In its current confi guration, the UN’s cities database gives the population of a given city at a point in time, but it does not show how that population is distributed over space. A fi rst step in this direction is to organize population data according to the smallest geographic units (‘building blocks’) that are available. When population data are arrayed over space in reasonably fi ne detail, this enables a closer scrutiny of the areas lying on the peripheries of large cities, where much urban population growth is believed to take place, and gives planners and policymakers a view of the communities situated between large cities that are likely to fuse with neighbouring urban areas. Geo-coded data also provide a window on the smaller cities and towns, where, as already noted, a large percentage of urban residents live.
A systematic and thorough effort would be needed to create such geo-coded data sets for all developing countries. Although most developing countries continue to conduct national censuses, relatively few of them process their census data at the small-area level, and fewer still make any systematic effort to place the disaggregated population data in the hands of local planners and policymakers, many of whom have to operate with rudimentary data that lack spatial content. While geographic information systems are being developed at the national level, there will be an important interim role for international geographic data sets that are organized along similar lines. A model or template for such a database is provided by Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) with their Global Rural–Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), described in Balk et al (2005). The pay-off to the GRUMP approach is evident in the maps produced by McGranahan et al (2007), which depict the number of urban coastal inhabitants in developing countries who live within 10 metres of sea level, where they are likely to face rising risks from the storm surges and related phenomena that are expected to accompany global warming. As the developing world continues to urbanize, the efforts of planners and policymakers will become increasingly dependent on spatially disaggregated data such as these.
C
ONCLUSIONSAs has been argued in this chapter, a substantial workload lies in store for the demographic research community if it is to assemble the data and methods needed for the upcoming urban era. Considerable effort will be required to clean the city
THEDEMOGRAPHY OFTHEURBAN TRANSITION 33 population time series of errors and resolve inconsistencies. The performance of the UN forecasts of city and urban growth has been heavily criticized in recent years, and there is now general agreement on the need for a thorough critical review of forecast errors and the development of new methods (Montgomery et al, 2003;
Bocquier, 2005). Further effort will be needed to bring spatial specifi city to the city population estimates in the form of geo-coded databases. Remote sensing methods will serve as a valuable supplementary tool, providing easily updated information on spatial extents, if not on population as such. In each of these domains, the city data will need to be scrutinized by a wider set of local, country-level and international experts than has been the case to date. For the past 40 years, far too much of the urban demographic research burden has rested with the United Nations Population Division. In view of the urban challenges ahead, it is time that these burdens are more widely shared.
N
OTES1 Chan (forthcoming) reviews estimates of the total number of such migrants in urban China, which have ranged as high as 144 million.
2 The implications for rural poverty are not clear: a migrant who falls below the urban poverty line may not be classifi ed as poor according to the rural poverty line. See Chan (forthcoming) for discussion.
3 This section is adapted from a fuller discussion in the Montgomery and Balk (forthcoming) working paper.
4 The analysis that follows is based on provisional data made available to the author by the United Nations Population Division, representing an October 2006 snapshot of a database that is undergoing continual revision.
5 The 60/40 division refl ects the situation of the median country in the UN’s sample.
6 See the discussion in Montgomery et al (2003) on the amount of guesswork involved in linking DHS respondents to their cities when such identifi ers are absent.
7 A promising recent development is that, in about half of the surveys in the DHS programme carried out since the late 1990s, geographic coordinates are collected for sampling clusters, thus providing a means of linking the clusters to other geographically coded data, including city boundaries. The MICS programme has not generally followed the lead of the DHSs in this respect.
