Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Evers-Urbanization and Urban Conflict

    Uploaded by

    Ayndri Tri Widya
    4 views12 pages
    urbanization and urban conflict in south-east asia by hd evers

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    urbanization and urban conflict in south-east asia by hd evers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views12 pages

    Evers-Urbanization and Urban Conflict

    Uploaded by

    Ayndri Tri Widya
    urbanization and urban conflict in south-east asia by hd evers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    Urbanization and Urban Conflict in Southeast Asia Hans-Dieter Evers Asian Survey, Volume 15, Issue 9 (Sep., 1975), 775-785. Stable URL: Itt flinksjstor.orgsici?sick=0N04 468728 197509929 15%3A9%IC77SE3 AUAUCIS9E2 OCORBEK ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at fp (fw. jstor orglaboutitersihtml. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless You. have obtained prior permission, you ray not download an entire issue of &joumal or multiple copies of aricies, and You may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR twansmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sercen or lnted page of such transmission. Asian Survey is published by University of California Press. Please contact the publisher for further permissions ‘regarding the use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at fup:fsrw jst org/jourmals/ucal heen, Asian Survey ©1975 University of Califomia Press ISTOR and the ISTOR logo are trademarks of ISTOR, and are Registered in the US. Patent and Trademase Office. For mote information on ISTOR contact jstor-info@umich edu, ©2003 IsTOR hup:thrww itor. orgy Mon Mar 3 20:32:06 2003 URBANIZATION AND URBAN CONFLICT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA Hans-Dieter Evers UnnANIZATION 15 ONE of the most rapid processes of s0- cial change throughout the world. Considerable social and demographic ‘wansformations accompanied the growth of the world arban population that more than doubled becween 1950 and 1960 (from about 213 to about 655 million people). By 1976 the world urban population will probably be well shove the 1,000 million line. Not too long 2go urbanization and urban growth were seen as an indicator of modernization and progress, In 1958, Daniel Lerner could stilt claim that rapid urhanization is the precondition for nioderniza- tion and development: “It is the transfer of population irom scattered, hinterlands to urban centers that stimulates the needs and provides the conditions needed far ‘rake off cowards widespread participation. . Gities produce the machine cools of modernization." Today scholars have heeame less optimistic about urbanization. Cities are no longer seen as the centers of change and progress but rather as areas of crises. Not only New York and London, but Calcutta, Rio de Janeiro and Jakarta are seen as the centers of social problems, illiteracy, disease, ‘rime, and poverty. Nevertheless, differences between the urbanization process in Enrope and North America and in the cities of the develop- ing world are considerable. Before discussing the state and process of urbanization in Southeast Asia, we have to turn ta some problems of definition and measurement, Leaving aside all cultural and social strectural definitions of urbaniza- tion and concentrating for the moment only on erusde population statis- ties, the following distinctions are necessary. Urbanization refers first of all (0 2 state of airs, namely, the percentage of popitlation living in urban areas in a nation state, Secondly, it refers to a process, namely, the increase in the total urban population. This latter distinction, though seemingly of no great importance, is very relevant. to our discus "4 Daniel Lerner, The Pas of Traditional Society: Modernising the Middle ‘east (New Yorks The Free Pr 8), pO 78 776 URBAN CONFLICT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA sion. Most statistics on urban population vefer to the absolute increase in persons residing in cities. cis safe to say that there is hardly any of more tian 100,000 population in Southeast Asia that has not in creased its total population considerably over the past 50) years or so However, as population in rural areas also increases rapidly, the pro- portion of the popiation in a given territory living in urban areas i creases at a much slower pace or even remains stagnant at mes, Though, urban populations may misshraom, the rural-urban population balance may shift only lowly. To judge these altemations in the rural-urban balance, readjust mens in administrative boundaries and definitions used in national statistics have (0 be taken into account, Some statistics use a purely legal definition to count the urban population, whereas others use at arbivrary figure and regard any settlement with 2 population of more than 20,000 ot of more than 100,00 as urban. Dificulties in this regard become apparent from the following ex- zzmples. South Vietnamese statistics, for instance, use 2 legal definition. There are consequently towas of 2,000 inhabitants that enter the sta- tistics a5 urban populations. On the other hand, there are villages of 10,000 inhabitants that are