JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS 9,257-273 (1981)

SYMPOSIUM ON URBANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT

The Spatial Structure of Latin American Cities
GREGORY K. INGRAM AND ALAN CARROLL’

The World Bunk, Washington,D. C. 20433

Received August 25, 1979; revised December 3 1, 1979

Using published census data, metropolitan area population and employment

statistics are constructed for several large Latin American cities in 1950, 1960, and
1970, and compared to similar statistics from selected North American cities. The
Latin cities are experiencing decentralization of population and some decentraliza-
tion of employment. Overall population density patterns of large Latin cities
resemble those in older North American cities; newer North American cities have
lower densities and are much more decentralixed than Latin cities. High-status
groups are somewhat concentrated in the central cities of Latin American metro-
politan areas, but their concentrations there are declining.

The twentieth century has witnessed a profound increase in the world’s

population and an equally remarkable increase in the proportion of the
world’s population living in urban areas. Much of the rapid urbanization
has occurred in less developed countries where it has brought a host of
problems as governments have sought to provide urban infrastructure,
control development, and redirect growth from larger to smaller settle-
ments. Many urban analysts question the relevance that urban economic
theory has for the analysis of the problems of cities in less developed
countries because most empirical work underlying this theory employs
data from developed countries. This paper investigates the generality of
empirical results by analyzing the spatial structure of selected Latin
American cities and comparing it with that of selected North American
cities.
URBANIZATION AND LARGE CITIES IN LATIN AMERICA
Table 1 indicates that between 1920 and 1970, the total population of
North America nearly doubled while its urbanized population increased

‘Support for the work reported in this paper has been provided by the City Study research
project (RPO 67147) funded by the World Bank. The views and conchraions reported here
are those of the authors and not of the World Bank or its affiliated organixations. The authors
thank Richard Davis and Yoon Joo Lee for research assistance and members of the City
Study research staff at the World Bank and at Corporation Centro Regional de Poblacion in
Bogota for comments on the work presented here, with particular appreciation to Rakesh
Mohan and Jose. Fernando Pineda. Ingram was principally responsible for the analysis and
Carroll, for the data assembly.
257
00%1190/81/020257-17$02.00/O
Copyright Q 1981 by Academic Press, Inc.
AU rights of reproduction in my form reserved.
258 INGRAM AND CARROLL

TABLE 1
Total and Urbanized Population in North and Latin America

Year
Region’ 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980’
-___ ~--
Total population (Millions)
Latin America 90 110 130 162 213 284 374
North America 115 135 145 166 199 226 249

Urban population (Millions)

Latin America 20 30 40 67 105 161 237
North America 60 75 85 106 139 168 1%

Urban population as percentage of total population

Latin America 22 28 31 41 49 57 63
North America 52 56 59 64 70 74 79

Source. From [7]; urban population figures are defined by each country.
ONorth America includes the United States and Canada; Latin America includes all
countries south of the United States.
bU.N. projections.

slightly less than three-fold. During the same period, however, the total
population of Latin America more than tripled while its urbanized popula-
tion grew eight times as large as its 1920 base. By 1980 Latin America will
be as urbanized as North America was in 1950, and its urban population
will be absolutely larger than North America’s. However, Table 1 also
suggeststhat the percent of Latin America’s population living in the urban
areas is now growing less rapidly than before, and that the rate of
urbanization is beginning to slow.
The study of urban spatial structure reported here focuses on large Latin
American cities-those with 1970 metropolitan area populations over one
million or with 1970 central city populations of 600,000 or more. The 24
cities that meet this criterion are listed in Table 2. For purposes of
comparison, in 1970 North America had 36 metropolitan areas (34 in the
United States and 2 in Canada) with a million or more inhabitants.
Having defined the universe of cities that we hope to analyze, the next
step is to obtain comparable data on the spatial distribution of population,
employment, and other activities in (approximately) 1950, 1960, and 1970.
Although several demographic censusesare available for virtually all Latin
American countries, the availability of data at the metropolitan and
sub-metropolitan area varies widely. We have been able to obtain data for
a central core and peripheral ring for 11 of the 24 cities; only 8 of the cities
provide data disaggregated at that level for two decades.2Since tabulations
2See the Appendix for data sources used.
 LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 259

TABLE 2
Latin American Cities with Central City Populations
over 600 Thousand in 1970

country City Population date Population (000)

