Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2009
The City is a civilizing influence. This is one of the enduring themes of western thought. The crowding, filth, and exploitation of the industrial city in nineteenth-century Europe could not dampen the enthusiasm of urbanists such as Weber, Ruskin, or Spengler; nor is there any dearth of eulogizers of today‘s sprawling megalopolis. This mode of thought has also found its way into the poor countries of the third world, where the overwhelming majority lives in isolated villages. The current message for them is to seek urbanization if they want to be prosperous. This is the essence of a now familiar proposition that cities are necessary for economic development.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Third World Congress for Rural Sociology, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A., August 23, 1972.
1 Lampard, Eric E., ‘The History of Cities in the Economically Advanced Areas’, in Regional Development and Planning, Friedmann, John and Alonso, William, eds. (Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1964), pp. 331–2.Google Scholar
2 Hoselitz, Bert F., ‘The Role of Cities in the Economic Growth of Underdeveloped Areas’, in The City in Newly Developing Countries, Breese, Gerald, ed. (Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, 1969), p. 233.Google Scholar
3 Friedmann, John, ‘Cities in Social Transformation’, Friedmann, and Alonso, , eds. op. cit., p. 351.Google Scholar
4 Moore, Wilbert E., Social Change (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1963), p. 89.Google Scholar
5 Eisenstadt, S. N., ‘Reflections on a Theory of Modernization’, in Nations by Design, Arnold, Rivkin, ed. (New York: Anchor Books, 1969), p. 38.Google Scholar
6 Apter, David E., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 42.Google Scholar
7 Friedmann, John, ‘The Strategy of Deliberate Urbanization’ in Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXIV, No. 6 (11 1969), p. 365.Google Scholar
8 The dichotomous view of rural-urban differences regards the ‘folk-rural’ social system as closed, poor, ascriptive, and dominated by primary relationships, whereas the urban system is said to be open, achievement-oriented, cosmopolitan in outlook, industrial, and prosperous. A discussion of the relevance of ‘polar’ or ‘continuum’ models is being purposely avoided because of the ancillary nature of this issue from our point of view.
9 Bulsara, J. F., Patterns of Social Life in Metropolitan Areas (Bombay: The Gujrat Research Society, 1970), p. 39.Google Scholar
10 Fukutake, Tadashi et al. , The Socio-Economic Structure of the Indian Village (Tokyo: The Institute of Asian Economic Affairs, 1964), pp. 10, 110.Google Scholar
11 Sovani, N. V., Urbanization and Urban India (London: Asia Publishing House, 1966), p. 45.Google Scholar
12 National Council of Applied Economic Research, Urban Income and Saving (New Delhi, India: 1962), p. 23.Google ScholarPubMed
13 Hashmi, Sultan S., The People of Karachi—Demographic Characteristics (Karachi: Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, 1962), Table V-II, p. 105.Google ScholarPubMed
14 Ibid., p. 106.
15 Sovani, N. V., op. cit., p. 65.Google Scholar
16 Davis, Kingsley, Population of India and Pakistan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 133.Google Scholar
17 Sovani, N. V., op. cit., p. 65.Google Scholar
18 Hashmi, Sultan S., op. cit., p. 118.Google Scholar
19 Ibid., pp. 119–20.
20 Urban Income and Saving op. cit., p. 28.Google Scholar
21 Government of Pakistan, Central Statistical Office, Socio-economic Survey of Rawalpindi (Karachi: 1969), p. 48.Google ScholarPubMed
22 Zachariah, K. C., ‘Bombay Migration Study: A Pilot Analysis of Migration to an Asian Metropolis’, in The City in Developing Countries, Breese, Gerald, ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 367.Google Scholar
23 Gardezi, H. N., ‘A Comparative Analysis of Some Structural Characteristics of Urbanism in Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent and in the United States’ (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, 1961), p. 32.Google Scholar
24 Urban Income and Saving op. cit., p. x.Google Scholar
25 National Council of Applied Economic Research, All India Rural Household Survey, Vol. II (New Delhi, India: 1965), p. viii.Google Scholar
26 Bulsara, J. F., op. cit., pp. 30,246Google Scholar, and Government of Pakistan, Socio-Economic Survey of Korangi, Karachi, 1961, p. 25.Google Scholar
27 All India Rural Household Survey, Vol. II, op. cit., Table 12, p. 52.Google Scholar
28 Bulsara, J. F., op. cit., p. 216.Google Scholar
29 Ibid., p. 217.
30 Government of Pakistan, Central Statistical Office, Socio-Economic Survey of Rawalpindi (Karachi: 1969), p. 25.Google Scholar
31 Bulsara, J. F., op. cit., p. 224.Google Scholar
32 Ibid., p. 226.
33 Socio-Economic Survey of Rawalpindi, op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar
34 Srinivas, M. N., Social Change in Modern India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), p. 66.Google Scholar
35 Lambert, Richard D., ‘The Impact of Urban Society Upon Village Life’ in India's Urban Future, Turner, Roy, ed. (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 129.Google Scholar