counted as rural, Without investigating, these cases further, we can assume that the large villages are probably more urban from 2ny point of view than the socalled towns. In the Philippines, too, the legal definition is used. Because of this the urban population is probably over-estimated by up to 25%, There axe political reasons for this overestimation. Enlarging the city boun- aries and incorporating large rural areas increase the political power of the urban government. Mayors af Philippine cities, who play an ime portant part in Philippine national politics, have therefore tried to en- large their urban areas, Another example is the citystate af Singapore. According to official statistics, the urban population of the Scate of Singapore declined from 72.59, in 1947 to 63.1% in 1957, and this despite rapid urbanization. ‘The'reason for this statistical decline was that the city timits were al- ready filled up and the rapiel population growth took place outside the city limits in villages that became suburbs, For 1970, international sta tistics classify Singapore as 100% urban despite the fact that 20.5% of the land area of Singapore is stilt used for agriculture, another 27.47, for forest, marsh etc, and only 314% is built-up and strictly speaking urban, From the point of view of human resources, however, the 100% figure is more convincing, for only 0.6%, of the labor farce is engaged in agriculture. So far we have discussed only substantive questions of definitions Gross inaccuracies chat haunt Southeast. Asian scatistics have to be added. Urbanization is @ very complex phenomenon anid statistics may confuse the issues if not used with extreme caution ‘We may now tum to a discussion of major trends and patterns of HANS-DIETER VERS 77 urbanization in Southeast Asia. Compared with other regions of the world, Southeast Asia is very lite urbanized, Only Africa south of the Sahara shows lower figures. In 1970, between 70 and 80°%, of the Sowth- east Asian population could stilt be classified as rural. Until recently in most Southeast Asian countries (with some notable exceptions) there was no marked decline of the rural population, For Southeast Asia as ‘2 whole, roughly 86% of the population could be classified as rural in 1950 and abou: 807, in 1970. ‘The deviant cases are West Malaysia, where only 647%, of the pop- lation is rural, the city state of Singapore with, perhaps, 1% rural population, and the Sultanate of Brunci, which is onty 56% rural be- cause of 2 large number of urban workers in the oil industry in a rela tively seal] overall population. All other Southesst Asian countries show rural population figures between 75 and 859%, Nevertheless, the total urhan population iias increased from about $8 million in 1950 to an-estimated 57 million in 19702 This means that the urban population more than doubled in two decades, Most of this urban population growth was, however, concentrated in large cities. Hf we exelude urban areas with Jess than 100,000 inh tants, we can note an increase from 7 10 12% of the total population from 1950 to 1970. From these genera] figures we can draw the follow- ing conclusions. The degree of urbanization is sill low in Southeast Asia, though in absolute'numbers the urban population has grown sub- stantially in the past cwenty years. Typical urban problems are on the increase, especially in the large metropolitan centres, But considering the relatively slow pace at which urbanization has been proceeding, we have to expect a much more rapid increase im urban problems with rapid urbanization in the near future, Despite economic growth throughout the area or, perhaps, just because of economic develop: ment, the urban crisis is till to come. ‘There is also a growing trend of population concentration in South ‘east Asian countries tat already have a highly centralized city popula tion. This becomes apparent when we compate the primate cities with the next largest city in each councry. Bangkok is, for instance, more chan. 25 times larger than the next largest city in Thailand, Chiengmai Simailar comparisons can be made between Rangoon and Mandalay, Manila and Cebu, Saigon and Hue, Jakarta and Surabaja and, to & lesser extent, Kuala Lumpur and Georgevown, If we compare this trend towards concentration with the urbanization experience of European. countries, the difference becomes apparent. A comparison between Ber- Jin and Munich ar heiween Berlin and the urban conglonteration of the Rahr district and the difference berween the London and che Manches- ter industrial ateas never showed the extreme population concentration iRise Hasan, °Rure) Urban Migration and Uvhanization in Southesst Asia." ails Resomeh Bulletin | G8), pp. SEAS 77@ URBAN CONFLICT IN SOLITHEAST ASIA ‘we find in present Southeast Asia, This rend towards concentration, continues. With the notable exceptions of some smaller tawns that have profited from increased economic connections across borders, such as Pekan Barn in Indonesia or Haadyai in Southern Thailand, the ‘metropolitan cities in most Southeast Asian countries have grown much faster than smaller towns. A much more detailed study would be necese sary to bring ou: the differences between countries ancl areas. In general lerms we might say, however, Usat the trend towards population cancen- tration and increasing inequalities in access ¢o modern urban instita- tions continues tis often overloaked tat most of the urban population growth $0 far derives from nscural population increase, Though there is consid erable snral-urhan migration it is, in general, not yer excessive. Most ‘migrants tend co come from the immediate vieinity of she big cities or from a few selected migration-prone areas ke West Sumataa in Indo- nnesiz.