Information Age and the Future of Cities in

 Developing Countries: The Case of Iranian Cities

By

Dr Asgar Zarabi

Department of Geography and Urban Planning

University of Esfahan, IRAN

A paper submitted to 37^th International Planning Congress 2001 (IsoCaRP)

Utrecht, The Netherlands

 Information Age and the Future of Cities in Developing Countries: The Case of Iranian Cities

By Dr Asghar Zarrabi

Department of Geography and Urban Planning

University of Esfahan, IRAN

Abstract:    The main purpose of this paper is to examine the extent of   spatial   urban   disparities   and the effect of communication and information on city development in Iran. The study has found that there are high spatial disparities between urban areas in Iran, particularly between Metropolitan Tehran and the rest of urban areas. The paper ends with a review of the Islamic      Government      decentralization    policies   for facing urban problems. Finally, a number of   conclusions have been   provided.

 Introduction

One of the major results of process of development, modernization, and integration of spatial, economic, and political systems has been an inevitable tendency towards increasing spatial disparities, between rural and urban areas, among cities within urban systems and between regions within a same country  (El-Shakhs, 1991). This is because the economic development was the major task of the most of urban and regional planners since 1950s.

According to this purpose, most of the developing countries paid more attention to industrialization and concentration of economic activities in few large urban areas, in order to improve   national economic growth (Rondinelli, 1987).

It was argued that such strategy would be able to spread the benifites of development within nation through “Trickle-down” effect. A number of evidences in developing countries have shown that the strategy of accelerated industrialization and aggregate economic growth, was not able to spread the benifites of development within a nation either economically, socially or politically (Cohen, 1978). Such strategy has occurred gradually in “enclaves” of modern activities and produced “back wash effect” draining capital and labour from rural hinterlands and   accentuated disparities and inequalities in the nation or regions, particularly between large cities and the rest of the country. (Rondinelli, 1980).

 The concentration of economic activities in large urban areas created the job opportunity for rural and small towns people who are searching for job. Therefore, the large urban areas, particularly the metropolitan areas would absorb more and more people and population of   the developing countries has become more concentrated in urban areas and created rapid urbanization, and “urban primacy”.

As Flood (1997) has   noted, “in 1950, the world’s urban population was 737 million or 29 percent   of   the   total; by 1995, it had   increased to 2603 million or 45 percent of   the total. Urban areas will shelter 50 per cent   of   the world’s population by the year 2000. Cities are currently absorbing   some two–thirds of total population increase in developing countries. During the period 1990 – 2030 the population of urban areas will grow by about 3.3 billion, of which over 90 percent will be in   human settlement in developing countries”.

This kind of rapid urbanization in developing countries has created social problems such as crime, delinquency, prostitution, slums and congestion, noise, traffic snarls, social segregation, deteriorating environment and pollution and the costs of maintaining the basic services have been rising very high.

As general, most of the developing countries have been facing three major   problems, rapid   urbanization, concentration of economic activities and population in few large cities, socio-economic disparities and inequalities.

Through the 1990s, the world has changing dramatically. It seems to become one global society. The society of tomorrow is, a global scale, an urban society (Hamm, 1997).

The communication and information technologies   have changed our society. The new technologies make our society a borderless socials, the distinction between town and country is disappearing. On the other hand, the development of global capital flows; transport and communication create   footloose   urbanization.  Urbanization. Is now going on here, there, everywhere.  Urbanization    grows   over the surrounding countryside, but there is still on big center (Haarlem, 1997).

Most of the planner in developing countries believes that the process of economic development results in the concentration of population in few urban areas and create “primate” cities. The information   technologies have been changing the personality of peoples in small towns and rural areas in developing countries.

By changing their personality, their needs and tendencies also have been changed. To get there wanted and property, the rural and small town people migrate to large urban areas and created rapid urbanization. Therefore the population of developing countries has become more and more concentrated in few already overcrowded large urban areas. Such rapid urbanization and concentration in large urban areas created socio–economic problems such as housing, unemployment, poverty and social segregation.