City proper Metro area
Argentina Buenos Aires 1970 2,972 8,189
Bolivia La Paz” 1973 605 -
Brazil Belo Horkonte 1970 1,235 1,606
Port0 Alegre” 1970 870 -
Recife 1970 1,061 1,793
Rio de Janeiro 1970 4,252 7,082
Salvador’ 1970 998 -
Sao Paul0 1970 5,979 8,195
Chile Santiago 1970 1,118 2,820
Colombia Barranquilla” 1972 682 694
Bogota 1973 2,855 -
Cali 1973 898 -
Medellinn 1972 1,092 1,208
Cuba Havana* 1972 2,346
Dominican Rep. Santo Domingo” 1970 671
Ecuador Guayaquil” 1972 861
Guatemala Guatemala City” 1970 731 -
Mexico Guadalajara 1970 1,199 1,455
Mexico City 1970 2,903 8,657
Monterrey 1970 858 1,213
Peru Lima 1972 1,448 3,302
Umwv Montevideo* 1963 1,159 -
Venezuela Caracas 1970 1,035 2,199
Maracaibo’ 1970 690 -

‘From [6].
*From [lo].
Note: Other figures are from country censuses; see the Appendix.

for the economic censuses are typically disaggregated only to the state
level, examining the intra-metropolitan distribution of employment is
possible for even fewer cities. And in these few cases,moreover, it is likely
that small enterprises are not well covered, so that economic census data
may only reflect the experience of large establishments. Although problems
of coverage and comparability are more serious than those encountered
with the U.S. Census, Latin American census data are likely reliable
enough to reflect broad trends of growth and change in metropolitan
spatial structure.

METROPOLITAN AND CITY POPULATION GROWTH

Table 3 presents estimates of populations and annual average metro-
politan population growth rates during the two most recent decades for 13
 TABLE 3
Populations and Growth Rates-Selected Latin and North American Metropolitan Areas
-
Latin American Population (000) Annual growth rate Population (000) Annual growth rate North American
City 1950 1960 1970 50-m 60-70 1950 1960 1970 50-60 60-70 City

Mexico City 3180 5246 8657 5.1 5.1 9556 10695 11572 1.1 0.8 New York
Sao Paul0 2708 4818 8195 5.9 5.5 4152 6039 7032 3.8 1.5 Los Angeles
Buenos Aires 4723 6739 8189 2.8 2.0 5178 6221 6979 1.9 1.2 chiCZIg
Rio de Janeiro” 3298 5012 7082 4.3 3.5 3671 4343 4818 1.7 1.0 Philadelphia
Limab - 1846 3302 - 5.4 1508 2077 2861 3.3 3.3 Washington, D.C.
Bogota= 715 1697 2855 6.9 5.9 2414 2595 2754 0.7 0.6 Boston
saragod 1509 2170 2820 4.6 2.7 936 1418 1985 4.2 3.4 Houston
Caracas’ 724 1388 2199 6.1 4.7 557 1033 1358 6.4 2.8 San Diego
Recife 819 1240 1793 4.2 3.8 495 935 1268 6.6 3.1 Miami
Belo Horizonte 475 888 1606 6.5 6.1 612 929 1228 4.3 2.8 Denver
Guadalajara 440 851 1455 6.8 5.5 291 642 1065 8.2 5.2 San Jose
Montmey 376 708 1213 6.5 5.5 332 664 968 7.2 3.8 Phoenix
cali= 284 638 898 6.4 3.9

‘1947,1%0,1970.
bl%l, 1972.
=1951,1964,1973.
d1952,1960,1970.
‘1950,1%1,1971.
Source: For Latin American cities, see the Appendix; data for North American cities are from [8, Table221 baaed on 1970
SMSA definitions.
 LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 261

