The Urbanization of the Third World

1988, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hoofdstuk 5: Overurbanization reconsidered

J. Gugler

not proposing to resuscitate comparative arguments but will focus on the economic implications of the rapid urban growth that characterizes most third world countries.

Third world cities have a increasing surplus labour.----- natural population growth/ rural/urban migration

micro/ macro paradox---- individuals profit from migration, gov. doesn't. paradox resolved when the migratory movement is seen as a mechanism that alows some of the disadvantaged rural population to partake in a small measure of the resources diproportionally concentrated in urban areas.

Urban surplus labour

characteristics 3rd world cities:

• unemployment (surplus labour)
• underemployment (to many people doing the work)
• misemployment (people who contribute little to social welfare)

Unemployment

information problematic:

• few data
• censuses/ surveys often not correct
• definition?

unemployed usually not representative of the most desperate living conditions.

Underemployment

underemployment: underutilization of labour

3 distinct forms:

• related to fluctuations in economic activity during the day (every day is different)
• workers to numerous for the work to be done (reduction would not affect output)
• hidden unemployment: solidary groups, that continu to employ all their members rather than discharging them when there iss insufficient work to keep them fully occupied.

Misemployment

misemployment: labour is employed, but the tasks performed contribute little to social welfare

much misemp. focuses on getting the little crumbs from the table of the rich 3 activities:

• domestics
• prostitutes
• scavengers

The opportunity cost of rural-urban migration

The rural side: What would have happened if some of the migrants had stayed in their rural homes?

Agriculture is characterized by labour bottle-necks during planting and/or harvesting periods, that even where population pressure on land is severe, all hands are needed at certain seasonal peaks of labour requirements.

Conclusion: rural/urban migration entails a loss of potential agricultural output where uncultivated land is still available, where virgin lands could be developed, and where institutional restraints on the intensivication of farming could be overcome. We add that the disproportionate loss of the young, the educated, and the enterprising delays innovation where it is most needed, that is, where population pressure on land appears most sever, given present farming methods.

Agricultural production+ non-farm activities exist in rural areas. Seasonal labour bottle-necks limit expansion of agricultural production under existing technology, and a cosiderable amount of time is spent on non-farm activities such as crafts and trading during the off-season.

The relative cost of urban services and goods

1. Rural/urban mig. brings workers to surplus cities+ entails some loss of potential rural output----->so leads to misallocation of labour between rural and urban areas.
2. how does the resource cost of providing for a rapidly expanding urban population compare with the task of absorbing such additional numbers in rural areas
3. pressure rural/urban migration on infrastructure:

housing/ education/ healthcare/ water supplies/ transportation

The economic rationale for rural/urban migration

Rural/urban migration is inefficient, but people still move and for ec. reasons.

2 interpretations:

1. short term migration
2. chain migration

The distributional dimension

rural/urban mig. is:

• inefficient
• rational response to the ec. realities ruralites face

--->paradox---> Fact that rur./urb. mig. has a redistributive effect, rur./urb. migrants lay claim to a share in urb income opportunities, they gain some acces to urban amenities.

those who stay also improve from migrants:

• send income
• provide acces to urban amenities (healthcare)
• village development
• press village interests)
• migrants relief rural areas from over population

misallocation of labour<--->improved income distribution

Of policy and power

approach should be:

• more efficient allocation of labour
• reduction in the extreme inequalities characterizing 3rd world countries
• improving rural standards (resourecs/ income)

urban bias: class conflict between rur. classes +urb classes

cities are centres of power +priviliges

2 characteristics of the contemporary setting for explanation:

1. all those enjoying high standards of consumption are urb.-based
2. surplus (usually for export) is controlled by the state --->absorbed in conspicuous investments for the few in the cities