R
EFERENCESAngel, S., Sheppard, S. C. and Civco, D. L. (2005) The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion, Transport and Urban Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC
Balk, D., Pozzi, F., Yetman, G., Deichmann, U. and Nelson, A. (2005) ‘The distribution of people and the dimension of place: Methodologies to improve the global estimation of urban extents’, in Proceedings of the Urban Remote Sensing Conference of the International
34 THE NEWGLOBALFRONTIER
Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, March 2005, International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Tempe, AZ
Bocquier, P. (2005) ‘World urbanization prospects: An alternative to the UN model of projection compatible with mobility transition theory’, Demographic Research, vol 12, article 9, pp197–236, www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol12/9/12-9.pdf, last accessed 21 December 2007
Champion, T. (2006) ‘Where do we stand? Lessons from the IUSSP Working Group on Urbanization’, paper presented at the workshop ‘Rethinking the Estimation and Projection of Urban and City Populations’, 9–10 January 2006, Columbia University, New York
Champion, T. and Hugo, G. (eds) (2004) New Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the Urban–
Rural Dichotomy, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK
Chan, K. W. (2007) ‘Misconceptions and complexities in the study of China’s cities:
Defi nitions, statistics, and implications’, Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol 48, no 4, pp383–412
Chan, K. W. (forthcoming) ‘Internal migration and rural migrant labour: Trends, geography and policies’, in M. Gallagher, C. K. Lee and A. Park (eds) The Labour of Reform in China, Routledge, London
Chan, K. W. and Hu, Y. (2003) ‘Urbanization in China in the 1990s: New defi nition, different series, and revised trends’, The China Review, vol 3, no 2, pp49–71
Chen, N., Valente, P. and Zlotnik, H. (1998) ‘What do we know about recent trends in urbanization?’, in R. E. Bilsborrow (ed) Migration, Urbanization and Development: New Directions and Issues, UNFPA and Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp59–88 McGee, T. G. (1991) ‘The emergence of desakota regions in Asia: Expanding a hypothesis’,
in N. Ginsburg, B. Koppel and T. G. McGee (eds) The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI, pp3–26
McGranahan, G., Balk, D. and Anderson, B. (2007) ‘The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones’, Environment and Urbanization, vol 19, no 1, pp17–37
Montgomery, M. R. and Balk, D. (forthcoming) ‘The urban transition: Demography meets geography’, Poverty, Gender and Youth Programme working paper, Population Council, New York
Montgomery, M. R. and Kim, D. (2006) ‘Forecasting city growth rates in the developing world: Illustrative examples’, paper presented at the workshop ‘Rethinking the Estimation and Projection of Urban and City Populations’, 9–10 January 2006, Columbia University, New York
Montgomery, M. R., Stren, R., Cohen, B. and Reed, H. E. (eds) (2003) Cities Transformed:
Demographic Change and its Implications in the Developing World, The National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Ravallion, J., Chen, S. and Sangraula, P. (2007) ‘New evidence on the urbanization of global poverty’, Policy Research Working Paper No 4199, World Bank, Washington, DC
Sivaramakrishnan, K. C., Kundu, A. and Singh, B. N. (2005) Handbook of Urbanization in India: An Analysis of Trends and Processes, Oxford University Press, New Delhi Small, C. (2005) ‘The global analysis of urban refl ectance’, International Journal of Remote
Sensing, vol 26, no 4, pp661–681
THEDEMOGRAPHY OFTHEURBAN TRANSITION 35 UNFPA (2007) The State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban
Growth, United Nations Population Fund, New York, NY
UN-Habitat (2006) Meeting Development Goals in Small Urban Centres: Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities, 2006, UN-Habitat and Earthscan, London
United Nations (1980) Patterns of Urban and Rural Population Growth, Population Studies No 68, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York
2
Urbanization, Poverty and Inequity: Is Rural–Urban Migration a Poverty Problem,
or Part of the Solution?
Cecilia Tacoli, Gordon McGranahan and David Satterthwaite
I
NTRODUCTIONThere is a general consensus among economists and urban scholars that urbanization plays a positive role in social and economic development. Historically, countries with the highest rates of economic growth have also been those with the most rapid increase in levels of urbanization, and cities are recognized as important drivers of overall economic development (Montgomery et al, 2003; Overman and Venables, 2005). Economies of scale and agglomeration economies in the production of goods and services reduce costs and support innovation. Proximity fosters synergies between different economic sectors, which can help optimize the use of resources and the disposal of wastes. Access to health services, education, basic infrastructure, information and knowledge are on average better in urban centres than in rural areas (UN-Habitat, 1996; Njoh, 2003; Champion and Hugo, 2004), although, as described later in this chapter, aggregate statistics can hide deep inequalities in access.
At the same time, however, there is a growing conviction among policymakers in rapidly urbanizing countries that migration should be controlled to prevent excessive urban growth.1 This view is reinforced when the international development community treats poverty as a predominantly rural problem, which should be addressed by rural development.
