Urbanisation Is Sea

SE1101E Group canvass Rural-Urban migration, or urbanisation, has led to a let out heart for a absolute legal age of Southeast Asiatics. To what expiration is this true? Discuss your answer using examples from at least three different Southeast Asian societies to illust reckon your points. ____ Introduction For the longest time, Singaporeans lived in a relative urban oasis coined, praised and awarded as the tend City. Even so, in the last 2 years, Singaporeans entertain experienced the stress of continued urbanization, composed mainly through migration.This stress has been manifested physically as inadequate infrastructure, socially as revolt xe zero(prenominal)hobia and politically as rising discontentment, booster cable to the long-ruling Peoples Action Party to manifestation its worst electoral slaying since independence in 1965. It is this backdrop that propelled our group to comparatively examine the urbanization experiences of three of Southeast Asias largest co untries, and valuate the out postdates. Firstly and most importantly, it is important to delineate the two key terms coarse-urban migration and urbanization.While country-bred-urban migration is a subset of urbanization, urbanization as a process is far more encompassing, as Terry McGee has remark to include the expansion and encroachment of urban regions into formerly country beas through land-use conversion practices. For the scope of this essay, we provide limit our arguments to the process of rural-urban migration. The process of migration is just delimitate by Zelinsky as a permanent or semipermanent change of residence.Petersen offers a sociological perspective, defining migration as a spatial rapture from one social unit or neighbourhood to another. Extending these, rural-urban migration can be broadly defined as the movement of people from rural home locations to urban locations, which results in socio-economic impacts for both the origin and cultivation societie s. This includes circulatory migration, where rural migrants return to their home location after a period in the urban location, and permanent relocation from the rural location to the urban location.Further to this, to achieve a manageable scope of discussion, we have elected to focus on (domestic) rural-urban migration, where the rural and urban locations are located within the same country, as opposed to the processes of transnational (and regional) rural-urban migration. In this essay, we will argue that mend the process of rural-urban migration has created a better life history for some, it has not necessarily created a better life for the majority of Southeast Asians especially when evaluated on a holistic level. Specifically, we will use the case studies of Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines to support our argument.These three countries were selected as their combined populations of over four hundred million, consist a majority 65 per cent of Southeast Asias 620 millio n people, in concomitant to their relative comparative congruence within the extremely diverse Southeast Asian region. Secondly, this essay strives not to be an ideological critique of the processes of rural-urban migration and urbanization but preferably, serve as a comparative description on the impacts of rural-urban migration in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines and provide an objective evaluation of whether this process has created a better life for the majority of Southeast Asians.Aptly congruent, Tjitoherijanto and Hasmi describe urbanization as an expression of peoples desire for a better life and must be recognized as a natural modern process by which humans attempt to improve their welfare. The central themes of what is a better life, has rural-urban migration created it and for whom, form the good example of our discussion. Case Study The Philippines In our firstly case discipline, we analyze the Philippines. The state of urbanization in the Philippines is com paratively the most advanced of the three case studies, with 33 passing urbanized cities and 4 surpassing the 1 illion-population mark. While the 2010 census depicts the state of urbanization in the Philippines, it does not describe the flow of domestic rural-urban migration. From 1970 to 1990, the share of the Philippine population identified as urban surged from 36% to 52%, which further increased to 59% by 2000. Not all of this ripening can be attributed to rural-urban migration. In fact, 47. 2% is actually receivable to reclassification of formerly rural areas as urban and natural urbanite population growth.While explicit data is sparse, Hugo provides a ass to assume that the remaining and majority 52% of this urban growth, is likely due(p) to rural-urban migration. In tandem with rising urbanization, cursory economic indicators also rose. GDP increased from USD 6. 6 billion in 1960 to USD 199. 5 billion by 2010. Even with considerable population growth, GDP per capita al so grew during the same period, from USD 692 to USD 1,383. Nakanishi forwards that the rural domain conditions in the Philippines, where peasants do not own their land, are insupportable and conditions in the city, though not the best, are an improvement.Knight and Song, who compute the Philippines urban-to-rural income ratio to be 2. 26, give further credence to the possibility, that perhaps, rural-urban migration might create a better frugal life for rural migrants, and for all Filipinos too. These quantitative indicators are, however, quickly problematized as besides simplistic. To begin, consider the Gini coefficient, which measures the in equivalence of income dispersion. For the Philippines, this stood at 0. 