large Latin American cities with available data and for 12 large single-
centered U.S. metropolitan areas selected for their range of location, size,
and growth rates. Of the 13 Latin American cities, 11 had metropolitan
areas defined in 1970. The data in Table 3 for these cities were obtained
for 1950 and 1960 by aggregating populations in the central city and
surrounding municipalities for those earlier years using the 1970 metro-
politan area definitions. 3 Data for Bogota and Cali, the two Latin Ameri-
can cities lacking metropolitan area definitions, are for populations within
the cities’ urban perimeters.
The average growth rates for the metropolitan areas in Table 3 exhibit
several consistent patterns. First, the decennial average population growth
rates in each metropolitan area declined from the fifties to the sixties
except in Mexico City and Washington, D.C., where the growth rates were
unchanged. For the 13 Latin American cities the average growth rate fell
from 5.5% in the fifties to 4.6% in the sixties, a decline that was less marked
than that of the 12 North American cities whose average growth rate fell
from 4.1 to 2.5% in the same two periods. In both areas these declines
reflect a reduction in birth rates and a decline in the overall rate of
urbanization, although the average growth rates are still much higher in
Latin America than in North America. Second, Table 3 suggeststhat small
metropolitan areas tend to grow more rapidly than large metropolitan
areas. For example, if large metropolitan areas are defined as those with
1970 populations over 2.5 million and small metropolitan areas as the rest,
we find that average growth rates for large Latin American areas were
4.9% in the fifties and 4.3% in the sixties while average growth rates for
small Latin American areas were 6.1% in the fifties and 4.9% in the sixties.
For North American areas the respective average growth rates are 2.1% in
the fifties and 1.4%in the sixties for large areas, and 6.2% in the fifties and
3.5% in the sixties for small areas. Although the Latin American average
growth rates are generally higher than those in North America, the low
growth rates of large North American metropolitan areas differentiate the
North American pattern of urban growth most sharply from that found in
Latin America. The high growth rates of large Latin metropolitan areas,
typified by Mexico City and Sao Paulo, are of major concern to analysts of
Latin American urban development.
Another major difference between North American and Latin American
urban growth is that urbanization in Latin America is occurring at much
lower real income levels. Gross national product per capita in 1975 was
$7100 (in current dollars) for North America and $1000 for Latin America
[ll]. Based on growth rates of per capita product reported by Kuznetq4
‘The metropolitan areas are defined in the Appendix.
4Kuznets [3, p. 641, estimates that per capita product in the U.S. grew at 17.2 per decade
from 1839 to 1960.
262 INGRAM AND CARROLL

North America would have had a per capita GNP of $1000 (1975 dollars)
roughly 120 years ago, or in the 1850’s. Since no cities in North America
then had populations over one million, it is obvious that per capita income
and urbanization have no simple causal relationship over time.

INTRAMETROPOLITAN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

The pattern of population growth and the distribution of population
within cities is often used to characterize urban spatial structure. Table 4
presents summary information over a 20-year period for the central and
peripheral areas of the 10 Latin American cities with available data and
the 12 North American cities from Table 3. It is striking that both the
central and peripheral densities vary by an order of magnitude across the
cities on both continents. Central densities are very high but are stabilizing
in Mexico City and Buenos Aires; in the other 8 Latin American cities,
central densities are increasing. For all 10 Latin American cities the
peripheral densities are rising, and only in Belo Horizonte is the peripheral
density rising less rapidly than the central density. For 9 of the 10 Latin
cities, therefore, the periphery’s population share is rising. Five of the
North American cities have declining or stable central city densities.
Although a declining central density is not strictly a concomitant of
stagnation (Washington, D.C., for example, has a declining central density
yet is one of the fast growing U.S. metropolitan areas), increased central
densities seemalways to be associated with high population growth. For all
12 North American cities peripheral densities are rising; in all but the two
smallest (San Jose and Phoenix), peripheral densities are consistently
increasing faster than central city densities.
In comparing the data for Latin and North American cities in Table 4, it
is apparent that the central densities of cities in the two continents cover
similar ranges. Most Latin American central cities (with the possible
exception of Mexico City) do not appear to be significantly more dense
than older central cities in the U.S. The peripheral densities of Latin
American cities are similar to those found in North American cities. The
newer, rapidly growing cities in the southwest of the United States have
central densities that are lower than those of older U.S. cities and lower
than those of most Latin American cities. Only Monterrey has a central
density as low as that found in the rapidly growing south-western U.S.
cities.
DENSITY FUNCTION COMPARISONS
Observations based on the data in Table 4 must be made carefully
because they are based upon comparisons of arbitrarily specified central
and peripheral areas. Examination of central and peripheral land areas in
Table 4 reveals vast differences in the absolute and relative magnitudes of
 TABLE 4
Central and Peripheral Areas and Population Densities

