanization husband development, or vice versa; and was it possible that in the late developmental context the relationship between the two sets of processes was more likely to be negative than positive, with one impeding rather than facilitating the other? The answers to these questions shifted over time.
Development and Urbanization c. 1950: A Positive Synergy The predominant argument in the 1950s and early 1960s was that the plight of developing nations and their low rates of urbanization owed to their ‘backward’ social and economic nature, which not only explained why industrialization was minimal, but also why tradition-bound peasants demographically outbalanced ‘modern’ urban folk. Analytical attention was directed toward how to facilitate one so the other would follow suit, a normative preoccupation pervasive in American social science and quite consistent with US foreign policy goals of the times. There were disagreements about which domain deserved intervention first. Some urban scholars argued that the best way to jump-start Third World development was to shift population and resources out of the countryside and into the city, where industry could expand and modern values flourish (Herrick, 1965; Field, 1970). Others called for more foreign aid or national investment to buttress urban economies, primarily through industrialization (Richardson, 1973), in the hopes that such macroeconomic policies would stimulate employment opportunities and perhaps even produce individuals inculcated with rationality and enough achievement drive to sustain further urban and national gains (see Industrialization). Despite policy disagreements, both schools of thought expressed enough faith in the idea of a positive relationship between development and urbanization to keep it alive, albeit embodied in a variety of paradigmatic forms. Over the 1960s and 1970s, one particularly popular variant was demographic, as those interested in urbanization as a social process looked for linkages between urban growth and national development in fertility patterns as well as family structure and employment. During this period ideas about the demographic transition, at times recast in terms of the ‘urban transition’ (Friedmann, 1975), generated considerable interest among economists and sociologists, who developed expert quantitative skills that sustained a field of research broadly understood as ‘population studies’. Those less preoccupied with the social or economic behavior of individuals and more interested in overall patterns of city growth and distribution were more likely to concern themselves with ideas about the proper balance between urban and rural populations (El-Shakhs, 1974; Friedmann and Alonso, 1964). During this period, scholars who assumed that the US served as a model of successful economic development paid
284
Development and Urbanization
considerable attention to the extent to which urban systems in developing countries achieved a lognormal rank-size distribution, as opposed to being dominated by one or two large ‘primate’ cities (Berry, 1961), basing their interest on the assumption that rank-size lognormality correlated with economic development. In counterattack, these ideas were criticized as inherently Western-biased, if not drawn directly from the American experience, and thus inapplicable in the Third World (El-Shakhs, 1972; McGreevey, 1971). While there was no resolution on this contentious issue, in the process the concept of ‘overurbanization’ gathered widespread attention, since a city could only be ‘too’ urbanized if it grew beyond its expected and economically efficient size, which often was calculated on the basis of a rank-size distribution logic. To the extent that most Third World countries fell into the latter camp, with their cities ballooning in size beyond their fiscal and infrastructural capacities, scholars began to study the internal social and demographic processes that fueled patterns of overurbanization, and what Michael Lipton (1977) called ‘urban bias’, including rural–urban migration and the national investment decisions that over privileged a few urban centers at the expense of struggling provincial towns and the impoverished countryside. Still, concerns about city systems died hard, rematerializing in slightly new packaging in the 1980s in the form of arguments about the importance of ‘secondary cities’ to sustaining national development (Hardoy and Satterthwaite, 1986; Rondinelli, 1983). This claim, like the rank-size distribution argument, was built on the understanding that (smaller) size and (more equal) distribution of cities mattered; and both arguments confirmed the preoccupation with a relationship between patterns of urbanization and development that had initiated and sustained the field. But far from merely confirming a connection between cities and national development, these findings laid the foundation for an immanent critique of long-standing claims. Indeed, to the extent that the burgeoning growth of Third World cities was soon seen as an obstacle to economic well-being, there was now evidence that a positive relationship between urbanization and development was effectively reversed on substantive grounds, even if analytically the connection remained. To be sure, there were scholars who conceived of large cities as economically efficient localizers of economies of scale, and they continued to claim a positive relationship between large-scale urbanization and development (Richardson, 1973). But by and large, promoters of this idea were arguing against a tide of contrary evidence.
Development and Urbanization, c.1975: A Destructive Relationship The ascendance of ideas about a negative relationship between urbanization and development owed partly to the fact that between 1950 and 1975 conditions in the developing world changed dramatically. This was the period when most Third World cities began to grow enormously, outpacing the capacities of their governments to invest in infrastructure or sustain industrial output in ways that contributed to national development. With large cities peopled by new migrants and un- or
underemployed folk with limited education and skills for a newly industrializing economy, they soon were seen as a drain on national coffers. The increasing urban inequality and economic polarization accompanying these trends also sustained urban social movements and overall political coalitions that themselves limited national developmental prospects by bringing to power governments with restrictions on foreign investment, populist economic policies, and/or protectionist measures that frequently undermined short-term efficiency goals. These social and political problems became so salient in the urban landscape of the developing world that eventually scholars turned attention directly to them (see Abu-Lughod and Hay, 1977; Gugler, 1988; Mangin, 1970), partially eclipsing the concern with national development. Among the most documented issues were urban housing and employment scarcities, rural–urban migration flows, illegal settlements and urban ‘marginality,’ and migrant or informal sector politics (Cornelius, 1973; Drakakis-Smith, 1987; Perlman, 1976). This is not to say that all those who looked internally to cities over the 1970s and 1980s failed to examine the larger relationships between urbanization and national development that had consumed their predecessors. Economists at the World Bank and other macroeconomic policymakers loyal to free market ideals continued to study urban economies of scale and the ways urban growth interfaced with industrialization, still seen as the principal route toward prosperity; although they too concerned themselves with questions about housing, illegal settlements, and urban service scarcities more generally (Linn, 1983). Likewise, but on an entirely different front, sociologists and political scientists began to examine the national political conditions that made these urban problems so pervasive (Eckstein, 1977; Gilbert and Ward, 1985; Rabinowitz, 1973; Roberts, 1978). But this also meant that urban scholars were focusing as much on political as economic developments, linking urbanization patterns to national politics as much as markets (see Populism). When dependency theory emerged as a dominant paradigm among both resident and foreign scholars of the developing world over the 1970s and 1980s, fewer scholars began to pose questions about the relations between urbanization and national development unless they were framed within a focus on international economic conditions (Castells and Velez, 1971; Portes and Walton, 1981; Walton, 1985); and even fewer saw the articulation of urban and national development in positive terms, as had their predecessors. If anything, when urbanization was linked to capital accumulation, the social effects were seen as relatively negative (Armstrong and McGee, 1985). By the late 1980s, the main idea in good currency was that capitalist development on a global scale produced and/or reinforced mercantilist relations that fueled the growth of cities, even as they disadvantaged the countryside or the nation as a whole. Using a global framing, scholars focused not just on the ways that unequal, semi-imperial relations between core and periphery brought a few large cities, themselves parasitic with respect to their hinterlands. They also examined the ways these relations produced a form of ‘internal colonialism’ predicated on extreme income and investment polarization between city and countryside, which further fueled migration,
Development and Urbanization
contributed to overurbanization, and reinforced income and other inequalities within cities themselves (see Timberlake, 1985). The argument for a negative relationship between urbanization and sustained or autonomous national development thus reached new heights of acceptance (see World Systems Theory).
Development and Urbanization, c.1990: Disarticulated Processes The growing popularity of world-system theory over the 1980s and 1990s may have strengthened scholars’ understandings of the strong connections between urbanization and (under) development (Smith, 1996); but in the long run it contributed to the analytic disarticulation of cities and nations, thereby casting a mortal blow to studies of relations between these two domains. As scholars joined the worldsystem bandwagon and bypassed the nation-state as a unit of analysis, few examined national development as analytically distinct from global processes. Those development scholars who did concern themselves with the domestic dynamics of macroeconomic development rarely reserved a place for cities in their analytic frameworks, turning instead to states, classes, and the global economy. The result was that scholars who analyzed cities in the developing world did so increasingly in the context of global economic conditions (Friedmann, 1986; Abu-Lughod, 1989), even as most scholars of national development ignored cities by and large. This analytic disarticulation of urbanization and national development was further fueled by intellectual and political dynamics in the developing world. With many countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia becoming less democratic and more authoritarian throughout the 1960s and 1970s, their states became stronger and more repressive. These political regimes tended to privilege capital over labor and cities over the countryside, using macroeconomic policy, national investments, and targeted subsidies to accomplish these aims. Resident and foreign observers saw little autonomy for cities, with urban development mostly dictated by powerful (if not militarized) national states. This was most evident in the largest cities, home to their nation’s most significant industries and investments; but it also was seen as a pattern more generally. The result: in studies of the Third World, urban dynamics were frequently subsumed under national ones. This conceptual sleight of hand may have reinforced views about the direct relationship between city and nation to some extent; but it also chipped away at the analytic distinction between urban and national dynamics. And with these two processes increasingly collapsed into each other, the tendency was to examine one or the other, but not the interactive relationship between the two. Among the few still fervently examining the direct connections between urbanization and national economic development were neoclassical economists, along with World Bank staff and their clients. They worked under the supposition that by facilitating and/or managing cities, national actors could ensure productivity, efficiency, and the flow of people and goods sufficiently to maximize overall development. Yet in most of the nonapplied fields, urbanists and developmentalists hardly spoke to one another.