In the past, there were several strategies to cope with rapid urbanization and urban primacy and disparities.  Some of the planners have given attention to rural development as a strategy for coping with rapid urbanization. Such strategy unlikely to cause significant reduction in the rapidity of growth in urban population or the problems of large cities. In some, rural development may accelerate emigration to urban areas rather than slow it (Rondinelli, 1985). Some mostly have relied on shifting rural to urban migration. Migration from rural to urban areas particularly to large urban areas continue to be high even as governments in developing countries seek to increase rural productivity and income. It is argued that about half of the urban population increase in developing countries is attributed to rural migration. Such rural migrants mostly join the growing number of urban poor.

 A number of regional planners pay more attention to control on location of new industries. They argued that by creating new “growth pole” and “growth centres”, their created new opportunities for jobs and can-absorbed migrant from rural areas, that goes to large and metropolitan areas. The studies in some developing countries have shown that such strategy is not sufficient to control the rapid urbanization, particularly to large urban areas. Some has seen middle-sized city development as a strategy for controlling the future growth of large cities. They have argued that in developing nations, there are fewer resources to cope with problems of massive urbanization particularly in large urban areas. Therefore by building up the capacity of middle-sized cities, these cities can absorb more migrants who are going to large urban areas and can create a more balanced distribution of urban population.

Iran is among the developing countries, which has gone though such development process, and in this research it is used as a case study example. The population of    Iran has rapidly urbanizing   during   the past three decades.

The main purpose of this paper is to study about the extent of rapid urbanization and urban disparities in Iran. The paper is organized into three parts. Following this introduction, the paper examines the extent of urbanization in Iranian cities. This is followed by an analysis of future urbanization in Iran. The paper, then, examine the extent of urban disparities in Iran. The paper ends with the review of Islamic Government strategies for facing urban problems.

Rapid urbanization in Iran

The urbanization in Iran, as in many developing countries has occurred at a rapid pace, particularly since the 1956, when the first national census was conducted. As Atash (2000) has explained, first, in a forty–year period from 1956 to 1996, the population more than tripled.  Second, in about fifteen years from Iran’s revolution in 1979 to 1996, the population has almost doubled. The most recent national decennial census taken in 1996 counted Iran’s population as 60,055, 488, a 1.96 percent annual growth rats during the 1986-96 period.  According to table 1 the number of urban areas changed from 496 in 1986-1987 to 614 in 1996-1997 Censuses. 

Table 1: POPULATION IN CITIES, BY SIZE CLASS OF CITY

Source: PBO (1996).

The population of Iran has been rapidly   urbanizing during the past three decades. This rapid urbanization is mainly due to the high rural -urban migration, particularly to major cities such as Tehran and to a few provincial capitals, such as Isfahan, Shiraz and Mashhad (Atash, 2000). One estimate by zanjani (1987) has suggested that the proportion of urban areas in Iran may increase to 120 million by 2020. It should be noted that the large proportion of this urban population are concentrated in Tehran. About 22 percent of the urban population of Iran was concentrated in one city Tehran, while the second and third largest urban areas have 5.4 and 3.6 per cent, respectively of urban population. Of 36.8 million people living in urban areas in 1996, 18.4 per cent lived in Tehran, and 41.8 per cent in the nine largest cites with population of 500,000 or more Therefore Tehran, the largest city in Iran has grown very rapidly   in the past (Atash, 2000). This shows that Iran has high primacy, particularly between Tehran and the rest of the urban areas in the country.

One study by kazemi (1980) has compared the primacy of Tehran with other major primate cities of the Middle East. He has found that Tehran has higher primacy value than the other major cities in the Middle East.

One of the main problems of Iranian nation is socio – economic disparities between Tehran and the rest of urban areas. Second there exist social segregation, which are the results of such socio – economic disparities between Tehran and the rest of the countries.