Latin American Center or Area Popn. density (Popn./Km2) ‘opn. density (Popn./Km2) Area Center or North American
city pefiphery (Km2 1 (Km21 pe+hery city
1950 1960 1970 1950 1960 1970
-~
Mexico City C 138 16,225 20,558 2 1,074 10,157 10,015 10,161 777 C New York
P 2192 432 1,101 2,675 350 612 773 4,758 P
Sao Paul0 C 1493” 1,380 2,287 4,005 1,675 2,130 2,390 1,326 C Los Angeles
P 6458 79 172 343 210 350 420 9,213 P
Buenos Aires C 200 14,952 14,872 14,897 6,275 6,140 5,825 578 C Chicago
P 3860 473 1,025 1,418 170 295 400 9,054 P
Rio de Janeiro C 1171 2,030 2,824 3,631 6,202 5,995 5,835 334 C Philadelphia
P 5293 174 322 535 180 264 325 8,868 P
Bogotab C 304 2,352 5,582 9,391 5,077 4,835 4,790 158 C Washington, D.C.
P - - - - 119 221 355 5,936 P
Recife C 209’ 3,594 3,815 5,075 6,735 5,860 5,387 119 C Boston
P 1992 148 223 367 662 780 867 2,431 P
Belo Horizonte C 335 1,053 2,070 3,686 580 913 1,198 1,028 C Houston
P 3335 37 58 111 22 31 49 15,250 P
Guadalajara C 188 2,204 3,940 6,383 606 1,038 1,257 552 C San Diego
P 1164 52 95 220 21 44 63 10,484 P
Monterrey C 451 752 1,332 1,901 2,833 3,315 3,805 88 C Miami
P 1292 28 83 275 47 124 179 5,201 P
calib C 85 3,341 7,506 10,565 1,690 2,008 2,092 246 C Denver
P - - 21 47 77 9,233 P
318 681 1,480 300 C San Jose
64 143 202 3,067 P
166 684 906 642 C Phoenix
10 10 17 23,069 P
_. __-
“1,622 in 1950 and 1960.
bFor 1951, 1964, and 1973.
‘146 in 1950.
Source: For Latin American cities, see Bibliography; data for North American cities is from (8), Table 32 (based on 1970 SMSA definitions).
264 INGRAM AND CARROLL

the center and periphery of the 22 metropolitan areas. It is possible,

however, to reduce the effects of such arbitrary definitions by estimating a
population density function for each metropolitan area. Using a technique
described by White [9], with the data at hand and assuming that popula-
tion densities decline exponentially with distance from the center, we can
estimate the intercept, D, and gradient, b, of the density function

D(x) = Dewbx,

where D(x) is the population density at distance x from the center.

Parameters D and b can then be used to characterize the distribution of
population within metropolitan areas and to provide further insights about
urban spatial structure.
Table 5 displays estimates of density function parameters for the 10
Latin American cities that have sufficient data for their calculation, and
for the 12 North American described above. In both the Latin and North
American cities, the density gradient, b, generally declines over time. Only
in Guadalajara, Belo Horizonte, Houston, San Jose, and Phoenix does the
gradient increase, and in each case this happens in only one of the two
decades shown. Moreover, these cities all have 1970 populations less than
2.5 million and high population growth rates. The density gradients are
steeper for the Latin American than the North American cities: 16 of the
28 estimated gradients exceed 0.2 in Latin America while only 4 of the 36
do so in North America. Most of this difference in gradients is accounted
for by the smaller (1970 population less then 2.5 million) Latin cities,
however. For example, the average 1970 gradient of 0.25 for the small
Latin cities is over twice the 1970 average gradient of 0.12 for the small
North American cities, while the average 1970 gradient of 0.12 for large
Latin cities is similar to the 0.105 average for large North American cities
in 1970. These averages also suggest that on both continents smaller cities
tend to have steeper gradients than large cities.
The change in intercept density, D, over time is less regular than that
observed for the density gradient. The intercept density has increased
during the two decades shown for 6 of the 10 Latin American cities and for
6 of the 12 North American cities. Intercept increases are typically accom-
panied by high population growth rates, but high growth rates are not
sufficient for intercept increases. Mexico City is the paramount example of
rapid growth accompanied by a declining intercept density. In North
American cities, increases in the intercept density are likely to occur in
cities that also have low intercept densities, say below 7500, but this
pattern is less clear in Latin American cities where intercept densities
continue to increase beyond values of 20,000. In terms of absolute magni-
tude, intercept densities are significantly higher in Latin America than in
 LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 265