285
A New Articulation (or, Development and Urbanization in the Age of Economic Globalization) By the turn of the millennium scholars began to widely accept the premise that globalization ought to be viewed as a central point of entry for studying changes in the contemporary world, thus bringing about renewed interest in the urbanizationdevelopment nexus. Initially, scholars became fixated with cities of enormous size and importance, whose growth and character owed to the role they play not just within their national borders, but also within global networks of production and consumption (Henderson and Castells, 1987; Lo and Yeung, 1998; Sassen, 1991, 2000). This realization also produced a shift in terminology. Few scholars referred to Third World cities anymore, preferring instead ‘cities of the global south’ (or north) or the concept of world or global cities, both in recognition of the unequal world distribution of production and consumption wealth. The idea of world cities was not new of course (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982); and much of the work drew inspiration from earlier writings on overurbanization in Third World cities in which the inflated size and rapid growth of primate cities was linked to unequal relations of exchange between so-called core and peripheral economies. But as economic globalization continued to bring rich and poor countries into the same orbit, scholars were more willing to think about cities in global rather than national context, hence the popularity of world or global city nomenclature. Similarly, world cities were less likely to be seen as fetters on the national development of their host countries, and more likely to be perceived as the mechanisms through which global economic integration took root. Such views not only challenged the dependency era understandings of the destructive impact of global dynamics on cities and nations, they were also accompanied by a new geographic focus among urbanists. Over the period 1960–2000 most scholars interested in the urbanization-economic development nexus examined the poorer countries of the global south; but by the 1990s the US and Europe were back in the center of the conceptual map (King, 1990; Sassen, 1991), with cities like New York, London, Tokyo, and Paris taking center stage as global cities where urban employment patterns, shifts in sectoral character, and spatial forms were seen as products of the globalization of capital and labor (Fainstein et al., 1992; Sassen, 1991). The analytical focus also produced a renewed interest in the changing ‘locations’ or economic roles these cities played in a regional, national, or international hierarchy of urban places (see Knox and Taylor, 1995). But as the global system of world cities itself began to transform, new questions began to emerge as to whether those cities with the greatest potential to generate national or even international developmental gains were indeed sited in the advanced capitalist world (see Robinson, 2002; Gugler, 2004). Such queries have arisen in response to rapid and concentrated urbanization of cities in the emerging economies of India, China, Brazil, and other formerly poor regions where rapid and concentrated urbanization has been accompanied by massive wealth creation for individuals, urban authorities, and national accounts. As some scholars turned
286
Development and Urbanization
their attention to these urban transformations, chronicling the new cadre of city builders responsible for jumpstarting formerly lagging economies through global city branding (Ren, 2011), others began to criticize the rush to find new ways of categorizing cities in terms of their paradigmatic status (Beauregard, 2003; Brenner, 2003; Roy and Ong, 2011). Among those most willing to jettison superlatives and theorize cities in more ‘ordinary’ terms (Robinson, 2006) were those who also were willing to recognize that even the most prosperous cities in the late developing world still hosted high degrees of poverty, inequality, and extraordinarily high degrees of economic informality. As such, even with focus shifting to formerly poor regions of the world, questions persisted about nature of the relationship between development and urbanization, and whether the latter could really be seen as a route to prosperity if the scale of the city remained the unit of analysis.
Development in the ‘Urban Century’: Are Cities Leaving Nations Behind? Though exact projections differ, it is widely accepted that the global population reached and surpassed the demographic tipping point to become majority urban in or around 2008 (Satterthwaite, 2007). Within the contemporary study of urbanization and development, the more significant trend may be that nearly all population growth projected to take place globally over the next 30 years will be in developing-world cities throughout Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and that this growth is unlikely to slow significantly before 2030 (United Nations, 2012). Due to the high level of variation in national and subnational development trajectories throughout these regions, most notably between the comparatively highperforming economies of countries such as China, India, Singapore, and South Korea, and economically stagnant, but rapidly urbanizing countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, two distinct analytical frameworks have emerged within the current study of the development-urbanization nexus: one continues to articulate the role of cities and agglomeration economies as the principle drivers of economic and social development, while the other calls attention to the significant social and environmental costs associated with rapid and often unplanned urbanization. Those who argue that cities are the privileged sites for economic development have brought new analytical rigor to the debate by focusing on how urbanity unleashes creative potential through agglomeration and the spillover effects of knowledge economies in developed and developing world cities alike. These ideas, gaining popularity among economists in particular, view the proliferation of urban slums in the developing world not as markers of systemic weakness, but rather of ‘the city’s’ ability to attract rural poor through the promise of improved livelihoods and health (see Glaeser, 2011). In the developed world, attention is shifting to economic clusters in key cities or areas within them, with research suggesting that such experiments can support new, creative economies in previously declining, postindustrial cities and regions of the United States and Europe, thus reenergizing the study of the urban-economic development nexus at a scale smaller than the nation (see Porter, 2003).
As a sign of the globalization of ideas, cluster theory also migrated to the developing world, particularly in East Asia where bottlenecks among export-led industrializers pushed their national governments to invest in industrial clusters outside major cities. But the theoretical and practical significance of cluster theory in the developing world has been slow to gain a foothold in the face of the increasing national obsession with producing global cities that can showcase high-end real estate, global finance, and ICT activities, all considered the principal avenues through which cities and their nations were to prosper economically (Olds, 2011). The preoccupation with finance, services, communications, and other tertiary sector activities can be explained by international capital’s search for new investment outlets in the face of declines in industrial and agricultural output. Yet it also captures the imagination of investors – both public and private – in emerging economies that seek to generate national economic gains through more than export-led industrialization or agriculture. The cases of China and India are exemplary in these regards. In these and a selected array of other emerging economies, urbanization has become associated with major transformations of the urban built environment, often in the form of iconic architectural projects and massive mega-project developments that regularly coexist side by side with high overall levels of urban poverty and informality.
New Governance Arrangements The move to transform urban landscapes into the incubators and showcases of innovation and development is greatest in cities where decentralized governance has limited the local state’s fiscal capacities. In the search for fiscal incentives to attract the innovative classes, authorities have turned to the private sector for resources and ideas, thus increasing state willingness to support the building of global city landscapes. Reliance on local public–private partnerships for urban development is seen as enabling regional and national progress outside the typically slow moving and bureaucratic mechanisms of national-level governance, drawing strong comparisons with the introduction of Special Economic Zones, traditionally oriented toward industrial uses, in developing countries throughout the 1980s and 1990s (see Fuller and Romer, 2010). In the neoliberal era of decentralization and state downsizing, experiments that enable free market zones to guide development usually involve both public and private sector actors, as both share incentives to generate and capture revenues. But when local states begin to ally with real estate developers around such massive urban transformations, and when they join private investors in displacing or dispossessing residents from properties or locations, they often face political opposition. While similar challenges in the 1970s placed the analytic focus on the failure of the state to keep pace with increasing urban populations, contemporary scholars, and development agencies have broadened the focus to include the failure of the market, private sector investment, and neoliberal structural adjustment policies to adequately account for the needs of the urban poor (see Davis, 2004; Beall,
Development and Urbanization
2002; Harvey, 2008). Thus, to the extent that neo-liberal restructuring of urban space within the context of continued globalization produces extreme spatial fragmentation, exclusionary urban development, and local conflict, the route to global city status via transformation of urban land uses and accelerated real estate development rather than manufacturing and industrialization continues to be paved with social and political obstacles. For this reason, much of the recent work produced by scholars and high-profile multilateral development agencies continues to highlight the many negative externalities associated with the dispossession and dramatic transformations in urban land use deployed in order to pave the way for these new projects, including decreasing access to shelter and secure tenure for existing and incoming populations of urban poor and displacement of vulnerable populations to the urban periphery. Even among those scholars whose concern is less about land use change and more about the seemingly inexorable process of urbanization that draws ever larger proportions of a nation’s population into a circumscribed spatial orbit, assessments underline serious challenges. From inadequate infrastructure to environmental degradation to significant increases in urban poverty and rising rates of violence and insecurity (see Martine et al., 2008), rapidly urbanizing cities are seen as hosting a plethora of pathologies that persist in the midst of accelerating prosperity.
