Many developing nations have introduced policies designed to slow the rate of population growth of their largest cities. This article argues that there is a strong case for an explicit experimental or adaptive approach in policy design. Using the examples of Sao Paulo in Brazil and Seoul in South Korea, it is argued that coordinated trial and error methods with appropriate monitoring, evaluation, and policy revision can prove beneficial, especially given the high levels of uncertainty which surround both the objectives and the contexts of urbanization policies in most countries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong, H.
, and J. Taylor. 1985. Regional economics and policy. Oxford: Philip Allan.
2.
Ashcroft, B.1982. The measurement of the impact of regional policies in Europe. Regional Studies16, 4: 287-305.
3.
Beier, G.1975. The task ahead for the cities of the developing countries. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, Staff Working Paper 209.
4.
Berry, B. J. L.1973. The human consequences of urbanization. New York: St. Martin's Press.
5.
El-Shakhs, S.1980. National and regional issues and policies in facing the challenges of the urban future. In UNFPA: Population and the urban future, pp. 152-252. Rome, Italy: United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
6.
Gilbert, A. G.1976. The arguments for very large cities reconsidered. Urban Studies13, 1: 27-34.
7.
Henderson, J. V.1982. The impact of government policies on urban concentration. Journal of Urban Economics12, 4: 280-303.
8.
Kwon, W. Y.1986a. Regional development policies and strategies for the sixth economic and social development plan (1987-1991). Seoul: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
9.
Kwon, W. Y.1986b. Regional development policy in Korea with special reference to population decentralization from Seoul. Seoul: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
10.
Mills, E. S.
, and B. Song. 1979. Urbanization and urban problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
Renaud, B.1981. National urbanization policy in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
Richardson, H. W.1978. Growth centers, rural development, and national urban policy: A defense. International Regional Science Review3, 2: 133-152.
13.
Richardson, H. W.1981. National urban development strategies in developing countries. Urban Studies18, 3: 267-283.
14.
Richardson, H. W.1987. Whither national urban policy in developing countries?Urban Studies24, 3: 227-244.
15.
Richardson, H. W.
, and M. C. Hwang. 1987. Urban and regional policy in Korea and international experiences. Seoul: Konkuk University Press.
16.
Rodwin, L.1970. Nations and cities: A comparison of strategies for urban growth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
17.
Rondinelli, D. A.1975. Urban and regional development planning: Policy and administration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
18.
Stark, O. C.1980. On slowing metropolitan city growth. Population and Development Review6, 1: 95-102.
19.
Sveikauskas, L.
, P. M. Townroe, and E. Hansen. 1985. Intraregional differences in Sao Paulo state manufacturing plants. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv121, 4: 722-740.
20.
Townroe, P. M.1979. Employment decentralization: Policy instruments for large cities in LDCs. Progress in Planning10, 2: 85-154.
21.
Townroe, P. M.1984a. Influencias sectoriais nas mundancas espaciais da industrializacao: Estado de Sao Paulo, Brasil, 1960-75. Revista Brasileira de Geografia46, 2: 363-379.
22.
Townroe, P. M.1984b. Spatial policy and metropolitan economic growth in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Geoforum15, 2: 143-165.
23.
Townroe, P. M.
, and D. Keen. 1984. Polarisation reversal in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Regional Studies18, 1: 45-54.
24.
Townroe, P. M.
, and V. Thomas. 1984. Pollution control and the location of industry: The case of Sao Paulo. In Progress in resource management and environmental planning, eds. T. O'Riordan and K. Turner, pp. 91-116. Chicester: Wiley.
25.
Tyler, W. G.1983. The Brazilian sectoral incentive system and the regional incidence of nonspatial incentive policies. Washington, D.C.: Water Supply and Urban Development Department, The World Bank, Report UDD 31.