* There also appears to be a prevalence of step migration, chougit it is dificult to say whether step migration—that is, migration from rural areas to small towns, from sypall towns to bigger towns, from big towns to cities—is on the increase or decrease, Studies from Thailanclt and Iadonesia® seem to point in this ditection. Pusiefactors seem to he more important in rural-urban riigration as industriaization is slow and relatively few people are drawn into the turban areas Cuzough job offers, A notable exception to this s Singapore, which in 1974 employed some 70,000 workers from Malaysia. Most of these temporary migtants probably originate from Malaysian «mall towns rather chan rural areas. The fature intensity of rural-urban mi gration will therefore be influenced primatity by the situation in rural areas lke landlessness, Jand tenuret 2nd population increase, An ox ‘ueme case for push-factors and rural-urban migration is, of course, South Vietnam, where the large-scale U.S. bombing and the war have ied ta forced migration. But alse regional potitical disturbances have led to ityward migration, The Dar'ul Islam uprising in Indonesia, tor in- stance, was prohably major force behind migration to Jakarta and Bandeng during the 1950s, From the background of these general date on the process of ur- banization in Southeast Asia we shall now turn to a discussion of the changes that are taking place in the cities themselves, S Mchear Nal, “Merantau: Minangkabau Voluntary Migration” (Pb. D. chests Depaztmuene of Sodology, University of Sngapoce, 1929) “La Sternselt. “A Hirst study of Migracian in che Greater Banghok Meitopatitan Area,” Bate Pusapoin? 2, TEP), pp eH, and 8 Goleaein, "Usbantation Ih ‘Tien 1047-1967," Deviograpin BD 167, pp. 205-224. Pe Deter Bvers. "Pyelimtmaey Notes Us Mirai ‘Town! iuniatra Raseosch Bultatin 2], 197% pp. 1883. ‘itaneDieter ives, “Uren Expansion ‘sh Landownership in Underdevetoped Socictlen! Urban Aoirs Quavferly, 1, September 1973) Pacterns of & Sumatran HANS-OIETER EVERS 779 The Changing Social Structure of Southeast Asian Cities In this process of Southeast Asian urbanization, social changes have certainly oceurzed, but they have not been extraordinary if compared to other areas af the world. Both social structural changes and the ur- banization rate as discussed earlier have proceeded at a relatively slow pace. Though cities have grown, their ocenpational structure has not changed very eanch. This phenomenon, which is particularly visibie in smaller and medium towns, has prompted observers of the urban scene to call the process wrban involution rather than urban xevalution? Urban anthropologists in particarlar have pointed to the relative tradi tionality of Southeast Asian cities. Edward Bruner has analyzed the maintenance of taditional social organization araong the Bataks of Medan and more recently in Bandung, West Java. Lucian Pye has claimed that widh increasing rural-urban migration more traditional forms of social controt were reintroduced in Rangoon,* Provencher de- scribes how his delusion that Kampung Baru, a Malay area in Kuala Lurapur, “was a rural community dissolved quickly, while the impres- sion that it was ‘traditional’ remained and grew indelible,"® and in my own stady of Padang, West Sumatra, I was able to show how traditional patterns of landownership could be maintained despite the pressures of urbanization.!® In more comprehensive studies on Southeast Asian cities in general, McGee has also pointed ta the “persistence af the com: plex social, ethnic, and economic divisions of the city,’ and Dwyer expresses doubts whether the title of his book, “The City as a Center of Change in Asia,” is really appropriate. Despite these well-founded earlier studies, it can be argued that Southeast Asian cities are about t@ undergo a profound change im their social structure. Though tradi- tional structures are going ta linger on for a long time to come, a basic structural and ecological rearrangement seems t0 be in the making, T shall try to point out the basic lines of change in the social ecology of Southeast Asian cities and then speculate on the likely impact on city ZW, K Amarong ané 7. G. MeGec, “Revolutionary Change and. the Thisd ‘Wort liv’ A'Theary of Unban Inudtuon Chntontions 18 (1909, gp 358970, ant HansDicitr Frets, “Urban Invcligon- We Socal Serctare of Sovehesat aan “Towns” (Worling Paper No, 2, Deparment of Socology. University of Simespore, 1972 Indonesian ters in Pama Ita, 974,959 y * ‘athdae W Pye, Beller Pevonality ont Nation Buildteg: Burma’ Search for ‘ity {Neve Tease ate University Preah 1626, 1H, Drovencher, Tivo Malay Worth Patera tu Rural and Urban Settings Gevkeley: University of Callornia, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies isn 