Urban Informality: Where Citizens, Urbanization, and Development Collide In the most rapidly urbanizing regions of the world, the management of urban informality, most clearly manifested through the increasing occurrence of slums and informal settlement patterns, has emerged as one of the most consistent lens through which scholars and practitioners now address the costs and benefits of rapid urbanization across the developing world (Roy and AlSayyad, 2004). While the cities of SubSaharan Africa have the highest rates of informality and slum growth as a percentage of total urban expansion, Asian cities are now home to the largest total number slum-dwellers, placing the issue at the center of a multidisciplinary debate over the role of urban informality as a driver or inhibitor of economic development. From an economic standpoint alone, the informal economy in developing nations, operating primarily in the urban periphery and ‘slum’ settlements, is estimated to account for upwards of 50% of all urban employment across the developing world (see Becker, 2004). Despite the observable increases in per capita economic productivity that accompany rural–urban migration, others point out that the lack of formal tenure and property rights which has accompanied the relative lack of affordable housing provision by local governments and the private sector alike, alongside the inadequate provision of educational opportunity, likely account for tens of billions of dollars of unrealized capital in slums (see de Soto, 2001; Yamauchi et al., 2009). Renewed interest in the forms and functionality of informal settlements is also closely related to the continued consolidation of human rights at the heart of development discourse,
287
most clearly articulated through the formulation and adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as primary measures of development and progress in the twenty-first century. The demographic shift to a majority urban global population, along with the expansion of urban footprints at rates that more than doubles that of urban population growth (see Angel et al., 2011) mean that the environmental, economic, and social impact of urbanization has a progressively more meaningful impact on national and global outcomes. In this capacity, cities have emerged as one of the few truly cross-cutting arenas in which to effectively implement policies and measure progress toward meeting the MDG targets (see Hasan et al., 2005).
Beyond the Urban: Rescaling the Territorialities of Development Though urbanization is likely to remain widely regarded as the primary source of development, employment, and capital accumulation in the decades to come, advances in data collection and analysis methods, along with renewed questioning of what spatial and demographic characteristics define the ‘urban’ as opposed to ‘periurban’ and ‘rural’, have led many to begin questioning the utility of these categorical indicators and whether they can truly measure relationships between urbanization and development outcomes. This is particularly true of comparative urban studies, which, more often than not, rely on census data that is markedly inconsistent internationally. Levels of urbanization in both India and China, for example, can be characterized well above or below 50% depending on the classification of ‘urban’ employed, posing serious questions about how to effectively utilize this data in policy formulation and planning efforts (see Satterthwaite, 2010; Zhang, 2004). The continued dissemination of information technologies has also lead many to question traditional differentiations between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ given the fact that many populations living outside the traditional limits of cities can now earn the majority of their income via nonagricultural employment. Moving beyond the demographic and spatial inconstancies in characterization of the ‘urban’, some headway is now being made in bridging the traditional, rigid differentiation between the literal and theoretical territories in which urban and ‘nonurban’ development articulations and trajectories play out. In her groundbreaking study of urban transformation in China, for example, You-Tien Hsing (2010) provides a strong historical case for a more holistic understanding of the developmenturbanization nexus through her description of how regional, rural, and urban land-management policies and practices have combined to profoundly impact everything from human rights and land tenure, to agricultural development and ecological sustainability, to the nature of state formation and capital accumulation in modern China. Further broadening the theoretical landscape of development, the analytical framework of ‘Planetary Urbanization’ (Brenner and Schmid, 2011) aims to actively integrate the various spatial scales and diverse social, political, and economic feedback loops through which urbanization is transforming the human experience. It seems likely that in the coming decades those questions
288
Development and Urbanization
emerging at center of the multidisciplinary study of development and urbanization will require increasingly dynamic understandings of the interconnected and fluid relationships between the city and its hinterlands, as well as the between regional, national, and global transformations that will accompany the continued process of urbanization.
See also: Attitudes, Political: Authoritarianism and Tolerance; Capitalism; Dependency Theory; Development Studies; Development: Social-Anthropological Aspects; Environment and Development; Industrialization; Migration and Development; Modernization, Sociological Theories of; Population Dynamics: Mathematic Models of Population, Development, and Natural Resources; Populism; State Formation, Theory of; Urbanization in Africa; Urbanization in China; Urbanization; World Systems Theory.
Bibliography Abu-Lughod, J., Hay, R. (Eds.), 1977. Third World Urbanization. Maaroufa Press, Chicago, IL. Abu-Lughod, J., 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250–1350. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Angel, S., et al., 2011. Making Room for a Planet of Cities. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. Armstrong, W., McGee, T.G., 1985. Theatres of Accumulation: Studies in Asian and Latin American Urbanization. Methuen, London. Beall, J., 2002. Globalization and social exclusion in cities: framing the debate with lessons from Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanization 14, 41–51. Beauregard, R., 2003. City of superlatives. City & Community 2, 183–199. Becker, K.F., 2004. The Informal Economy: Fact Finding Study. Department for Infrastructure and Economic Co-Operation, Sida. Berry, B.J.L., 1961. City distribution and economic development. Economic Development and Cultural Change 9, 573–578. Berry, B.J.L., 1973. The Human Consequences of Urbanization. St.Martin’s, New York. Breese, G., 1966. Urbanization in Developing Countries. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Brenner, N., 2003. Stereotypes, archetypes and prototypes: three uses of superlatives in contemporary urban studies. City & Community 2, 205–218. Brenner, N., Schmid, C., 2011. Planetary urbanisation. In: Gandy, M. (Ed.), Urban Constellations. JOVIS Publishers, Berlin. Castells, M., Velez, P. (Eds.), 1971. Imperialismo y urbanizacion en America Latina. Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, Spain. Clark, D., 1996. Urban World/Global City. Routledge, London. Cornelius, W., 1973. Political Learning Among the Migrant Poor. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Davis, D.E., 2004. Discipline and Development: Middle Classes and Economic Prosperity in East Asia and Latin America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Davis, D.E., 2005. Cities in global context: a brief intellectual history. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (1), 92–109. Davis, K., 1969. World Urbanization, 1950–1970. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Drakakis-Smith, D., 1987. The Third World City. Methuen, London. Durkheim, E., 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. Macmillan, London. Eckstein, S., 1977. The Poverty of Revolution: The State and the Urban Poor in Mexico. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. El-Shakhs, S., 1972. Development, primary, and system of cities. Journal of Developing Areas 7, 11–35. El-Shakhs, S., 1974. Urbanization, National Planning, and Regional Development in Africa. Praeger Publishers, New York. Fainstein, S., Gordon, I., Harloe, M., 1992. Divided Cities: New York and London in the Contemporary World. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Field, A. (Ed.), 1970. City and Countryside in the Third World: Issues in the Modernization of Latin America. Schenkman, Cambridge, UK. Friedmann, J., 1967. A General Theory of Polarized Development. Ford Foundation, Santiago, Chile.