38 THE NEWGLOBALFRONTIER
It is perhaps not surprising that the better-off urban residents blame urban problems on low-income migrants. In many countries, urban growth has been accompanied by the rapid expansion of unplanned, underserved neighbourhoods with high concentrations of poor people. These neighbourhoods are considered by many to have very negative social and environmental consequences. Central and municipal governments cannot afford to provide the conventional urban infrastructure needed to accommodate these populations – the roads, drains, water pipes, schools, hospitals and other facilities considered necessary for sound urban development. Many of the residents of these neighbourhoods cannot fi nd formal employment, and many of the residences themselves are on land not considered suitable for residential settlement or are not built to construction standards.
Ideally, or so it would seem, rural–urban migration should be kept down to a level consistent with the availability of urban jobs and services.
This view may serve the interests of certain segments of the urban population, but it misrepresents the challenges and opportunities provided by urban growth and development. In many urbanizing countries, urban poverty is, indeed, an important and growing problem, even in countries, such as China, where rural poverty has been declining in recent years (Khan and Riskin, 2002). This chapter documents the challenges of urban poverty and argues that it still tends to be underestimated. Excessive migration is not the source of poverty, however, and measures to curb migration can easily make both urban and rural poverty worse.
The arguments that portray excessive rural–urban migration as a cause of poverty are typically based on a number of misconceptions that need to be corrected.
First, the challenge of providing acceptable urban infrastructure and services to unacceptably poor urban-dwellers is as much a governance issue as a technical or fi nancial one. A number of initiatives in low- and middle-income countries show that organizations of the urban poor can play a lead role in the provision of basic housing and infrastructure, provided their organizations are recognized and supported by local and central governments (see Chapters 4 and 7). Instead, groups of the urban poor are often thwarted in any attempts to improve infrastructure and service delivery. As described in the next section, regulations and standards only rarely serve to improve low-income neighbourhoods and more often render them informal or even illegal. The notion that it would have been better if the residents of these neighbourhoods had not moved to the urban areas in the fi rst place reinforces the prejudice against them and decreases the likelihood that they will receive the support they need.
Second, while many residents of slums and other low-income neighbourhoods may work in the informal sector, this does not mean that they are not contributing to the urban economy. Up to the 1980s, much of the debate on how the urban poor make a living revolved around different conceptualizations of the informal sector. Initially described as a messy mix of marginalized activities, it was later understood that many parts of the informal sector are highly dynamic and not only respond to the needs of low-income and lower-middle-income communities
URBANIZATION, POVERTY AND INEQUITY 39 and settlements, but are often well integrated into the urban economy and, in some cases, the global economy (Bromley, 1979; Bromley and Gerry, 1979;
Moser, 1984). Further research has focused on urban household responses to crisis, especially to the structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s (Kanji, 1995; González de la Rocha and Grinspun, 2001), underlining the crucial role played by the informal sector as a safety net for the often large numbers of retrenched workers following reform of the public sector. Moreover, there is evidence that, when migrants move to urban centres, they are making rational choices – even if the urban informal sector does have many disadvantages, it may be preferable to the rural alternatives.
Third, it can be very misleading to assume that it is rural–urban migrants who are populating the expanding low-income settlements. Patterns of urbanization closely refl ect the geographical distribution of markets and their economic base. As described later in this chapter, the signifi cance of rural–urban migration to urban growth varies among countries, depending largely on their economic performance and their level of urbanization. The main component of urban growth in many countries is now natural growth rather than rural–urban migration. Moreover, while there is an overall increase in people’s mobility, the forms and directions of their movement are extremely diverse, with many people moving to and from urban areas or between different urban centres. Urban and rural poverty are often closely interlinked, but this should not be taken to imply that the urban poor are all, or even preponderantly, rural migrants.
Finally, one of the great conceptual mistakes in the development policy debates of the last 30 years has been to treat ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ poverty as somehow separate and to assume that they are in competition with each other for resources. In general, successful rural development will stimulate and support urban development and vice versa. There are some exceptions, but these do not invalidate this statement.
