Shifting Urban Dynamics: An Overview

In this chapter, I paint a broad-brush backdrop for the rest of the volume. Following a brief look at the shifting trends in the so-called urban-rural balance of the world population based primarily on UN data, I take a look at the Asian megacities by noting some problematic definitional issues that affect the comparability of such data. An overview of the diverse patterns of megacity growth and individual population and economic development (GDP) projections rounds out this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

eBook EUR 85.59 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Notes

In relying on the UN data for future projections, one should heed the cautionary note against taking that as “absolute truth rather than as simply indicative of general broad trends” (Cohen 2004, p. 25). Bocquier (2005, p. 219) noted, “[t]he conclusion is that UN projections may overestimate the urban population for the year 2030 by almost one billion, or 19% in relative term. The overestimation would be particularly more pronounced for developing countries and may exceed 30% in Africa, India, and Oceania”.

Although they are often used almost interchangeably in the literature, there are, arguably, some inherent conceptual differences between polycentricity and multinodality. Here is one view: “[…] [A] spatially polycentric development [can coexist] with a continued functional monocentricity, or show signs of multinodal urban configurations emerging around the core city akin to the American doughnut profile. In the first scenario, although the settlement structure shows a polycentric trend, overall the core city may retain its monocentric dominance; monocentricity as referred in this context pertaining more to the economic dominance of the core city over the satellites than the spatial configuration of the urban settlement. In the second scenario, the core city would have lost its dominance whilst the satellites become more dominant and independent of the former. More interaction may now take place between the (former) satellite cities than between them and the (former) core city. Moreover, to complicate matters further, once the distinction between different layers of economic and social activities is made, the city-cluster could reveal features of monocentric dominance on one or more layers and multinodality on others. For example, in terms of financial services it could remain monocentric, whilst it has already moved towards multinodality in other spheres” (Mookherjee et al. 2014, p. 198; emphasis in original).

Although beyond our current focus, for the interested reader there exists a wealth of literature exploring the urban concentration and deconcentration processes, as conceptualized in various stages of urbanization, suburbanization, polarization reversal, counter-urbanization, reurbanization and such that have relevance to the Asian urbanization. As a starting point, an edited volume by Geyer and Kontuly (1996) offers a broad overview of the field, refers to relevant works, and/or offers a number of original articles by ‘leading scholars in various disciplines.’ Some of the collected or referred works, with their focus on ‘urban agglomerations’ (e.g., Klaassen et al. 1981; Klaassen and Scimemi 1981; van den Berg et al. 1982) and on ‘spatial dispersion’ of population from the core region in developing countries (e.g., Richardson 1980) have special relevance in the current context. A ‘differential urbanization’ model theorizing successive stages of concentration and deconcentration, as conceptualized by Geyer (1989), developed by Geyer and Kontuly (1993), and empirically examined in both developed and developing world context by a number of researchers in a special issue in TESG (2003), including Mookherjee (2003), and Mookherjee and Geyer (2011), may also be of interest in this context. [Cited works are presented in the Reference section.]

For a fascinating historical overview, see Yeung, YM (2011) Rethinking Asian Cities and Urbanization: Four Transformations in Four Decades. Asian Geographer 28: 65–83.

From the standpoint of a conceptual distinction between the ‘single-system’ megacity region and the ‘multi-system’ megaregion or mega-urban region, as proposed by Harrison and Hoyler (2015) and discussed in the next chapter, it is interesting that the examples offered by Hall (2011) appear to fit the latter term better.

The thoughtful essays presented in this issue did ample justice to its avowed purpose of taking “stock of the megacities and their distinctive features” from the perspectives of global (network) and internal dynamics. However, despite the theme centering on megacities, I found no explicit definition or concrete criteria for defining the ‘megacity’ that would be of operational use. The term ‘giant city’ was most commonly used to describe ‘megacity’, along with such terms as ‘world city’, ‘capital city’, ‘global city’ etc. that appeared to have been used almost interchangeably throughout the issue.

Per Wikipedia, November 2016, “[O]ne of the earliest documented uses [of the term megacity was] by the University of Texas in 1904 [Hemisfile: Perspectives on the Political and Economic Trends in the Americas,” 5–8. Institute of the Americas. 1904. Accessed November 20, 2016].

This qualifier is warranted because of the validity of the argument that by the 10 million megacity population threshold rule, many cities around the world with significant national and international presence, would be left out.

In spite of the two different projection periods (2015–30 for population in the UN dataset and 2008–25 for GDP, in PricewaterhouseCoopers), and a few mismatches due to typographical errors among tables (e.g., Tables 3.6 and 3.10 on the base year), this source was selected for several reasons: While they primarily relied on the UN data, they also utilized data from other sources to come up with their estimates, meticulously noted the sources, discussed their relative reliability or lack thereof, explained their methodology in detail and claimed to add new data to their estimates as they became available.

The UAs were selected per the criterion that they “should encompass the top 100 ranked by GDP in both 2008 and 2025…” (2009).

Hanoi and Ho Chi Min City.

One way of observing this phenomenon, through the differential urbanization model, has been briefly noted in a footnote in Sect. 2.1.2.

The disparate projection periods between the population (2015–30) and GDP (2008–25) data sets are obviously problematic, precluding an effective comparison.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has variously described demographic dividend, e.g., ‘[t]he demographic dividend is the accelerated development that can arise when a population has a relatively large proportion of working age people coupled with effective human capital investment (UNFPA, April 2016).

For a detailed discussion, including the typology of countries within the spectrum of stages (ranging from pre-demographic dividend to early demographic-, late demographic-, and post-demographic dividend stages), the criteria for determining the stages, and an overview of literature on developmental implications (shaping, and being shaped by, the dividends), see, Ahmed et al. (2016).

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA Debnath Mookherjee
  1. Debnath Mookherjee