Friedmann, J., 1975. The Urban Transition: Comparative Studies of Newly Industrializing Countries. UCLA School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Los Angeles. Friedmann, J., 1986. The world city hypothesis. Development and Change 17, 69–83. Friedmann, J., Alonso, W., 1964. Regional Development and Planning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Friedmann, J., Wolff, G., 1982. World city formation: an agenda for research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6, 309–344. Fuller, B., Romer, P., 2010. Cities from scratch: a new path for development. City Journal 20 (4). Gilbert, A., Ward, P., 1985. Housing, the State and the Poor: Policy and Practice in Three Latin American Cities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Glaeser, E., 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Press, New York. Goldscheider, C., 1971. Population, Modernization, and Social Structure. Little Brown, Boston, MA. Goldstein, S., Sly, D., 1979. Patterns of Urbanization: Comparative Country Studies. Ordina Editions, Dolhain. Gugler, J., 1978. Urbanization and Social Change in West Africa. Cambridge University Press, New York. Gugler, J. (Ed.), 1988. The Urbanization of the Third World. Oxford University Press, New York. Gugler, J. (Ed.), 2004. World Cities beyond the West: Globalization, Development and Inequality. Cambridge University Press, New York. Hardoy, J., Geisse, G. (Eds.), 1972. Politicas de desarrollo urbano y regional en America Latina. SIAP, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Hardoy, J., Satterthwaite, D., 1986. Small and Intermediate Centers: Their Role in Regional and National Development in the Third World. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Hasan, A., et al., 2005. How to meet the millennium development goals (MDGS) in urban areas. Environment and Urbanization 17 (1). Hauser, P., 1957. Urbanization in Asia and the Far East. UNESCO Research Centre. India, Calcutta. Hauser, P., Schnore, L. (Eds.), 1965. The Study of Urbanization. Wiley, New York. Harvey, D., 2008. The right to city. The New Left Review 53. Henderson, J., Castells, M., 1987. Global Restructuring and Territorial Development. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Herrick, B., 1965. Urban Migration and Economic Development in Chile. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hoyt, H., 1962. World Urbanization: Expanding Population in a Shrinking World. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC. Hsing, Y., 2010. The Great Urban Transformation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Jones, G., Corbridge, S., 2010. The continuing debate about urban bias: the thesis, its critics, its influence and its implications for poverty reduction strategies. Progress in Development Studies 10, 1–18. King, A., 1990. Global Cities: Postimperialism and the Internationalization of London. Routledge, London. Knox, P., Taylor, P., 1995. World Cities in a World System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Linn, J., 1983. Cities in the Developing World: Policies for Their Equitable and Efficient Growth. Oxford University Press, New York. Lipton, M., 1977. Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Lo, F., Yeung, Y., 1998. Globalization and the World of Large Cities. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Mangin, W. (Ed.), 1970. Peasants in Cities: Readings in the Anthropology of Urbanization. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Martine, G., et al. (Eds.), 2008. The New Global Frontier: Urbanization, Poverty and Environment in the 21st Century. Earthscan, London. McGee, T.G., 1971. The Urbanization Process in the Third World. Bell, London. McGreevey, W.P., 1971. A statistical analysis of primacy and lognormality in the size distribution of Latin American cities, 1950–1960. In: Morse, R. (Ed.), The Urban Development of Latin America: 1750–1920. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Olds, K., 2011. Globalization and the Asia-Pacific Region: Captial, Culture, and Pacific Rim Mega Projects. Oxford Univerity Press, Oxford, UK. Perlman, J., 1976. The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poor and Politics in Rio de Janeiro. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Pirenne, H., 1936. Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York. Porter, M., 2003. The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies 37 (6–7), 549–578.
Development and Urbanization
Portes, A., Walton, J., 1976. Urban Latin America: The Political Condition from Above and Below. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Portes, A., Walton, J., 1981. Labor, Class, and the International System. Academic Press, New York. Rabinowitz, F., 1973. National-local Linkages: The Inter-relationships of Urban and National Politics in Latin America. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Redfield, R., 1941. The Folk Culture of the Yucatan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Redfield, R., 1953. The Primitive World and its Transformations. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Ren, Y., 2011. Building Globalization: Transnational Architectural Production in Urban China. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Richardson, H., 1973. The Economics of Urban Size. Saxon House, Westmead, UK. Roberts, B., 1978. Cities of Peasants: The Political Economy of Urbanization in the Third World. Arnold Press, London. Rondinelli, H., 1983. Secondary Cities in Developing Countries. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Robinson, J., 2002. Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26 (3), 531–554. Robinson, J., 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. Routeledge, London. Roy, A., AlSayyad, N., 2004. Urban Informality: International Perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. Lexington Books, Langham, MA. Roy, A., Ong, 2011. Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Sassen, S., 1991. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Sassen, S., 2000. Cities in a World Economy. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
289
Satterthwaite, D., 2007. The Transition to a Predominantly Urban Worlds and its Underpinnings. International Institute for Environment and Development, Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series. Theme: Urban Change – 4. Satterthwaite, D., 2010. Urban myths and the mis-use of data that underpin them. In: Beall, J., et al. (Eds.), Urbanization and Development: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford University Press, UK. Simmel, G., 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Free Press, New York. Smith, D., 1996. Third World Cities in Global Perspective: The Political Economy of Uneven Urbanization. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. de Soto, H., 2001. The mystery of capital. Finance and Development 31 (1). Stren, R. (Ed.), 1995. Urban Research in the Developing World. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. Tilly, C., 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Timberlake, M. (Ed.), 1985. Urbanization in the World Economy. Academic Press, New York. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision. United Nations, New York. Walton, J. (Ed.), 1985. Capital and Labor in the Urbanized World. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Weber, M., 1927. General Economic History. Greenburg Press, New York. Weber, M., 1958. The City. Free Press, New York. Yamauchi, F., et al., 2009. Human Capital Accumulation, Migration, and the Transition from Urban Poverty: Evidence from Nairobi Slums. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Zhang, L., 2004. China’s Limited Urbanization under Socialism and beyond. Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Abstract This article examines the interrelationship between economic prosperity and the growth of cities, tracing the field from its original preoccupation with overurbanization and underdevelopment in the 1950s and 1960s to its current fixation on dynamic global cities with redeveloped property markets that showcase new forms of wealth creation. The historical change in emphasis chronicled here is understood to be combined product of three different causalities. The first is the shift from industrialization to financial and other services as the principal source of wealth creation in the post-1980s era. The second is the changing territorial scale of accumulation, reflected in the shifting importance of global markets vis-à-vis national markets and in the increasingly key mediating role that cities play in facilitating this transition. The third is the rescaling of state power, seen not just in terms of decentralization but also in the declining capacities of national states to discipline global investors in an era of intensifying economic liberalization. The article ends with a discussion of the emergent social and spatial problems that accompany these shifts, ranging from the rise of urban informality to dispossession and displacement to newfound struggles over urban property rights.
Economists, sociologists, political scientists, and anthropologists as well as demographers and planners have long theorized a direct connection between national development, understood economically and/or politically, and the growth of cities. But there has been little consensus about the nature and direction of the relationship, the desirability of analytically linking these processes, and how to define both terms. Reigning ideas have shifted in the face of new theoretical paradigms and as the territorial scope and essential character of markets, states, and cities themselves transform. Unresolved issues include which urban dynamics most enable or constrain developmental patterns, and whether the global phenomenon of rapid urbanization, intensifying economic globalization, and worldwide population concentration in cities have changed our theoretical or empirical understanding of these processes.
Historical Antecedents Most scholarship on the relationship between development and urbanization traces its intellectual origins to writings by nineteenth- and early twentieth-century sociologists and economic historians who sought to account for the development of capitalism, the nation-state, and social modernization in early Europe, and who posited a direct and positive role for cities in these fundamental transformations (see State Formation, Theory of; Modernization, Sociological Theories of; Capitalism).
Cities and Development in the Early Modern World In early modern Europe, cities emerged from and fueled processes of capital accumulation, by virtue of their role as exchange nodes in local, national, and international trade (Pirenne, 1936; Weber, 1927). Their growth also was tied to the demise of feudal or absolutist orders (Weber, 1958) and the rise of the modern nation-state (Tilly, 1975). By the late
282
nineteenth century, cities also served as the sites in which the social relations of modernity materialized (Durkheim, 1933; Simmel, 1950), in turn transforming markets and states.