North America. The average 1970 intercept density of 24,000 in Latin

America was more than twice the 10,000 observed in North America.
However, in North America there is a strong tendency for intercept
densities to be higher in large cities than in smaller ones whereas this
pattern is less apparent for the Latin American cities. In 1970, for example,
the North American average intercept densities were 15,700for large cities
and 4500 for small cities while for Latin American cities the average
intercept densities for the two-size categories were 26,400 and 22,300,
respectively.
When we combine the comparison of intercept densities with that made
for density gradients, two major points emerge. First, there is a surprising
degree of similarity between the density function parameters of large Latin
and large North American cities. This similarity is enchanced when we
compare the large Latin cities to only the five older northeastern cities
(New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston) in Table 5. The
1970 average intercept and gradient, 17,700 and 0.116, for these five cities
are similar to the 1970 averages, 24,600 and 0.12, respectively, for the large
Latin American cities. Second, it appears that density function parameters
follow different patterns in Latin and North America: as size varies, North
American cities tend to have fairly constant density gradients and varying
intercept densities, while Latin American cities tend to have fairly constant
intercept densities and varying density gradients. Coupling this pattern
with the similarity of parameters for large cities suggests that small Latin
American cities have larger intercept densities and steeper gradients, and
therefore are much more centralized, than small North American cities.
Although the density function comparisons have been based on city size
categories, the data for North American cities in Table 5 suggest that city
age and transportation technology are also important determinants of
density function parameter values. Older North American cities were
developed during a period when transit was the dominant transport mode,
and the newer North American cities are developing when autos are the
dominant transport mode. The older cities are therefore more centralized
and have higher densities than the newer cities. Although mode split data
are not widely available, the scattered evidence we have suggests that
motorized transit is the dominant mode in large Latin American cities,
accounting for roughly seven-tenths of work trip travel. The balance is
comprised of auto travel, taxis, and walking. Walking typically accounts
for 5 to 10% of work trip travel in Latin cities, so its modal share is the
same order of magnitude in Latin as in North American cities. The degree
of motorized travel is, therefore, similar in Latin and North American
cities. This similarity plus the historical dependence on transit in older
North American cities probably explains the similarity of density function
parameters in large Latin American cities and the older U.S. cities.
 TABLE 5
Population Density Gradients”

Latin American North American

city 9b ParameterC 1960 1970 1950 1960 1970 Parameter’ 9’ city

Mexico City 1.0 D 69,000 62,000 44,000 i2,ooO 45,000 aooo D 0.6 New York
b 0.37 0.27 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.11 b
Sao Paul0 1.o D 8,400 12,000 18,ooO 4,800 5,300 5,800 D 0.6 Los Angeles
b 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.05 b
Buenos Aires 0.6 D 54,000 37,tmO 33,000 !7,000 20,000 16,000 D 0.5 Chicago
b 0.21 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.08 b
Rio de Janeiro 0.5 D 8,700 10,000 11,OBO !O,ooO 16,000 14,000 D 1.O Philadelphia
b 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.18 0.15 0.13 b
BOgotiS 0.5 D 37,000 26,000 5,000 11,OfMJ 9,000 D 1.0 Washington, D.C.
b 0.25 0.12 0.25 0.18 0.14 b
Recife 0.6 D 13,000 14,000 17,000 4,000 11,oal 9,300 D 0.7 Boston
b 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.12 b
Be10 Horizonte 1 .O D 5,ooo 11,000 19,000 2,100 3,500 4,200 D 1.0 Houston
b 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.12 0.13 0.12 b
Guadalajara 1.O D 14,000 28,tmO 39,000 2,100 3,200 3,600 D 0.5 San Diego
b 0.45 0.46 0.41 0.11 0.10 0.09 b
Monterrey 1.o D 6,200 8,500 7,400 8,000 6,800 7,200 D 0.5 Miami
b 0.32 0.27 0.19 0.23 0.15 0.13 b
cali 0.5 D 43,000 29,000 6,800 6,ooO 5,100 D 1 .O Denver
b 0.41 0.21 0.27 0.20 0.16 b
620 1,300 3,500 D 0.5 San Jose
0.08 0.07 0.10 b
350 2,700 3,100 D 1.0 Phoenix
0.08 0.16 0.14 b

OCalculated using the technique described in (91.

bProportion of circle that can be developed.
=Parameters from density = De -bx, where x is distance from center in kilometers; D is central density in persons/km2.
 LATIN AMERlCAN CITIES 267

Although the population density characteristics found in large Latin

American cities are similar to those of older North American cities, it is
important to note that living conditions in Latin American cities are very
different. It is likely, for example, that Latin American cities will have
lower ratios of capital to land, in terms of both housing and public service
infrastructure, than otherwise similar North American cities. Accordingly,
similarities in population density patterns between North and Latin
American cities do not have much significance as indicators of welfare
levels.

INTRAMETROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF
SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS AND JOBS
Because questions about household income are infrequent in Latin
American censuses, it is not possible to investigate directly the in-
trametropolitan distribution of income groups. Instead we must examine
the distribution of household characteristics, such as occupation, that are
thought to be correlated with income. In Table 6, the center’s share of the
economically active population is compared to its share of up to four
occupational groups in four cities. Assuming that professional/technical
and office/sales worker categories proxy high socio-economic status, the
data suggest that high status groups are somewhat concentrated in central
cities. At the same time, it is apparent that the central city shares of these
two occupational groups are declining over time in the four cities with data
available. Auto ownership is another reasonable proxy for high incomes in
Latin American cities. The high shares of auto ownership in central cities
also suggest a concentration of high status group~.~ This concentration is
likely attributable to the greater availability and higher quality of utilities
and public services in central cities.
The summary of available data about central city shares of employment
over time in Table 6 indicate that jobs are decentralizing somewhat,
although Recife and Belo Horizonte are notable exceptions.‘j Manufactur-
ing employment seems to be less concentrated in the central city than
employment in either commerce or services. In most cases, however, it
appears that even manufacturing employment is more centralized than the
economically active population. ’ The extensive decentralization of the
‘The center-periphery comparison may conceal decentralization of high status groups
OCCU& within narrow radial mnes of cities, as in the north of Bogota, Colombia. For
reports on the movement of affluent groups outward in specific directions, see [ 1,5].
%i Bogota,Colombiaboth firms and jobs in the manufacturing sector have moved
outward from the center during the 1970- 1975 period [4].
‘This conclusion remains tentative due to the census coverage problems mentioned earlier,
particularly with respect to small firms.
 268 INGRAM AND CARROLL

TABLE 6
Central City Shares of Population and Employment

Percent of Items Located in Center

By residential location By job location
~~---___ -~
Econ. active Prof. Office Blue Autos
YWir popn. tech. sales Service collar owned Mfg. Commerce Service

Mexico City SO 73 86 ai 70” -

60 59 12 66 49” - -
70 39 52 41 43 28
Sao Paul0 SO as - - - - a4 95 -
60 - - - - - 80 92 90
70 75 - a2 71
Buenos Aires SO 65 - - 67 a3b
60 46 62 55 57 - 49c Mb.’

70 31 56 48 44 54
Rio de Janeiro SO 76 - - - 77 88 -

60 - - - 75 86 a2
70 56 - - 79 76 - -
Recife 50 68 - - 59 86
60 - - - - 63 as 86
70 63 - - a2 63
Belo Horkmte SO 77 - - - 56 91 -
60 - - - 47 92 88
70 81 - - 90 53 - -
Guadalajara 50 a7 95 94 91’ - 946 - -
60 88 96 94 90” - 92e - -
70 a4 91 a9 86 a4 a7
Monterrey so 91 94 95 92” -
60 86 a9 a9 85” - - - -
70 66 78 76 71 70

“Service and blue collar combined.

bCommerce and service combined.
‘For 1964.
*For 1956.
l For 1965.
Source: Various population and economic censuses; see the Appendix.

economically active population in Mexico City and Buenos Aires is similar

to that of North American cities and is apparently the major reason why
the density functions of these two cities are so similar to North American
cities.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
Latin American cities are experiencing extremely high rates of popula-
tion growth at low levels of income and across all city size categories.
Small cities seem to be growing more rapidly than large cities in Latin
 LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 269

America, and the growth rate of urbanization in Latin America is begin-

ning to moderate. While the level of urbanization is roughly 30 years
behind that of North America, average per capita product in Latin
America approximates that of the United States 120 years ago. High city
population growth rates also occur in North America, but not typically in
the largest cities.
A general similarity exists between the spatial structure of large Latin
American cities and large North American cities that experienced their
peak periods of growth in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries.
However, any similarity between large Latin American and large, old
North American cities does not imply that the welfare levels of their
residents are similar. The spatial structure of smaller Latin American cities
differs from that of similar sized, rapidly growing North American cities
by being much more centralized.
There is ample evidence of suburbanization in nearly all of the Latin
American cities with available data, as measured by a decrease in the
central city’s share of population and employment, as well as by a decrease
in the population density gradient. Various indices of socio-economic
status suggest that higher income households are somewhat concentrated
in central cities, although the center’s share has fallen over time.
Although this paper has not identified all of the determinants of urban
spatial structure in Latin America, several contributing factors suggest
themselves. Low incomes are likely to keep housing consumption at low
levels and to contribute to high densities. Since intra-city travel in Latin
American cities is primarily by transit, especially bus, high time and money
travel costs are also likely to encourage high densities. The great dif-
ferences in density function parameters between new North American
cities and smaller Latin American cities is likely due to the North Ameri-
can dependence on autos, but the causal significance of this and other
factors remains to be tested. Since the highest density cities considered
have varying population growth rates, the data presented here suggest that
high growth rates by themselves are not strong determinants of density
patterns.