46 in 2010 the income share held by the top 10% was 36% while the income share held by the bottom 10% was plainly 2%.This significantly unequal dissemination of income evidences that the profits associated with economic growth has not reached and has not benefitted a vast majority of Filipinos. Also, counterintuitively, high income levels in urban areas do not actually lead to economic improvement on all accounts, as the Harris-Todaro lesson establishes. Simply put, the wage differential between the urban and rural areas (2. 26 in the case of the Philippines) compels rural populations to ig sum up to urban areas despite urban unemployment which further, and continually, increases unemployment, as long as urban wage levels continue to go on that of rural areas. This thesis holds true in the Philippines context, where even as unemployment order rose from 5% in 1980 to 11% by 2000, rural-urban migration continued to rise. This self-perpetuating cycle is particularly significant as it confirms that rural-urban migration, far from leading to a better life, actually results in the opposite. Rising unemployment creates further problems.One is the creation of urban slums, where the poorest rural migrants mainly live. In fact, from 2000 to 2006, urban slums grew at a rate of 3. 5%, faster than the urban population growth rate of 2. 3%. This evidences that rural-urban migration (which generates the majority of urban population growth) creates negative socioeconomic ripple effects, which compound with time, noting that rural-urban migration began in the sixties in the Philippines. In Manila alone today, 35% of the 12 million population live in slums.Urban slums, which are characterized by poor sanitation, overcrowded and crude habitation, inadequate water supply, hazardous location and insecurity of incumbency, have been recognized to lead to widespread milieual degradation. Most prominently, the lack of proper sanitation and toilet services in slums contaminate citywide and nationwide water supplies, creating over 38 million cases of heartbreaking diarrhea in the Philippines every year. This is despite the shareage of urban population with access to sanitation in the Philippines increasing from 69% in 1990 to 79% in 20 10.This contradiction recalls Ulrich Becks pithy quote smog is democratic that environmental impacts (linked to rural-urban migration and its ensuing employment) created by a small segment of the population can discharge the gauge of life for a significant majority, in a ripple-like effect. However, ripple effects can exit both ways, and in a confirming sense too. One common example is that of the increased literacy rate as a result of rural-urban migration. From 1980 to 2000, the literacy rate increased from 84% to 93%. The literature is clear generally speaking, a high literacy ate and education level are two of the most significant positive externalities of rural-urban migration. The causation link between rural-urban migration and literacy is primarily due to the higher accessibility of schools in urban regions, which lease rural migrants in urban centers to more readily access schooling. This causation is however, problematic in the Philippines, where in that respect is no wide disparity in literacy rates between rural and urban areas that would support such(prenominal) a causation thesis. The primary school net attendance rate in rural areas was only marginally disgrace at 86%, compared to 89% in urban areas.Some theorists have hypothesized that a intemperate historical cultural emphasis on education in the Philippines is one reason for this comparative equality in literacy rates in both urban and rural areas. Regardless, the lack of causation between rural-urban migration and literacy rates in the Philippines, further evidences that rural-urban migration, has not led to a better life for a significant majority of Filipinos. The discussion thus far surfaces a most important facet of the discussion that of insurance policy responses to rural-urban migration.It is observable that the impacts created by the process of rural-urban migration might not be as deterministic as Harris and Todaro implied (their simplifying assumptions have been wide critiqued). It is crucial to note that the impact of the rural-urban migration process, whether positive or negative, is molded through the lens of the eye of government policy responses. In the case of the Phillipines, the indicator of increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, was contradicted by a highly unequal distribution of income and rising unemployment.Policy intervention is thus required to equalize this. Also, the formations of slums are not a direct result of rural-urban migration but due to inept city planning and a lack of capable public housing, again demonstrating the collision between policy and process as fundamental to our discussion on the impacts of rural-urban migration. In sum, one last indicator, mentioned in passing at the beginning of this case study, of increased life prediction, exemplifies one of the themes stated at the outset what constitutes a better life?Does increased life expectancy constitute a better life, or just a longer one? found on the evidence presented, we are inclined to think it is the latter. While Philippines represent a country in a highly urbanized state, Thailand represents one on the other spectrum. As such, our next case study will examine the rural-urban migration pattern in Thailand. When we analyze the rural-urban migration of Thailand, we can roughly translate it to the rural-urban migration to capital of Thailand. This is due to capital of Thailands dominance and influence in the countrys political and economical landscape.The size distribution of cities in a country roughly abides to the rank-size rule The second largest city is half the size of the first largest city and the third largest city is half the size of the second. In Thailands case however, the second largest city is a mere 6% the size of capital of Thailand. As such, it is not an overstatement to describe Thailand as a one-city state. Thus in this case study, we will examine the urban landscape with reference to Bangkok as a c omparison. Thailands urbanization rate is at a low 38% , significantly lower than their peers such as Indonesia (53%) and Malaysia (71%) (percentage not accurate as of 2012.Need comparison and citation). This figure has stalled since 2007, only changing by 0. 