Twentieth-Century Developments In the twentieth century when nationalism, war, empire, trade, democracy, and fascism required European attention, many US scholars turned to the study of cities. This was a time when American society demographically tipped its balance to become more urban than rural, and when new waves of postwar black migration combined with renewed streams of international migration to spark interest in the social relations of urban life. Initial research concentrated on the social process and experience within cities, ranging from ghetto life, immigrant social clubs, and gang organization to criminality. Few social scientists chose to examine the larger political and economic processes that engendered patterns of urbanization in the US, as occurred among European urban scholars; and even fewer tried to link urbanism or urbanization to patterns of national development, understood either politically or economically. It was only when US sociologists began studying cities comparatively and historically, starting in the 1950s and during a period of post-WWII expansionism, that debates over the relationship between development and urbanization garnered a central place. When the March 1955 (Vol. 60, No. 5) edition of the American Journal of Sociology published an entire volume on ‘World Urbanism’, the importance of these themes was firmly established. The desire to examine other parts of the world was partly grounded in a passion for testing ideas drawn from the European-derived grand theoretical narratives of sociology. Practically the only counterfactual cases available for confirming prevailing propositions about the connection between urbanization and developmental progress – whether understood in terms of democratic state formation, capitalist development, and/or ‘modern’ social values – were the countries of
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10102-3
Development and Urbanization
the so-called underdeveloped world of Latin America, East Asia, and Africa. These were countries of the world racked with poverty, limited industrialization, and governed primarily under oligarchic pacts or by despotic or authoritarian governments (see Attitudes Political: Authoritarianism and Toleranced). To the extent that their urbanization patterns also differed across country contexts, scholars were inspired to revisit general claims about development and urbanization, as well as to ascertain how these two processes were articulated in practice. Working under the influence of the Chicago School, initial scholarship on what were then called Third World cities focused primarily on the folk-urban continuum and urbanization as a social process, including the ways that urbanization produced individualism and severed kinship bases of social organization (see, e.g., Hauser, 1957; Redfield, 1941, 1953). Over time, interest grew in urbanization as a demographic and spatial process, with scholars examining patterns of population concentration and the growth of cities in a wide variety of comparative and historical contexts (Berry, 1973; Hauser and Schnore, 1965), occasionally linking them to general propositions about national development. In addition to Hauser and Schnore’s seminal The Study of Urbanization (1965), the Chicago-based journal Economic Development and Cultural Change served as an important outlet for new ideas on the topic.
Twentieth-Century Dilemmas: Questioning the Nature and Direction of Causality It was one thing to quantify urban population patterns across time and place (Davis, 1969; Hoyt, 1962), to identify the extent to which urbanism, as a social attribute, materialized in different localities around the world (Breese, 1966; Mangin, 1970), and to elucidate growth processes in these cities (Gugler, 1978; McGee, 1971). American social scientists were quite good at these tasks, especially the first; and their successes helped catapult the field of demography onto the disciplinary map in the 1960s and 1970s (see, e.g., Goldscheider, 1971; Goldstein and Sly, 1979). It was quite another to demonstrate a direct relationship between urbanization and patterns of economic development, especially within the confines of the nation-state, the unit that most social scientists were then using for assessing such issues. It was on these latter counts that scholars were least successful, and that longstanding propositions about the positive relationships between urbanization and national development began to generate widespread skepticism. As Third World cities burgeoned over the 1960s and 1970s, scholars faced the fact that even with high urbanization rates, developmental gains in most of the late industrializing world remained minimal, not just in comparison to the modal patterns established in Europe and the United States, but also as measured in per capita income, gross national product, and practically all other standard macroeconomic indicators (Friedmann, 1967). With dependency theory taking center stage at about the same period of time, certain attributes of both urbanization and national development were thus traced to colonial or mercantile relations that spanned national
283
boundaries rather than to political, social, and economic conditions within the formal confines of the nation-state (see Dependency Theory). These transnational relations modified urbanization and development processes, at least when compared to early modern Europe, even as they raised new questions about the best unit of analysis to study the nature and direction of the proposed relationship. Did urbanization husband development, or vice versa; and was it possible that in the late developmental context the relationship between the two sets of processes was more likely to be negative than positive, with one impeding rather than facilitating the other? The answers to these questions shifted over time.
Development and Urbanization c. 1950: A Positive Synergy The predominant argument in the 1950s and early 1960s was that the plight of developing nations and their low rates of urbanization owed to their ‘backward’ social and economic nature, which not only explained why industrialization was minimal, but also why tradition-bound peasants demographically outbalanced ‘modern’ urban folk. Analytical attention was directed toward how to facilitate one so the other would follow suit, a normative preoccupation pervasive in American social science and quite consistent with US foreign policy goals of the times. There were disagreements about which domain deserved intervention first. Some urban scholars argued that the best way to jump-start Third World development was to shift population and resources out of the countryside and into the city, where industry could expand and modern values flourish (Herrick, 1965; Field, 1970). Others called for more foreign aid or national investment to buttress urban economies, primarily through industrialization (Richardson, 1973), in the hopes that such macroeconomic policies would stimulate employment opportunities and perhaps even produce individuals inculcated with rationality and enough achievement drive to sustain further urban and national gains (see Industrialization). Despite policy disagreements, both schools of thought expressed enough faith in the idea of a positive relationship between development and urbanization to keep it alive, albeit embodied in a variety of paradigmatic forms. Over the 1960s and 1970s, one particularly popular variant was demographic, as those interested in urbanization as a social process looked for linkages between urban growth and national development in fertility patterns as well as family structure and employment. During this period ideas about the demographic transition, at times recast in terms of the ‘urban transition’ (Friedmann, 1975), generated considerable interest among economists and sociologists, who developed expert quantitative skills that sustained a field of research broadly understood as ‘population studies’. Those less preoccupied with the social or economic behavior of individuals and more interested in overall patterns of city growth and distribution were more likely to concern themselves with ideas about the proper balance between urban and rural populations (El-Shakhs, 1974; Friedmann and Alonso, 1964). During this period, scholars who assumed that the US served as a model of successful economic development paid
284
Development and Urbanization
considerable attention to the extent to which urban systems in developing countries achieved a lognormal rank-size distribution, as opposed to being dominated by one or two large ‘primate’ cities (Berry, 1961), basing their interest on the assumption that rank-size lognormality correlated with economic development. In counterattack, these ideas were criticized as inherently Western-biased, if not drawn directly from the American experience, and thus inapplicable in the Third World (El-Shakhs, 1972; McGreevey, 1971). While there was no resolution on this contentious issue, in the process the concept of ‘overurbanization’ gathered widespread attention, since a city could only be ‘too’ urbanized if it grew beyond its expected and economically efficient size, which often was calculated on the basis of a rank-size distribution logic. To the extent that most Third World countries fell into the latter camp, with their cities ballooning in size beyond their fiscal and infrastructural capacities, scholars began to study the internal social and demographic processes that fueled patterns of overurbanization, and what Michael Lipton (1977) called ‘urban bias’, including rural–urban migration and the national investment decisions that over privileged a few urban centers at the expense of struggling provincial towns and the impoverished countryside. Still, concerns about city systems died hard, rematerializing in slightly new packaging in the 1980s in the form of arguments about the importance of ‘secondary cities’ to sustaining national development (Hardoy and Satterthwaite, 1986; Rondinelli, 1983). This claim, like the rank-size distribution argument, was built on the understanding that (smaller) size and (more equal) distribution of cities mattered; and both arguments confirmed the preoccupation with a relationship between patterns of urbanization and development that had initiated and sustained the field. But far from merely confirming a connection between cities and national development, these findings laid the foundation for an immanent critique of long-standing claims. Indeed, to the extent that the burgeoning growth of Third World cities was soon seen as an obstacle to economic well-being, there was now evidence that a positive relationship between urbanization and development was effectively reversed on substantive grounds, even if analytically the connection remained. To be sure, there were scholars who conceived of large cities as economically efficient localizers of economies of scale, and they continued to claim a positive relationship between large-scale urbanization and development (Richardson, 1973). But by and large, promoters of this idea were arguing against a tide of contrary evidence.