0°. taliians Dieter Fvews, “Changing Patterns of Minangkeba Ushan Landowner ‘ships Bilompen tt de Taal, Landen Volkenbunds, 141 (1929), p, 26-100. nT. G. McGee, The Soitheast Aston Chins a Soviet Goography of the Prirsale ‘ists of Soithense asia (Landon Bel, 1867), p00, ve tent t TBD, J. Dwyer, chy Phe Esty as 6 Gontis of Change in Avia (Hongkong? Hong tong Unisscy res NB BBL 780 URBAN CONFLICT (Ny SOUTHEAST ASIA, politics, To engage in this broad perspective it is necessary to go back inwo the historical development of Southeast Asian cities, Colonist urban structure: Iris perhaps significant that all major Sourh- ast Asian cities ate of colonial origin. Not Jogyakarta but Jakaria, not Pega but Rangoon, became the capitals of Indonesia and Burma} not Melaka, or Buala Kangsar, or Sri Menanti, but Kuala Lumper, became the capital of Malaysia. These catonial cities, however, were planned and grew on the assumption that race and etlinic origin were the main principtes of societal organization, Singapore, for instance, from its foundation in 1819, was Taid out in terms of 2 local consolidation of ethnic. groups. Its founder, Sir Stamford Raffles, decreed that there should be separate quaxters for Chinese, Indians, Malays, Buginese and, of course, Europeans. ‘The British administrative officers were even in. structed co settle the Gainese by speech group.® In the 17th and 18th centuries, Batavia, che capital of she Netherlands East Indies, had sey- arate kampungs for Dutch, Ambonese, Bandanese, Buginese, Bimanese, Balinese, Butonese, Javanese, Sundanese, Florinese, Mandarese, Mak assarese, Sumbawans, Chinese, Moors, etc. The former main offce of the Dutch East Indies Company for Sumatra, Padang, had a somewhat less cosmopolitan but, nevertheless, impressive differentiation of ethnic groups with separate areas for the Dutch, Minangkabau, Javanese, Men tawai and Nias Islanders, Similar descriptions could be provided for al ‘most any coloniat cicy in Southeast Asia, These racially segregated re dential patterns were disturbed and put under severe strain by heavy immigration from abroad. The peak of this migration came from China in the 1920s, From 1895 to 1927 Singapore and West Malaysia received six million Chinese immigrants, 960,000 of them during 1927, Similar streams of migration teached Rangoon (primarily from India), Bangkok, Saigon-Cholon, Manila, the West Coast of Malaya, and the Javanese cities of Jakarta, Semarang, and Surabaya, Though the “chinatowns' of colonial cities grew and sometimes engulfed che former European quarters whose residents iad moved into the suburbs, the edlinic residential patterns remained basically intact up to the present. ‘The pattern became more intricate and involnted, but its basic prine ciple of ethnic separation was maintained. This process in generai bas been described as the development of a plural society in which groups mix, particularly in the market place, but do not combine or integrate in 2 racial melting pot. Im fact, just the contrary rended to happen in some instances whese aleendy assimilated groups were separated again bby the infusion of new migrants. The so-called Baba-Chinese in Malaya are a casc in point, They spoke Malay, wore a particular type of Malay dress and led a distinet style of life which was neither wholly Chinese "3G. R Buckley, An dow (vata Tumpie/ Singapore: Uni et ory of OL Times i Sigspore 1809-1057 sity of Malaya Pres, 1966), pp Sea HANS-DIETER EVERS 761, nor wholly Malay. With the grawth of nationalism in China and the infusion of new migrants, the Chinese language was reintroduced and am awareness of Chinese identity became prevalent. ‘The system of ethnic segregation was combined with occupational specialization both between and within ethnic groups. ‘Though there ‘was a concentzation of persons of high social status and low social status in respective groups, there was no complete overlap between ethnici and social class. The majority of middle-class persons tended to consist of Chinese, but there were many lower-class Chinese who were prepared to starve their way to prosperity. Each ethnic group thus had i's own status hierarchy. There was the coolie and the towkay Chinese business man), the landless, indigenous Chinese migrant and the aristocrat, the Indian shop attendant and the importer. As ethnic residential separa~ Gon was the guiding principle, peaple of the same ethnic group but dif ferent socio-ecanomic status tended to reside in close proximity. Searting in che lase decades of coloniat rule in Southeast Asia, and accelerating alter independence, profound changes have begun co take place, From rece to class: The basic change that is taking place in the Southeast Asian city isa slow dissolucion of ethnic segregation and an increase of segregation by social class, Even where ethnic bounds were maintained there appears 1a have heen a segregation by dass within the ethnic boundaries of earlier city ecology. It is extremely dif. ficult to prove this process by using census statistics since most Southeast Asian countries do not publish daca on ethnic groups in line with an idcology of ethnic integration. In those countries in which data on race are collected—for example, Malaysia and Singapore—

    You might also like