As Richardson    (1994) has   identified several problems of primacy in developing countries. He explained that rural – urban migration has been excessive, harmful to many migrants themselves who have become marginal and not fully integrated into city life and at the same time results in net social cost in large cities because of the difficulty of absorbing migrants with respect to jabs, housing, services.  It is also the results of social cost in the areas of origin of the migrants to primate cities. Secondly, concentration of population in primate cities creates external diseconomies of scale associated with the rapid growth of the largest city.  Such diseconomies include congestion, overcrowding, pollution, crime, social segregation and social alienation.

Future Urbanization in Iran

“Iran’s population is projected to reach 89 million by year 2006 and 134 million by 2021. This projection assumes that the total fertility rate (or average lifetime births per women) will decline from 6.4 children to 5.3 children between 1991 and 2011. It is projected that about 69 per cent and 74 per cent of total population will live in urban areas by 2006 and 2021 respectively. To that end, Iran’s urban population is estimated to increase to about 61.4 and 99.2 million by 2006 and 2021 respectively. Meaning an annual growth rate ranging from 4.2 per cent to 4.5 per cent during the 1991-2006 period and 3.3 per cent to 3.6 per cent during 2006-21 period” (Atah, 2000).

The projection demonstrates that’s urban population will triple in 30 years, from33 million in 1991 to about 99 million in 2021. It is projected that by the year 2021, the number of cities with population of 100,000 or more will increase to 114; seven will have a population of 1000000 or more, 15 a population of 500000 to 1000000, 29 a population of 250000 to 500000, and 63 a population of 100000 to 250000 (Ibid).

Spatial disparities of Iranian Population

In order to get a picture of the extent of spatial urban disparities in Iran, the standardized scores (Z-scores) are adapted for this study. This index is used to measure the extent of inter-urban disparities between 612 urban areas with population of 100’000 and more. The standardized scores for Population indicator among the urban areas in the nation were examined; it is included the scores of population size, for 5 censuses from 1955 to 1995. The results of 1955 and 1995 census are presented in table 2. The examination of this table reveals that a smaller number have positive magnitudes while their negative scores distinguish a large number of urban areas. These wide differences indicate the high disparities between urban areas, particularly   between Metropolitan Tehran and the rest of urban areas. Tehran has more than 7 score while the second largest city, Mashhad has 1.64 score. This indicates a high primacy between Tehran and the second largest city.

Table 2: Z-score of Cities with a population of 100’000 and more (According to the 1956 and 1996 national censuses of population and housing)

Source: adapted from PBO (1996)

Islamic      Government      decentralization    policies   for facing urban problems

The process of rapid urbanization is not a recent phenomenon in Iran. During the 1956-1966 periods the annual rate of urban population growth was about 4.6 percent per year. During 1966-1976 periods, it is documented that about two million rural people left their homes to go urban areas, particularly to metropolitan Tehran and a number of large cities such as Isfahan and Shiraz (PBO, 1982). Such rapid urbanization in Iran is mainly due to rural-to urban migration.  During 1976 and 1986 period, the annual rate of urban population was 3,9 percent (Atash, 2000). Finally the growth rate of urban population between 1986 to 1996 periods was 3.2 percent.

Such rapid urbanization created a number of socio-economic problems for Islamic government such as poverty, unemployment, high cost of housing, inadequate education and health facilities and lack of other urban services. 

After revolution, the Islamic Government has played more attention to decentralization and deconcentration of economic activities in the nation in order to control large urban areas and to balance development distribution of benefits of economic growth. The Islamic Government has initiated a policy to give services to rural areas, particularly by creating a “construction crusade” in each district in order to reduce the flow of migration to large urban areas and reduce rapid urbanization. 