Development and Urbanization, c.1975: A Destructive Relationship The ascendance of ideas about a negative relationship between urbanization and development owed partly to the fact that between 1950 and 1975 conditions in the developing world changed dramatically. This was the period when most Third World cities began to grow enormously, outpacing the capacities of their governments to invest in infrastructure or sustain industrial output in ways that contributed to national development. With large cities peopled by new migrants and un- or
underemployed folk with limited education and skills for a newly industrializing economy, they soon were seen as a drain on national coffers. The increasing urban inequality and economic polarization accompanying these trends also sustained urban social movements and overall political coalitions that themselves limited national developmental prospects by bringing to power governments with restrictions on foreign investment, populist economic policies, and/or protectionist measures that frequently undermined short-term efficiency goals. These social and political problems became so salient in the urban landscape of the developing world that eventually scholars turned attention directly to them (see Abu-Lughod and Hay, 1977; Gugler, 1988; Mangin, 1970), partially eclipsing the concern with national development. Among the most documented issues were urban housing and employment scarcities, rural–urban migration flows, illegal settlements and urban ‘marginality,’ and migrant or informal sector politics (Cornelius, 1973; Drakakis-Smith, 1987; Perlman, 1976). This is not to say that all those who looked internally to cities over the 1970s and 1980s failed to examine the larger relationships between urbanization and national development that had consumed their predecessors. Economists at the World Bank and other macroeconomic policymakers loyal to free market ideals continued to study urban economies of scale and the ways urban growth interfaced with industrialization, still seen as the principal route toward prosperity; although they too concerned themselves with questions about housing, illegal settlements, and urban service scarcities more generally (Linn, 1983). Likewise, but on an entirely different front, sociologists and political scientists began to examine the national political conditions that made these urban problems so pervasive (Eckstein, 1977; Gilbert and Ward, 1985; Rabinowitz, 1973; Roberts, 1978). But this also meant that urban scholars were focusing as much on political as economic developments, linking urbanization patterns to national politics as much as markets (see Populism). When dependency theory emerged as a dominant paradigm among both resident and foreign scholars of the developing world over the 1970s and 1980s, fewer scholars began to pose questions about the relations between urbanization and national development unless they were framed within a focus on international economic conditions (Castells and Velez, 1971; Portes and Walton, 1981; Walton, 1985); and even fewer saw the articulation of urban and national development in positive terms, as had their predecessors. If anything, when urbanization was linked to capital accumulation, the social effects were seen as relatively negative (Armstrong and McGee, 1985). By the late 1980s, the main idea in good currency was that capitalist development on a global scale produced and/or reinforced mercantilist relations that fueled the growth of cities, even as they disadvantaged the countryside or the nation as a whole. Using a global framing, scholars focused not just on the ways that unequal, semi-imperial relations between core and periphery brought a few large cities, themselves parasitic with respect to their hinterlands. They also examined the ways these relations produced a form of ‘internal colonialism’ predicated on extreme income and investment polarization between city and countryside, which further fueled migration,
Development and Urbanization
contributed to overurbanization, and reinforced income and other inequalities within cities themselves (see Timberlake, 1985). The argument for a negative relationship between urbanization and sustained or autonomous national development thus reached new heights of acceptance (see World Systems Theory).
Development and Urbanization, c.1990: Disarticulated Processes The growing popularity of world-system theory over the 1980s and 1990s may have strengthened scholars’ understandings of the strong connections between urbanization and (under) development (Smith, 1996); but in the long run it contributed to the analytic disarticulation of cities and nations, thereby casting a mortal blow to studies of relations between these two domains. As scholars joined the worldsystem bandwagon and bypassed the nation-state as a unit of analysis, few examined national development as analytically distinct from global processes. Those development scholars who did concern themselves with the domestic dynamics of macroeconomic development rarely reserved a place for cities in their analytic frameworks, turning instead to states, classes, and the global economy. The result was that scholars who analyzed cities in the developing world did so increasingly in the context of global economic conditions (Friedmann, 1986; Abu-Lughod, 1989), even as most scholars of national development ignored cities by and large. This analytic disarticulation of urbanization and national development was further fueled by intellectual and political dynamics in the developing world. With many countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia becoming less democratic and more authoritarian throughout the 1960s and 1970s, their states became stronger and more repressive. These political regimes tended to privilege capital over labor and cities over the countryside, using macroeconomic policy, national investments, and targeted subsidies to accomplish these aims. Resident and foreign observers saw little autonomy for cities, with urban development mostly dictated by powerful (if not militarized) national states. This was most evident in the largest cities, home to their nation’s most significant industries and investments; but it also was seen as a pattern more generally. The result: in studies of the Third World, urban dynamics were frequently subsumed under national ones. This conceptual sleight of hand may have reinforced views about the direct relationship between city and nation to some extent; but it also chipped away at the analytic distinction between urban and national dynamics. And with these two processes increasingly collapsed into each other, the tendency was to examine one or the other, but not the interactive relationship between the two. Among the few still fervently examining the direct connections between urbanization and national economic development were neoclassical economists, along with World Bank staff and their clients. They worked under the supposition that by facilitating and/or managing cities, national actors could ensure productivity, efficiency, and the flow of people and goods sufficiently to maximize overall development. Yet in most of the nonapplied fields, urbanists and developmentalists hardly spoke to one another.
285
A New Articulation (or, Development and Urbanization in the Age of Economic Globalization) By the turn of the millennium scholars began to widely accept the premise that globalization ought to be viewed as a central point of entry for studying changes in the contemporary world, thus bringing about renewed interest in the urbanizationdevelopment nexus. Initially, scholars became fixated with cities of enormous size and importance, whose growth and character owed to the role they play not just within their national borders, but also within global networks of production and consumption (Henderson and Castells, 1987; Lo and Yeung, 1998; Sassen, 1991, 2000). This realization also produced a shift in terminology. Few scholars referred to Third World cities anymore, preferring instead ‘cities of the global south’ (or north) or the concept of world or global cities, both in recognition of the unequal world distribution of production and consumption wealth. The idea of world cities was not new of course (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982); and much of the work drew inspiration from earlier writings on overurbanization in Third World cities in which the inflated size and rapid growth of primate cities was linked to unequal relations of exchange between so-called core and peripheral economies. But as economic globalization continued to bring rich and poor countries into the same orbit, scholars were more willing to think about cities in global rather than national context, hence the popularity of world or global city nomenclature. Similarly, world cities were less likely to be seen as fetters on the national development of their host countries, and more likely to be perceived as the mechanisms through which global economic integration took root. Such views not only challenged the dependency era understandings of the destructive impact of global dynamics on cities and nations, they were also accompanied by a new geographic focus among urbanists. Over the period 1960–2000 most scholars interested in the urbanization-economic development nexus examined the poorer countries of the global south; but by the 1990s the US and Europe were back in the center of the conceptual map (King, 1990; Sassen, 1991), with cities like New York, London, Tokyo, and Paris taking center stage as global cities where urban employment patterns, shifts in sectoral character, and spatial forms were seen as products of the globalization of capital and labor (Fainstein et al., 1992; Sassen, 1991). The analytical focus also produced a renewed interest in the changing ‘locations’ or economic roles these cities played in a regional, national, or international hierarchy of urban places (see Knox and Taylor, 1995). But as the global system of world cities itself began to transform, new questions began to emerge as to whether those cities with the greatest potential to generate national or even international developmental gains were indeed sited in the advanced capitalist world (see Robinson, 2002; Gugler, 2004). Such queries have arisen in response to rapid and concentrated urbanization of cities in the emerging economies of India, China, Brazil, and other formerly poor regions where rapid and concentrated urbanization has been accompanied by massive wealth creation for individuals, urban authorities, and national accounts. As some scholars turned
286
Development and Urbanization
their attention to these urban transformations, chronicling the new cadre of city builders responsible for jumpstarting formerly lagging economies through global city branding (Ren, 2011), others began to criticize the rush to find new ways of categorizing cities in terms of their paradigmatic status (Beauregard, 2003; Brenner, 2003; Roy and Ong, 2011). Among those most willing to jettison superlatives and theorize cities in more ‘ordinary’ terms (Robinson, 2006) were those who also were willing to recognize that even the most prosperous cities in the late developing world still hosted high degrees of poverty, inequality, and extraordinarily high degrees of economic informality. As such, even with focus shifting to formerly poor regions of the world, questions persisted about nature of the relationship between development and urbanization, and whether the latter could really be seen as a route to prosperity if the scale of the city remained the unit of analysis.
Development in the ‘Urban Century’: Are Cities Leaving Nations Behind? Though exact projections differ, it is widely accepted that the global population reached and surpassed the demographic tipping point to become majority urban in or around 2008 (Satterthwaite, 2007). Within the contemporary study of urbanization and development, the more significant trend may be that nearly all population growth projected to take place globally over the next 30 years will be in developing-world cities throughout Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and that this growth is unlikely to slow significantly before 2030 (United Nations, 2012). Due to the high level of variation in national and subnational development trajectories throughout these regions, most notably between the comparatively highperforming economies of countries such as China, India, Singapore, and South Korea, and economically stagnant, but rapidly urbanizing countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, two distinct analytical frameworks have emerged within the current study of the development-urbanization nexus: one continues to articulate the role of cities and agglomeration economies as the principle drivers of economic and social development, while the other calls attention to the significant social and environmental costs associated with rapid and often unplanned urbanization. Those who argue that cities are the privileged sites for economic development have brought new analytical rigor to the debate by focusing on how urbanity unleashes creative potential through agglomeration and the spillover effects of knowledge economies in developed and developing world cities alike. These ideas, gaining popularity among economists in particular, view the proliferation of urban slums in the developing world not as markers of systemic weakness, but rather of ‘the city’s’ ability to attract rural poor through the promise of improved livelihoods and health (see Glaeser, 2011). In the developed world, attention is shifting to economic clusters in key cities or areas within them, with research suggesting that such experiments can support new, creative economies in previously declining, postindustrial cities and regions of the United States and Europe, thus reenergizing the study of the urban-economic development nexus at a scale smaller than the nation (see Porter, 2003).