8% between 2002 and 2009. This is because Bangkok has stopped growing. In fact, it has shrank by 1% between 2007 and 2009. As of late, Thailands urbanization trends began shifting away from Bangkok to the peripheral responsibilitys such as Songkhla Nakhon Si Thammarat and Surat Thani. As such, while the top 10 cities in the vicinity of Bangkok grew collectively by 17%, a 1% decrease in Bangkok has dropped that urbanization growth to a mere 0. 8%. These reflect how this iodin city is able to impact the countrys economy.As such we shall analyze the impact of urbanization by using Bangkok as our case study. The growth of Bangkok brings about social and economical progress, with economical winning priority. National income stati stics from the NESDB have shown that though contributing a mere 15. 8 per cent of centre population in 1988, Bangkok and its vicinity generated more than 50 per cent of the gross domestic product. Socially, the Bangkok and its neighboring region has enjoyed better health care (2. 12 hospital beds per residents, compared with 0. 38 per 1,000 residents in Sri Saket, the poorest province of Thailand. and higher access to water (About 12 percent compared with 1. 2 percent in North, 1. 4 percent in the South, and 0. 9 percent in the North-east. ) While the figures reflect an improvement in the quality of life, this whitethorn not translate into an improvement for the people. There cost an overlying assumption that there would be a trickle down effect to benefit the less well off. Dr. Puey, a famous Thai economic expert observed otherwise. Thailands pursuit of economic growth has widened the rich-poor disparity where urbanized regions in Thailand have experienced economic benefits at t he expense of villages.Furthermore, it is alleged that there has been a social tension within the rural community between the few who have benefitted and the majority who have not. Critics of these distributions of wealth have blamed the monopoly of capitalism from emerging corporations in finance and banking centered in Bangkok. On October 14, 1973, a student led arise threw the exploitation of rural villagers in the spot light, highlighting the dissent over the rich-poor divide. Furthermore, Thailand has traded a social benefit for a social problem.As Bangkok swelled as the only go-to urban destination in the 1970s, Bangkoks infrastructure failed to expand at the same pace as its growing population. Overpopulation and congestion were shop at social issues that the government had to address. The high influx also led to pollution, and by consequence, disease. As such, it may be argued that while the urban population enjoyed better health care services, there was also a higher pro pensity to get sick due to more frequent interactions and mass pollutions. As such, while the face value of urbanization reveals measurable benefits, the real value actually shows a decrease.This aforementioned issue indicates a situation where rural-urban migration works too well. Bangkok grew haphazardly without an official city plan until 1992, a growth necessitated by Economic interest. Accompanied by poor city planning is its poor infrastructure of roads, leading to massive barter jams. BBC has ranked Bangkok as having one of the top ten worst traffic jams in the world. For residents in this urban landscape, such issues have become so commonplace that they have come to accept these problems as part of their everyday lives.The process of rural-urban migration, at least until 2007, has played the role of an instigator that negatively impacted the lives of those living in the urban landscape. Hence, rural-urban migration has its pros and cons. However, while it is important to we igh the different opportunities offered due to rural urban migration, we should also consider how these citizens perceive these opportunities offered and whether they consider themselves better off. Here lies the paradox. Both rural and urban parties perceive themselves as beneficiaries to the rural urban migration.A collection of data from six rural villages in the Nong Muun Than and Phon Muang communes revealed that villagers overwhelmingly felt that they had came up on top compared to their urban counterparts. Villages were perceived to be better in terms of standard of living, the friendliness, the working conditions and the environment to raise children although they conceded that urban areas posed a better environment to specialize. On the contrary, urban areas felt that they benefitted from better facilities, higher pay and wider job opportunities.As such, while visible problems exist in both rural and urban states, they remain predominantly contented. This coming, however, comes with its own associated problems. It fails to recognize social identity which compels participants to be more biased towards their own home society, and it also assumes all Thais are well-informed of the opportunities and problems offered in both societies. For example, villagers in a rural area may be contented with life, but they may still be unable to comprehend the benefits urban areas provide.Their contentment hence lies in their simplicity of thought