APPENDIX
A. Data Sources
Argentina
Population: IV Censo General de la Nation 1947, Tomo I and II; Censo
National de Poblacion 1960, Tomo II; Censo National de Vivienda 1960,
Tomo III; Censo National de Poblacion, Familias, y Vivienda 1970; Vols.
Resultados Obtenidos por Muestra; Resultados Provisionales.
270 INGRAM AND CARROLL

Economy: IV Censo Industrial 1947: Tomo II, Censo Industrial y

Comerical. Censo National Economico 1964: Vols. Industria Manufac-
turera, Comercio, Prestacion de1 Servicios.

Brazil
Population: Censos Demograficos 1950; Censos Demograficos 1960;
Censos Demograficos 1970; Censos Domicilios 1970.
Economy: Censos Industriais 1950; Censos Comercial e dos Serviqos
1950; Censos Industriais 1960; Censos Comercial e dos Servic;os 1960;
Censo Comercial 1970; Censo dos Services 1970.

Chile
Population: XII Censo National de Poblacion y Vivienda 1952; XIII
Censo Demografico 1960, including vol. “Entidades de Poblacion”; Censo
National de Poblacion y Vivienda 1970, including vol. “Entidades de
Poblacion;” Vols. 6 and 7, Santiago.
Economy: IV Censo National de Manufacturas 1968, Tomo III.

Colombia
Population: Censo de Poblacion 1951; Censo de Edificios y Viviendas,
1951; Decimotercero Censo National de Poblacion, 1964; II Censo Na-
cional de Edificios y Viviendas, 1964; Anuario Municipal de Estadistica,
Bogota, 1952; Anuario Estadistico, Distrito Especial de Bogota, 1964;
Anuario Estaditico de Bogota, D.E. 1972; Anuario Estadistico de Cali,
various years.
Economy: Bogota Urban Development Study Phase II, “Employment
Location and Decentralization Technical Appendix,” Bogota; September
1973.

Mexico
Population: Septimo Censo General de la Poblacion 1950; Vols. Distrito
Federal, Estado Nuevo Leon, Estado Jalisco, Estado de Mexico. Octave
Censo General de Poblacion 1960; Vols. Distrito Federal, Estado Nuevo
Leon, Estado Jalisco, Estado de Mexico. Noveno Censo General de
Poblacion 1970; Resumen National Direction General de Estadistica y
Direction General de Programacion y Estudios Economicos, “Encuesta
National de Hogares 1976, Area Metropolitana de la Ciudad de Mexico.”

Population: Censo National 1940; Censo National de Poblacion, includ-

ing vol. “Centros Pobladas”; Primer Censo National de Vivienda 1961;
VII Censo National de Poblacion 1972; II Censo National de Vivienda
1972; Anuario Estadistico de Peru 1970-71.
 LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 271

Economy: Primer Censo Economico 1963, Censo de Manufacturas y

Censos de Comercio y Servicios.
Venezuela
Population: Octave Censo General de Poblacion 1950; Noveno Censo
General de Poblacion 1961; Vol. 6, Metro Caracas; X Censo General de
Poblacion y Vivienda 1971; Nomenclados de Centros Poblados 1971.
Economy: Tercer Censo Economico 1963, Vol. Comercio, Manufactura.

B. Jurisdictions Comprising Centers and Peripheries

(All demarcations are official; year of demarcation in parentheses)
Belo Horizonte (1970)
Center: Municipio Belo Horizonte.
Periphery: Municipios Betim, CaetC, Contagem, Ibirite, Lagos Santa,
Nova Lima, Pedro Leopoldo, Raposos, Ribenao dos Neves, Rio Acima,
Sahara, Santa Lucia, Vespasiano.

Buenos Aires (1970)

Center: Jurisdiction within “Gran Buenos Aires” called Capital Federal.
Periphery: Partidos of Gran Buenos Aires: Alte Brown, Avellaneda, E.
Echeverria, F. Varela, Gral. San Martin, Gral. Sarmiento, Isla San
Fernando, Isla Tigre, La Matanza, Lanus, Lomas de Zamora, Merlo,
Moreno, Moron, Quilmes, San Fernando, San Isidro, Tigre, Tres de
Febrero, V. Lopez.

Caracas (1971)
Center: Departamento Libertador of Distrito Federal.
Periphery: Parroquia Carayaca in Departamento Vargas of Distrito
Federal; plus Distrito Sucre and Municipios San Antonio, Ckrizal, and
Cecilio Acosta in Distrito Guaycapuro of State of Miranda.