As a sign of the globalization of ideas, cluster theory also migrated to the developing world, particularly in East Asia where bottlenecks among export-led industrializers pushed their national governments to invest in industrial clusters outside major cities. But the theoretical and practical significance of cluster theory in the developing world has been slow to gain a foothold in the face of the increasing national obsession with producing global cities that can showcase high-end real estate, global finance, and ICT activities, all considered the principal avenues through which cities and their nations were to prosper economically (Olds, 2011). The preoccupation with finance, services, communications, and other tertiary sector activities can be explained by international capital’s search for new investment outlets in the face of declines in industrial and agricultural output. Yet it also captures the imagination of investors – both public and private – in emerging economies that seek to generate national economic gains through more than export-led industrialization or agriculture. The cases of China and India are exemplary in these regards. In these and a selected array of other emerging economies, urbanization has become associated with major transformations of the urban built environment, often in the form of iconic architectural projects and massive mega-project developments that regularly coexist side by side with high overall levels of urban poverty and informality.
New Governance Arrangements The move to transform urban landscapes into the incubators and showcases of innovation and development is greatest in cities where decentralized governance has limited the local state’s fiscal capacities. In the search for fiscal incentives to attract the innovative classes, authorities have turned to the private sector for resources and ideas, thus increasing state willingness to support the building of global city landscapes. Reliance on local public–private partnerships for urban development is seen as enabling regional and national progress outside the typically slow moving and bureaucratic mechanisms of national-level governance, drawing strong comparisons with the introduction of Special Economic Zones, traditionally oriented toward industrial uses, in developing countries throughout the 1980s and 1990s (see Fuller and Romer, 2010). In the neoliberal era of decentralization and state downsizing, experiments that enable free market zones to guide development usually involve both public and private sector actors, as both share incentives to generate and capture revenues. But when local states begin to ally with real estate developers around such massive urban transformations, and when they join private investors in displacing or dispossessing residents from properties or locations, they often face political opposition. While similar challenges in the 1970s placed the analytic focus on the failure of the state to keep pace with increasing urban populations, contemporary scholars, and development agencies have broadened the focus to include the failure of the market, private sector investment, and neoliberal structural adjustment policies to adequately account for the needs of the urban poor (see Davis, 2004; Beall,
Development and Urbanization
2002; Harvey, 2008). Thus, to the extent that neo-liberal restructuring of urban space within the context of continued globalization produces extreme spatial fragmentation, exclusionary urban development, and local conflict, the route to global city status via transformation of urban land uses and accelerated real estate development rather than manufacturing and industrialization continues to be paved with social and political obstacles. For this reason, much of the recent work produced by scholars and high-profile multilateral development agencies continues to highlight the many negative externalities associated with the dispossession and dramatic transformations in urban land use deployed in order to pave the way for these new projects, including decreasing access to shelter and secure tenure for existing and incoming populations of urban poor and displacement of vulnerable populations to the urban periphery. Even among those scholars whose concern is less about land use change and more about the seemingly inexorable process of urbanization that draws ever larger proportions of a nation’s population into a circumscribed spatial orbit, assessments underline serious challenges. From inadequate infrastructure to environmental degradation to significant increases in urban poverty and rising rates of violence and insecurity (see Martine et al., 2008), rapidly urbanizing cities are seen as hosting a plethora of pathologies that persist in the midst of accelerating prosperity.
Urban Informality: Where Citizens, Urbanization, and Development Collide In the most rapidly urbanizing regions of the world, the management of urban informality, most clearly manifested through the increasing occurrence of slums and informal settlement patterns, has emerged as one of the most consistent lens through which scholars and practitioners now address the costs and benefits of rapid urbanization across the developing world (Roy and AlSayyad, 2004). While the cities of SubSaharan Africa have the highest rates of informality and slum growth as a percentage of total urban expansion, Asian cities are now home to the largest total number slum-dwellers, placing the issue at the center of a multidisciplinary debate over the role of urban informality as a driver or inhibitor of economic development. From an economic standpoint alone, the informal economy in developing nations, operating primarily in the urban periphery and ‘slum’ settlements, is estimated to account for upwards of 50% of all urban employment across the developing world (see Becker, 2004). Despite the observable increases in per capita economic productivity that accompany rural–urban migration, others point out that the lack of formal tenure and property rights which has accompanied the relative lack of affordable housing provision by local governments and the private sector alike, alongside the inadequate provision of educational opportunity, likely account for tens of billions of dollars of unrealized capital in slums (see de Soto, 2001; Yamauchi et al., 2009). Renewed interest in the forms and functionality of informal settlements is also closely related to the continued consolidation of human rights at the heart of development discourse,
287
most clearly articulated through the formulation and adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as primary measures of development and progress in the twenty-first century. The demographic shift to a majority urban global population, along with the expansion of urban footprints at rates that more than doubles that of urban population growth (see Angel et al., 2011) mean that the environmental, economic, and social impact of urbanization has a progressively more meaningful impact on national and global outcomes. In this capacity, cities have emerged as one of the few truly cross-cutting arenas in which to effectively implement policies and measure progress toward meeting the MDG targets (see Hasan et al., 2005).
Beyond the Urban: Rescaling the Territorialities of Development Though urbanization is likely to remain widely regarded as the primary source of development, employment, and capital accumulation in the decades to come, advances in data collection and analysis methods, along with renewed questioning of what spatial and demographic characteristics define the ‘urban’ as opposed to ‘periurban’ and ‘rural’, have led many to begin questioning the utility of these categorical indicators and whether they can truly measure relationships between urbanization and development outcomes. This is particularly true of comparative urban studies, which, more often than not, rely on census data that is markedly inconsistent internationally. Levels of urbanization in both India and China, for example, can be characterized well above or below 50% depending on the classification of ‘urban’ employed, posing serious questions about how to effectively utilize this data in policy formulation and planning efforts (see Satterthwaite, 2010; Zhang, 2004). The continued dissemination of information technologies has also lead many to question traditional differentiations between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ given the fact that many populations living outside the traditional limits of cities can now earn the majority of their income via nonagricultural employment. Moving beyond the demographic and spatial inconstancies in characterization of the ‘urban’, some headway is now being made in bridging the traditional, rigid differentiation between the literal and theoretical territories in which urban and ‘nonurban’ development articulations and trajectories play out. In her groundbreaking study of urban transformation in China, for example, You-Tien Hsing (2010) provides a strong historical case for a more holistic understanding of the developmenturbanization nexus through her description of how regional, rural, and urban land-management policies and practices have combined to profoundly impact everything from human rights and land tenure, to agricultural development and ecological sustainability, to the nature of state formation and capital accumulation in modern China. Further broadening the theoretical landscape of development, the analytical framework of ‘Planetary Urbanization’ (Brenner and Schmid, 2011) aims to actively integrate the various spatial scales and diverse social, political, and economic feedback loops through which urbanization is transforming the human experience. It seems likely that in the coming decades those questions
288
Development and Urbanization
emerging at center of the multidisciplinary study of development and urbanization will require increasingly dynamic understandings of the interconnected and fluid relationships between the city and its hinterlands, as well as the between regional, national, and global transformations that will accompany the continued process of urbanization.
See also: Attitudes, Political: Authoritarianism and Tolerance; Capitalism; Dependency Theory; Development Studies; Development: Social-Anthropological Aspects; Environment and Development; Industrialization; Migration and Development; Modernization, Sociological Theories of; Population Dynamics: Mathematic Models of Population, Development, and Natural Resources; Populism; State Formation, Theory of; Urbanization in Africa; Urbanization in China; Urbanization; World Systems Theory.