Such policy has had a little effect on reducing the migration to urban areas, particularly to Metropolitan Tehran and a few large urban areas such as Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz. If such trends of urbanization continue, the existing primacy and disparity will be widened in the nation.  . By late 1980s, despite some improvement in the conditions of the less developed provinces, the Iranian national development strategies was still characterized by acute inter provincial disparities and concentration of population in large urban areas, particularly metropolitan Tehran (Atash, 2000).

Conclusion and Policy    Recommendations:

This paper has examined the extent of urban disparities in Iranian population, between 614 urban areas. In order to highlight the root cause of rapid urbanization and urban disparities in Iran and in developing countries, the development planning process in the literature has been reviewed.  From this review, it is found that in the past, the industrialization and concentration of economic activities results in rapid urbanization and concentration of population in few urban areas and create ‘primate’ cities. The rapid urbanization and mass-migration and finally the socio-economic disparities are the result of speed communication on one hand and   concentration of economic activities in large urban areas. In second part of paper the urbanization in Iran has been examined. It becomes clear that between 1956-1996, the Iranian population have been concentrated in large urban areas and created socio-economic problems such as lack of housing, unemployment, poverty and social segregation.

On the other hand the concentration of population in few urban areas created socio-economic disparities, particularly between metropolitan Tehran and the rest of urban areas.  In final part of paper the Post revolution Government decentralization policies have been examined. 

In conclusion, three findings can be drawn from the analysis of Iranian urbanization in the past. First, the Iranian urban system has high primacy, particularly between Tehran and the rest of urban areas. Second, there exist high urban disparities between urban areas. Third, the Islamic Government decentralization policies had a little effect on reducing the migration to urban areas, particularly to Metropolitan Tehran and a few large urban areas such as Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz. Finally if such trends of urbanization continue, the existing primacy and disparity will be widened in the nation

By finding of this paper it is important to recommend that

       -The Islamic Government should invest in infrastructures, services, and industries of     

          Secondary cities that can use as a contermagnet to Metropolitan Tehran, In order to

          Reduce the urban problems of Tehran.

       -It is need to create more job opportunities, providing better health, education and       

         Social services to small and middle sized cities that can play important role in rural

         And regional development. Such strategy can absorb the rural migrants who are     

         Going to large urban areas.

        -Upgrading of small towns and rural centres and create a network between them,    

          Are very important for future distribution of rapid urbanization in the nation.

This paper has provided a starting point for further investigation of urban disparities in Iran and the role of small cities in regional and national development.

References

Atash, F. (2000),  New Town and Future Urbanization in Iran, TWPR, 22

Cohen, M.(1978), Regional Development or Regional location, DPU working paper, 

                           No.6, London.

El-shakhs, S,  (1991), The future of Mega-Cities: Planning implications for a more  

                           Sustainable Development, Proceedings of Bauhaus Dessau, 7-14

                           September.

Flood,  J.  (1997), Urban  and  Housing   Indicators, Urban Studies Vol 34, No.10,

Haarlem (1997),  Temporary   Autonomous Network 1, Report of TAN1.

Hamm, B.  (1997),  Sustainable  Development and the Future of Cities, Proceedings of

                           Bauhaus Dessau, 7-14 September.

Kazemi, F. (1980), Rapid Urbanization In Iran, Washington, D.C., University press 

Richardson, H (1994),Planning Strategies and Policies for Metropolitan Lima, Urban    

                           Studies, 18.pp262-283.

Rondinelli D. A (1980),.Regional Disparities and Spatial Allocation Policies in the

                           Philippines:In Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 1980

Rondinelli D.A. (1985), Secondary Cities in Developing Countries, Sage Publication,

                           London.

Rondinelli D. A.(1987),  Policies for balanced Urban Development in Asia, Regional

                           Development Dialogue, Vol,11

PBO (1982),  Plan and Budget Organization Newly Statistics, Vol %, Tehran:  

                           Statistical Center.

PBO (1996),  Statistical  year book, Tehran, Statistical Center.

Zanjani H. (1987), Population and  Urbanization in Iran Vol, 1, Tehran, Statistical

                         Center.