Guadalajara (1970)
Center: Municipio Guadalajara in State of Jalisco.
Periphery: Municipios Tlaquepaque and Zapopan in State of Jalisco.

Lima (1972)
Center: Distritios Barranco, de1 Cercado, Chorillos, La Victoria, Lince,
Magdalena de1 Mar, Miraflores, Rimac, Pueblo Libre, San Is&o, San
Miguel, and Santiago de1 Surco in Province of Lima.
Periphev: Entire remainder of Province of Lima plus entire Province of
Callao.
212 INGRAM AND CARROLL

Mexico City (1976)

Center: Jurisdiction within Distrito Federal called Ciudad de Mexico.
Periphery: Entire remainder of Distrito Federal plus Municipios Atiza-
pan, Chimalhuacan, Coacalco, Cuautitlan, Ecatepec, Huixquilucan, La
Paz, Naucalpan, Netzahualcoyotl, Tlalnepantla, and Tultitlan in State of
Mexico.

Monterrey (1970)
Center: Municipio Monterrey in State of Nuevo Leon.
Periphery: Municipios Garza Garcia, Guadalupe, Santa Catalina, and
San Nicolas de 10s Garza in State of Nuevo Leon.

Recife (I 9 70)
Center: Municipio Recife.
Periphery: Municipios Cabo, Igarassu, Itamaraca, Jaboatio, Moreno,
Olinda, Paulista, and Slo Lourenqo da Mata.

Rio de Janeiro (1970)

Center: City of Rio de Janeiro, equivalent to Distrito Federal or State of
Guanabava.
Periphery: Municipios Duque de Caxias, Itaborai, Itaguai, MagC,
Mangaratiba, Mark& Nilopolis, Niteroi, Nova Iguaqu, Paracambi, Petrop-
olis, SIo Gonqalo, and SHo Jdao de Meriti.

Santiago (1970)
Center: Comunas La Reina, Providencia, Quinta Normal, San Miguel,
and Santiago in Department of Santiago.
Periphery: Comunas Barrancas, Conchali, La Cisterna, La Granja, La
Florida, Las Condes, Maipu, Nuiioa, Puente Alto, Quilicura, Renca, and
San Bernard0 in Departments of Aguirre Cerda, Puente Alto, and Santiago.

Sao Paul0 (1970)

Center: Municipio Sao Paulo.
Periphery: Municipios Aruja, Barueri, Biritiba-Mirim, &eras, Cajamar,
Carapicuiba, Cotia, Diadema, Embu, Embu-Guaqu, Ferraz de Vasconce-
los, Francis0 Morato, Franc0 da Rocha, Guararema, Guarulhos, Itape-
cerica da Serra, Itapeui, Itaquaque Cetuba, Jar&a, Juquitiba, Mairipora,
Mava, Mogi das Cruces, Osasco, Pirapora du Born Jesus, PO& Ribergo
Pires, Rio Grande da Serra, Salesopolis, Santa Isabel, Santana de Pamaiba,
Santo Andre, Sao Bernard0 do Campo, Slo Caetano do Sul, Suzano,
TaboHo da Serra.
 LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 273

REFERENCES
1. P. Amato, “An Analysis of the Changing Patterns of Elite Residential Areas in Bogota,
Colombia,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, (June 1968).
2. J. Heilbrun, “Urban Economics and Public Policy,” St. Martin’s, New York, 1974.
3. S. Kuznets, “Modem Economic Growth,” Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Corm. 1966.
4. K. S. Lee, Intra-urban location of manufacturing employment in Colombia (paper
presented at AEA meetings, Chicago, August, 1978), J. Lrr&n Icon., 9, 222-241
(1981).
5. A. Portes and J. Walton, “Urban Latin America: The Political Condition from Above
and Below,” Univ. of Texas Press, Austin 1976.
6. U.N. Demographic Yearbook 1973, N.Y. Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Statistical Office, 1974.
7. U.N. World Housing Surety, 1974, N.Y. Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Statistical Office, 1974.
8. U.S. Summary, Final Report PC(l)-Al, U.S. Census Bureau, 1970Census of Population.
9. L. J. White, How good are two point estimates of urban density gradients and central
densities?, J. Urban Econ., 4, No. 3 (July, 1977).
10. J. W. Wilkie, Ed., “Statistical Abstract of Latin America,” UCLA Latin American Center
Publications, Los Angeles, 1976.
11. “World Bank Atlas,” World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1977.