Bibliography Abu-Lughod, J., Hay, R. (Eds.), 1977. Third World Urbanization. Maaroufa Press, Chicago, IL. Abu-Lughod, J., 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250–1350. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Angel, S., et al., 2011. Making Room for a Planet of Cities. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. Armstrong, W., McGee, T.G., 1985. Theatres of Accumulation: Studies in Asian and Latin American Urbanization. Methuen, London. Beall, J., 2002. Globalization and social exclusion in cities: framing the debate with lessons from Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanization 14, 41–51. Beauregard, R., 2003. City of superlatives. City & Community 2, 183–199. Becker, K.F., 2004. The Informal Economy: Fact Finding Study. Department for Infrastructure and Economic Co-Operation, Sida. Berry, B.J.L., 1961. City distribution and economic development. Economic Development and Cultural Change 9, 573–578. Berry, B.J.L., 1973. The Human Consequences of Urbanization. St.Martin’s, New York. Breese, G., 1966. Urbanization in Developing Countries. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Brenner, N., 2003. Stereotypes, archetypes and prototypes: three uses of superlatives in contemporary urban studies. City & Community 2, 205–218. Brenner, N., Schmid, C., 2011. Planetary urbanisation. In: Gandy, M. (Ed.), Urban Constellations. JOVIS Publishers, Berlin. Castells, M., Velez, P. (Eds.), 1971. Imperialismo y urbanizacion en America Latina. Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, Spain. Clark, D., 1996. Urban World/Global City. Routledge, London. Cornelius, W., 1973. Political Learning Among the Migrant Poor. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Davis, D.E., 2004. Discipline and Development: Middle Classes and Economic Prosperity in East Asia and Latin America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Davis, D.E., 2005. Cities in global context: a brief intellectual history. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (1), 92–109. Davis, K., 1969. World Urbanization, 1950–1970. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Drakakis-Smith, D., 1987. The Third World City. Methuen, London. Durkheim, E., 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. Macmillan, London. Eckstein, S., 1977. The Poverty of Revolution: The State and the Urban Poor in Mexico. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. El-Shakhs, S., 1972. Development, primary, and system of cities. Journal of Developing Areas 7, 11–35. El-Shakhs, S., 1974. Urbanization, National Planning, and Regional Development in Africa. Praeger Publishers, New York. Fainstein, S., Gordon, I., Harloe, M., 1992. Divided Cities: New York and London in the Contemporary World. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Field, A. (Ed.), 1970. City and Countryside in the Third World: Issues in the Modernization of Latin America. Schenkman, Cambridge, UK. Friedmann, J., 1967. A General Theory of Polarized Development. Ford Foundation, Santiago, Chile.
Friedmann, J., 1975. The Urban Transition: Comparative Studies of Newly Industrializing Countries. UCLA School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Los Angeles. Friedmann, J., 1986. The world city hypothesis. Development and Change 17, 69–83. Friedmann, J., Alonso, W., 1964. Regional Development and Planning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Friedmann, J., Wolff, G., 1982. World city formation: an agenda for research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6, 309–344. Fuller, B., Romer, P., 2010. Cities from scratch: a new path for development. City Journal 20 (4). Gilbert, A., Ward, P., 1985. Housing, the State and the Poor: Policy and Practice in Three Latin American Cities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Glaeser, E., 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Press, New York. Goldscheider, C., 1971. Population, Modernization, and Social Structure. Little Brown, Boston, MA. Goldstein, S., Sly, D., 1979. Patterns of Urbanization: Comparative Country Studies. Ordina Editions, Dolhain. Gugler, J., 1978. Urbanization and Social Change in West Africa. Cambridge University Press, New York. Gugler, J. (Ed.), 1988. The Urbanization of the Third World. Oxford University Press, New York. Gugler, J. (Ed.), 2004. World Cities beyond the West: Globalization, Development and Inequality. Cambridge University Press, New York. Hardoy, J., Geisse, G. (Eds.), 1972. Politicas de desarrollo urbano y regional en America Latina. SIAP, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Hardoy, J., Satterthwaite, D., 1986. Small and Intermediate Centers: Their Role in Regional and National Development in the Third World. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Hasan, A., et al., 2005. How to meet the millennium development goals (MDGS) in urban areas. Environment and Urbanization 17 (1). Hauser, P., 1957. Urbanization in Asia and the Far East. UNESCO Research Centre. India, Calcutta. Hauser, P., Schnore, L. (Eds.), 1965. The Study of Urbanization. Wiley, New York. Harvey, D., 2008. The right to city. The New Left Review 53. Henderson, J., Castells, M., 1987. Global Restructuring and Territorial Development. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Herrick, B., 1965. Urban Migration and Economic Development in Chile. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hoyt, H., 1962. World Urbanization: Expanding Population in a Shrinking World. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC. Hsing, Y., 2010. The Great Urban Transformation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Jones, G., Corbridge, S., 2010. The continuing debate about urban bias: the thesis, its critics, its influence and its implications for poverty reduction strategies. Progress in Development Studies 10, 1–18. King, A., 1990. Global Cities: Postimperialism and the Internationalization of London. Routledge, London. Knox, P., Taylor, P., 1995. World Cities in a World System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Linn, J., 1983. Cities in the Developing World: Policies for Their Equitable and Efficient Growth. Oxford University Press, New York. Lipton, M., 1977. Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Lo, F., Yeung, Y., 1998. Globalization and the World of Large Cities. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Mangin, W. (Ed.), 1970. Peasants in Cities: Readings in the Anthropology of Urbanization. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Martine, G., et al. (Eds.), 2008. The New Global Frontier: Urbanization, Poverty and Environment in the 21st Century. Earthscan, London. McGee, T.G., 1971. The Urbanization Process in the Third World. Bell, London. McGreevey, W.P., 1971. A statistical analysis of primacy and lognormality in the size distribution of Latin American cities, 1950–1960. In: Morse, R. (Ed.), The Urban Development of Latin America: 1750–1920. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Olds, K., 2011. Globalization and the Asia-Pacific Region: Captial, Culture, and Pacific Rim Mega Projects. Oxford Univerity Press, Oxford, UK. Perlman, J., 1976. The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poor and Politics in Rio de Janeiro. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Pirenne, H., 1936. Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York. Porter, M., 2003. The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies 37 (6–7), 549–578.
Development and Urbanization
Portes, A., Walton, J., 1976. Urban Latin America: The Political Condition from Above and Below. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Portes, A., Walton, J., 1981. Labor, Class, and the International System. Academic Press, New York. Rabinowitz, F., 1973. National-local Linkages: The Inter-relationships of Urban and National Politics in Latin America. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Redfield, R., 1941. The Folk Culture of the Yucatan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Redfield, R., 1953. The Primitive World and its Transformations. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Ren, Y., 2011. Building Globalization: Transnational Architectural Production in Urban China. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Richardson, H., 1973. The Economics of Urban Size. Saxon House, Westmead, UK. Roberts, B., 1978. Cities of Peasants: The Political Economy of Urbanization in the Third World. Arnold Press, London. Rondinelli, H., 1983. Secondary Cities in Developing Countries. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Robinson, J., 2002. Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26 (3), 531–554. Robinson, J., 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. Routeledge, London. Roy, A., AlSayyad, N., 2004. Urban Informality: International Perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. Lexington Books, Langham, MA. Roy, A., Ong, 2011. Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Sassen, S., 1991. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Sassen, S., 2000. Cities in a World Economy. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
289
Satterthwaite, D., 2007. The Transition to a Predominantly Urban Worlds and its Underpinnings. International Institute for Environment and Development, Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series. Theme: Urban Change – 4. Satterthwaite, D., 2010. Urban myths and the mis-use of data that underpin them. In: Beall, J., et al. (Eds.), Urbanization and Development: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford University Press, UK. Simmel, G., 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Free Press, New York. Smith, D., 1996. Third World Cities in Global Perspective: The Political Economy of Uneven Urbanization. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. de Soto, H., 2001. The mystery of capital. Finance and Development 31 (1). Stren, R. (Ed.), 1995. Urban Research in the Developing World. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. Tilly, C., 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Timberlake, M. (Ed.), 1985. Urbanization in the World Economy. Academic Press, New York. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision. United Nations, New York. Walton, J. (Ed.), 1985. Capital and Labor in the Urbanized World. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Weber, M., 1927. General Economic History. Greenburg Press, New York. Weber, M., 1958. The City. Free Press, New York. Yamauchi, F., et al., 2009. Human Capital Accumulation, Migration, and the Transition from Urban Poverty: Evidence from Nairobi Slums. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Zhang, L., 2004. China’s Limited Urbanization under Socialism and beyond. Nova Science Publishers, New York.