urbanization as an indicator

[Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>]

An interesting relationship between economic development and urbanization
(and pollution):

	From about 1800 to 1850, in one English city, Birmingham, the
	population grew from 73,000 to 250,000. There were not enough jobs
	or housing; streets were crowded; pollution was rampant. 

How silly this sounds today! A town with two and a half lakh people
getting crowded and polluted! Los Angeles has more than 10 million people,
i.e., 40 times that size, and is not polluted by the standards of 150
years ago. In fact, it is a beautiful city by any yardstick and is getting
better each year. Crime is coming down, pollution is coming down. Wealth
is constantly increasing.

Professor Harry Richardson has proved that theoretically and empirically
there is no optimal size for a city. It is all a function of the planning
of that city and its economics and technology. As planning improves, the
city gets richer, and uses more sophisticated technology, its limits
expand ever outwards and the quality of life keeps improving.

The real measure of success of any policy of development will be in the
level and quality of urbanization that is found in that society. Thus
urbanization (and its quality) has to be a major indicator of success of
any policies, particularly the policies we are developing. 

We must put urbanization right toward the top of the manifesto. This is a
key area requiring more government, better planning, use of sophisticated
computers and computer models to link all the urban services together.

We must neither be afraid of urbanization nor bogged down by its
"crowding" and "pollution." Good urbanization policies can both anticipate
and promote development.

Sanjeev