And since mobility is primarily a strategy adopted by households and individuals to reduce risk and vulnerability, it is important that policies recognize its role in poverty reduction. The various implications of the many linkages between urban and rural poverty, and their impact on rural–urban migration and poverty in receiving areas, are examined later in this chapter.
U
RBANP
OVERTYASAG
ROWINGANDU
NDERESTIMATEDC
HALLENGEThe scale and depth of urban poverty are understated by most global assessments, either because they make no allowance for urban conditions (for instance poverty lines that make no allowance for the higher monetary cost of non-food needs) or through inappropriate measurements (for example data on sanitation services in urban areas that do not measure who has ‘adequate’ provision). Large sections of the urban population in developing countries are malnourished, have below poverty-
40 THE NEWGLOBALFRONTIER
line incomes, and face high infant and child mortality rates and large preventable disease and injury burdens.
Globally, rural poverty still exceeds urban poverty, and this is especially so in most low-income countries. However, urban poverty now exceeds rural poverty in many middle-income countries and the scale of urban poverty is growing rapidly in many low-income ones. One simple reason for this is that a rapidly increasing proportion of the world’s population live in urban centres. Between 1975 and 2005, the urban population of developing countries grew by 180 per cent while the rural population grew by 31 per cent. United Nations projections suggest that in the next two decades (2005–2025), the urban population in developing countries will increase by 1.3 billion while the rural population will increase by 103 million (see Figure 2.1).
According to most economic and social indicators, urban populations do better on average than rural populations. However, in all countries, most wealthy households live in urban areas; this improves urban averages and can hide the severe
38
1317
103
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
High-income nations, total population
Developing nations, urban population
Developing nations, rural population
Population increase (millions)
Figure 2.1 Projected growth in the world’s population, 2005–2025
Source: United Nations (2006).
More developed regions, total
population
Less developed regions, urban
population
Less developed regions, rural
population
URBANIZATION, POVERTY AND INEQUITY 41
disadvantages faced by large sections of the urban population, as illustrated by data from Kenya on infant and under-fi ve mortality rates (see Table 2.1) (APHRC, 2002). Problems are more serious in rural than in urban areas – and conditions in the capital, Nairobi, are better than in other urban areas. But infant and under-fi ve mortality rates are much higher in the informal settlements, where around half of Nairobi’s population lives. Kibera, in Nairobi, is one of Africa’s largest informal settlements, with several hundred thousand inhabitants; at the time of the survey, nearly one child in fi ve in Kibera died before its fi fth birthday. In the wealthier parts of Nairobi, under-fi ve mortality rates are likely to be one-tenth or even one- twentieth of this. The survey also found that the prevalence of diarrhoea with blood in children under three in the two weeks prior to the interview was far higher in Nairobi’s informal settlements than among the rural population.
Even if indicators are better for urban populations than for rural populations, this does not imply that there is no need to address urban problems. In Chad, for instance, the infant mortality rate in 1997 was 99 per 1000 live births for urban areas and 113 for rural areas. In Mozambique, in 1997, it was 101 for urban populations and 160 for rural populations (Demographic and Health Surveys, undated). In these countries the rural infant mortality rates are higher than the urban, but the urban rates are also excessive. Moreover, if urban Chad and Mozambique face the same sort of intra-urban inequalities displayed in Kenya, there are likely to be urban neighbourhoods with rates well in excess of the rural averages. In many countries, the differences between the rural and urban infant and child mortality rates are not very great (Satterthwaite, 2007). This is surprising in that most urban areas have economies of scale and proximity in most of the measures that help reduce infant and child mortality rates (such as good provision of water, sanitation and healthcare).
A review of available data on malnutrition in developing countries by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) shows that levels of childhood mortality, stunting and lack of weight are generally lower in urban than in rural areas, whereas acute malnutrition or wasting (as measured by low weight-to-height ratios) and morbidity from infectious diseases are often higher in urban areas.
Table 2.1 Infant and under-fi ve mortality rates in Kenya (per 1000 live births)
Location Infant mortality rate Under-fi ve mortality rate
Kenya (rural and urban) 74 112
Rural 76 113
Nairobi 39 62
Other urban 57 84
Informal settlements in Nairobi 91 151
Kibera 106 187
Embakasi 164 254
Source: APHRC (2002).