of the next three largest cities in a country, Manila would rank third behind Hongkongand Lima.
Whereas longitudinal data on urbanisation level (% population in urban areas)and tempo (urban-rural growth rate differentials) for the whole country generallysuggest a sluggish and slackening pattern (27-33.4% or 1/3 of the national total, and 3-1.46 respectively between 1948-1975, albeit respective increments of 3.9% and 2 hadbeen noted in 1980), the metropolitan share of the total urban population had beeninvariably substantial and accounted for a stable increase over time (30.3-37.4% duringthe same period slightly tapering off to 33% in 1980, see Table 1 & 2 below). Moreover,Manila had surpassed all other regions in terms of being the first and only are tocompletely urbanise in 1970 to almost 6 million in 1980, and with a growth rate of 3.6per annum, it is expected to double in roughly 27 years.
Extreme conurbation and congestion of metropolitan landscape chaperons theexplosive population phenomenon. While the average national population density waspegged at 161 persons sq km, an staggering metropolitan ratio of 9,317 persons per sqkm overshot national figures by 58 times in 1980.
The corollary impact of conurbationand population on urban ecology is as predictable as it is disproportionately distributedintra-city-wise, and will be the subject of elaboration further on.Decomposing census data on urban growth into its components (i.e. naturalincrease of urban population, in-migration rates and changes related to territorial re-classifications), a study in urban demography establishes the significant weight that net-migrational movements exert on Manila’s incremental expansion across time. As aproportion of metropolitan growth from 1903-1939, average net migration was 33.4%,