process rather than the effect of rural-urban migration. As such, we turn our attention to more obvious indicators while still taking account, albeit more cautiously, peoples perception of such benefits. Recognizing the growing rural-urban divide, the 9th developmental plan of Thailand explicitly tackles such rural-urban linkages in the country. Longitudinal studies on migration patterns conducted by the Nang Rong Project and Kanchanburi Demographic Surveillance System (KDSS) were used to evaluate emerging problems faced b y Thailand.It concluded that economical pull factors were the main cause of migration towards urban areas, although their attend for financial stability came with a string attached. According to the DFG Bangkok Migrant Survey, (2010), 67 percent of migrants inform an improvement in living conditions since leaving rural areas while 60 percent of migrants reported persistent income. However, 70 percent of migrants do not possess a written work contract and 80 percent of respondents have no insurance at all.Most of these migrants consist of family members forced to find work in urban areas due to rural poverty and hence migration was influenced not out of choice but rather that of necessity. As such, although they travel to urban regions in search of better prospects, their nature of travel is necessitated for survival and their tour comes with little or no social safety net. Another issue they face is not simply acquiring employment, but rather quality employment. 70 percent of mi grants earn less than 300 bahts (or $8) a day.While these still represents an increase in pay as compared to their rural counterparts, they also face a higher cost of living in an urban environment and therefor tend to spend more. Hence, most migrants aimed for quality employment, but only a mere 2 percent earn around 2. 3% render in this category. To summarize, economical growth only represents the net value earned 1 . Terry Mc Gee The Spatiality of Urbanization, The Policy Challenges of Mega-Urban and Desakota Regions of Southeast Asia- Published by Penerbit Lestari, Univeriti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, 2009. 2 . The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition Author(s) Wilbur Zelinsky Reviewed work(s) line Geographical Review, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Apr. , 1971), pp. 219-249 Published by American Geographical Society Stable universal resource locator http//www. jstor. org/stable/213996 3 . Migration and split households a comparison of sole, couple, and family migrants i n Beijing, China C Cindy Fan, Mingjie Sun, Environment and supplying A 2011, volume 43, pages 2164 2185 4 . William Petersen A General Typology of Migration, Amer. Sociol. Rev. , Vol. 23, 1958, pp. 246-266. 5 . Devasahayam makes a compelling study of these processes hrough the lens of remittances. Making Remittances Work in Southeast Asia By Theresa W. Devasahayam in http//www. iseas. edu. sg/documents/publication/ISEAS%20Perspective_09nov12. pdf 6 . https//www. cia. gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_eas. hypertext mark-up language 8 . http//www. census. gov. ph/content/2010-census-population-and-housing-reveals-philippine-population-9234-million 9 . Flieger, W. 1995. The Philippine population 1980-90. Paper prepared for Conference on Population, Development and Environment, Program on Population, East- western United States Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S. A. 10 . http//www. nscb. gov. ph/pressreleases/2004/30Jan04_urban. asp 11 . The Book 12 . Hug o, G. (1999), Demographic Perspectives on Urban Development in Asia at the Turn of the Century, in Brotchie, J. , Newton, P. , Hall, P. and Dickey, J. (eds. ), East West Perspective on 21st Century Urban Development, Alder- shot, UK Ashgate. 13 . World Bank Statistics 14 . Nakanishi (1996), proportional Study of Informal Labour Markets in the Urbanisation Process The Philippines and Thailand, The Developing Economies, 34(4) 470-96. 15 . Knight, J. and Song, L. 2002, 2nd ed. ), The Rural-Urban classify Eco- nomic Disparities and Interactions in China, Oxford Oxford University Press. 16 . World Bank 17 . World Bank 18 . Source call for 19 . http//www. irinnews. org/Report/89348/PHILIPPINES-Slum-populations-brace-for-storm-season 20 . according to Marife M. Ballesteros. 21 . World Bank 22 . http//www. epdc. org/sites/default/files/documents/Philippines_coreusaid. pdf 23 . SCB Insight 2010, Looking beyond Bangkok The urban consumer and urbanization in thailand) by SBS Eco nomic give-and-take sector 24 . ttp//urbantimes. co/2012/08/the-outcomes-of-rapid-urbanization-in-thailand/ 25 . SCB Insight 2010, Looking beyond Bangkok The urban consumer and urbanization in thailand) by SBS Economic intelligence sector 26 . http//www. scb. co. th/eic/doc/en/ acuteness/SCB%20Insight%20Dec%202010%20Eng. pdf 27 . http//archive. unu. edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu11ee/uu11ee0z. htm 28 . http//archive. unu. edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu11ee/uu11ee0z. htm 29 . Economic Development and rural-urban Disparities in Thailand by Prasert Yamklinfung*, Southeast Asian Studies vol 25, no. , page 342 30 . http//archive. unu. edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu11ee/uu11ee0z. htm 31 . http//www. bbc. co. uk/news/magazine-19716687 32 . Rural Urban mobility in Thailand A decision-making approach by Theodore D. Fuller, capital of Minnesota Lightfoot and Peerasit Kamnuansilpa 33 . Rural Urban mobility in Thailand A decision-making approach by Theodore D. Fuller, Paul Lightfoot and Peerasit Kamnuansilpa 34 . http//econstor. eu/bitstream/10419/48316/1/4_amare. pdf (page 7) 35 . http//econstor. eu/bitstream/10419/48316/1/4_amare. pdf (Page 17)