Stages of urban growth – revisited

Abstract

About 35 years ago, urban geographers began to come to terms with the fact that urbanisation had not been accompanied by continuous population growth in cities of the most developed countries. Dutch and US geographers were the most active in formulating a multi-level model. According to this model, urban
growth would be followed by population decline (called “de-urbanisation” or “counter-urbanisation”) before the onset of a new stage of growth (referred to as “re-urbanisation”).
A few years later (Enyedi 1982), I proposed a revision of this model in three respects. First, I transformed it into a global model. I argued that development stages in advanced economies spread (or would spread) to emerging economies and subsequently to developing countries as well. The first relevant phase of economic development – the so-called urban explosion – certainly did spread in this way. Second, I assumed that the impact of long-term economic cycles (the so-called
Kondratiev cycles) could explain different stages of urban growth. Third, I found too little evidence pointing to re-urbanisation (i.e., new population growth in city centres due to urban renewal). Instead, I suggested that new, geographically de-concentrated urban networks (information cities) would develop in advanced economies.
This paper raises the question whether the development stages summarised above are still relevant or not. We have now reached an advanced stage of globalisation. All important socio-economic changes have impacted on every global city as such changes may in fact begin in an emerging economy and are not necessarily limited to the most developed contexts. Information society has encouraged de-concentration of certain economic activities. At the same time, large metropolitan areas play a more important role than ever in global development.
The paper shows that the basic model outlined above is still valid. Specific stages of urbanisation correspond to the progress of economic cycles. The first and second stages (“urban explosion” and the subsequent relative de-concentration in urban agglomerations) emerged in advanced economies first, moved to emerging economies later, and finally reached developing countries.
Nevertheless, two types of uncertainties concerning future development should be noted. First, we cannot detect de-urbanisation outside the developed world. This
may be attributed to the fact that de-urbanisation resulted from the creation of multi-plant enterprises which in turn was a consequence of outsourcing within national boundaries. This trend was typical in the 1970s. During the era of globalisation, outsourcing has become international as enterprises increasingly operated at a multinational level. However, outsourcing from highly developed countries to less developed (mostly emerging) economies targets urban areas where skilled manpower and the necessary infrastructure are available. Consequently, such outsourcing has no de-urbanizing effect. It is probable that the stage of de-urbanisation will therefore remain a feature limited to the most developed countries. This is probable but not certain. For example, there are indications of future de-urbanisation in China.
The second question is how long the stage of globalisation will last. Does the present economic crisis already mark the onset of decline in the cycle of globalisation? In highly developed countries, there is evidence of the growing strength of local economies (e.g., rising demand for local food, development of
alternative energy, growing interest in traditional products). At present, the reevaluation of local economies has only a limited impact on urban development. But this may change in the future. Strong local economies may diminish the global importance of metropolitan areas and could yield a more balanced urban system. I will argue that a new cycle is likely, but will make no predictions as to its expected date or as regards its consequences on urban development in various regions of the world.