Most attempts to implement national urban policies in developing countries have failed. The causes of failure have been many (infeasible goals, poor implementation, poorly designed policies) but the most difficult problem has been the isolation of national urban policy from national economic planning and from the overall context of macroeconomic and sectoral policies. National policy should not be equated with slowing down urbanization; if so, it will be ineffective in early developing countries and unnecessary in late developing and developed countries. It should not be defined largely as a primacy problem, because the issue is not whether the primate city is too big but rather how will primate city growth be managed. The resource costs of urbanization absorb a very high proportion of the available investment pool, but many of the policy implications are non-spatial (e.g. reducing standards, promoting savings) rather than spatial (e.g. changing the pattern of urbanization). Urban development should be treated as a horizontal slice cutting across almost all sectors rather than as a vertical sector in itself. This may require institutional reorganization at the central government level. Policy innovations should aim for much closer integration between urban development policy and national development planning and give less emphasis to independently conceived spatial policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brennan, E.M. and Richardson, H.W. (1985). Urbanization and urban policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa Urban Quarterly, 1, 20-42.
2.
Collier, P. and Sabot, R. H. (eds.)(1982). Migration and the Labour Market in Developing Countries. Boulder: Westview Press.
3.
Fuchs, R., Jones, G. W. and Pernia, E. W. (eds.)(1986). Urbanization and Urban Policies in the Asia and the Pacific Region, forthcoming.
4.
Gordon, P., Richardson, H.W. and Wong, H.L. (1986). The distribution of population and employment in a polycentric city: the case of Los Angeles. Environment and Planning, 18, 161-73.
5.
Mera, K. and Shishido, H. (1983). The pattern and pace of urbanization and socio-economic development: a cross-sectional analysis of development since 1960. World Bank, mimeo.
Padco-Dacrea. (1985). Analysis of Urban Services, Standards, Technologies and Costs. Jakarta: National Urban Development Strategy Project.
8.
Pepac. (1984). National Human Settleemtns Policy of Pakistan. Lahore: Government of Pakistan, Environment and Urban Affairs Division, Ministry of Public Works.
9.
Prakash, V. (1985). Affordability and cost recovery of urban services for the poor. Regional Development Dialogue, 6, 2, 1-39.
10.
Qutub, S.A. and Richardson, H.W. (1986). The costs of urbanization: a case study of Pakistan. Environment and Planning A, 18.
11.
Richardson, H.W. (1986a). The costs of urbanization: a four-country comparison . Economic Development and Cultural Change, forthcoming.
12.
Richardson, H.W. (1986b). The goals of national urban policy, in Fuchs et al.
13.
Richardson, H.W. (1983). Population distribution policies. United NationsPopulation Bulletin, 15, 35-49.
14.
Richardson, H.W. (1981). National urban development strategies in developing countries. UrbanStudies, 18, 267-283.
Richardson, H.W. and Gordon, P. (1986). Policentrism or dispersion: implications for commuting and spatial structure. The case of Los Angeles. KoreanJournal of Regional Science, 1, 121-133.
17.
United Nations. (1981). Population Distribution Policies and Development Planning. New York: United Nations .
18.
U.S. Census Of Population. (1980). Journey to Work: Metropolitan Commuting Flows. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
19.
Vining, JNR., D.R. (1983). Net migration towards the core regions of Third World countries: some evidence from the current round of censuses, Department of Regional Science, University of Pennsylvania, mimeo.
