Public Disclosure Authorized
World Bank Reprint Series: Number 211
The Spatial Structure
of Latin American Cities
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Gregory K. Ingram and Alan Carroll
Reprinted with permission from Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 9, no. 2 (March 1981),
pp. 257-73. Copyright by Academic Press.
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 Bank, Washington, D.C. 20433
Received August 25, 1979; revised December 31, 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 decentralization 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 decentralized than Latin cities. High-status
groups are somewhat concentrated in the central cities of Latin American metropolitan 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 govemments have sought to provide urban infrastructure,
control development, and redirect growth from larger to smaller settlements. 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 671-47) funded by the World Bank. The views and conclusions reported here
are those of the authors and not of the World Bank or its affiliated organizations. 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 Corporacion Centro Regional de Poblacion in
Bogota for comments on the work presented here, wlth particular appreciation to Rakesh
Mohan and Jose Fernando Pineda. Ingram was principally responsible for the analysis and
Carroll, for the data assembly.
257
0094-1 190/81/020257-17$02.00/0
Copyright ( 1981 by AcademiC Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
258
INGRAM AND CARROLL
TABLE I
Total and Urbanized Population in North and Latin America
Year
Region'
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980b
110
135
130
145
162
166
213
199
284
226
374
249
30
75
40
85
67
106
105
139
161
168
237
196
41
64
49
70
57
74
63
79
Total population (Millions)
Latin America
North America
90
115
Urban population (Millions)
Latin America
20
North America
60
Urban population as percentage of total population
Latin America
22
28
31
North America
52
56
59
Source. From [7]; urban population figures are defined by each country.
aNorth Amnerica 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 population 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
suggests that 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 censuses are 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. 2 Since tabulations
2
See the Appendix for data sources used.
259
LATIN AMERICAN CITIES
TABLE 2
Latin American Cities with Central City Populations
over 600 Thousand in 1970
Country
City
Population date
Population (000)
City proper
Metro area
8,189
Argentina
Buenos Aires
1970
2,972
Bolivia
La paZa
1973
605
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1972
1973
1973
1972
1972
1970
1972
1970
1970
1970
1970
1972
1963
1970
1970
1,235
870
1,061
4,252
998
5,979
1,118
682
2,855
898
1,092
2,346
671
861
731
1,199
2,903
858
1,448
1,159
1,035
690
Belo Horizonte
Porto Alegrea
Recife
Rio de Janeiro
Salvadora
Sao Paulo
Santiago
Chile
Barranquillaa
Colombia
Bogota
Cali
Medelina
Havana b
Cuba
Dominican Rep. Santo Domingoa
Guayaquil'
Ecuador
Guatemala Citya
Guatemala
Guadalajara
Mexico
Mexico City
Monterrey
Lima
Peru
Montevideob
Uruguay
Caracas
Venezuela
Maracaibo'
Brazil
-
1,606
-
1,793
7,082
-
8,195
2,820
694
-
1,208
-
1,455
8,657
1,213
3,302
-
2,199
-
'From [6].
bFrom [10].
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 metropolitan population growth rates during the two most recent decades for 13
Latin American
City
MexicoCity
Sao Paulo
Buenos Aires
Rio de Janeiroa
Limab
Bogotac
Santiagod
Caracas'
Recife
Belo Horizonte
Guadalajara
Monterrey
Calic
TABLE 3
Populations and Growth Rates-Selected Latin and North American Metropolitan
Areas
Population (000)
Annual growth rate
Population (000)
Annual growth rate North American
1950 1960 1970
50-60
60-70
1950 1960 1970
50-60
60-70
City
3180
2708
4723
3298
-
715
1509
724
819
475
440
376
284
5246
4818
6739
5012
1846
1697
2170
1388
1240
888
851
708
638
8657
8195
8189
7082
3302
2855
2820
2199
1793
1606
1455
1213
898
5.1
5.9
2.8
4.3
6.9
4.6
6.1
4.2
6.5
6.8
6.5
6.4
5•1
5.5
2.0
3.5
5.4
5.9
2.7
4.7
3.8
6.1
5.5
5.5
3.9
9556
4152
5178
3671
1508
2414
936
557
495
612
291
332
10695
6039
6221
4343
2077
2595
1418
1033
935
929
642
664
11572
7032
6979
4818
2861
2754
1985
1358
1268
1228
1065
968
1.1
3.8
1.9
1.7
3.3
0.7
4.2
6.4
6.6
4.3
8.2
7.2
0.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
3.3
0.6
3.4
2.8
3.1
2.8
5.2
3.8
NewYork
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.
Boston
Houston
San Diego
Miami
Denver
San Jose
Phoenix
a1947,1960,1970.
b19 6 1 ,1972.
C1951,1964,1973.
dl9 5 2,1960,1970.
'1950,1961,1971.
Source: For Latin American cities, see the Appendix; data for
North American cities are from [8, Table&32] based on 1970
SMSA definitions.
Z
0
>
tV
Q
3
r
LATIN AMERICAN CITIES
261
large Latin American cities with available data and for 12 large singlecentered 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 metropolitan area definitions. 3 Data for Bogota and Cali, the two Latin American 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 suggests that 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
[11]. Based on growth rates of per capita product reported by Kuznets,4
3
The metropolitan areas are defined in the Appendix.
Kuznets [3, p. 64], estimates that per capita product in the U.S. grew at 17.2 per decade
from 1839 to 1960.
4
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 sumnmary 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 seem always to be associated with high population growth. For all
12 North American cities peripheral densities are risirig; 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 FUNsTCTION 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 Plopulation Densities
Latin American Center or
city
periphery
Mexico City
Sao Paulo
Buenos Aires
Rio de Janeiro
Deogotab
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
Recife
Belo Horizonte
Guadalajara
Monterrey
Calib
(Kn )
Popn. density (Popn./Km 2 )
1950
1960
1970
138
2192
1493"
6458
200
3860
1171
5293
304
16,225
432
1,380
79
14,952
473
2,030
174
2,352
Area
2
-
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
209'
1992
335
3335
188
1164
451
1292
85
P
-
-
20,558
1,101
2,287
172
14,872
1,025
2,824
322
5,582
-
3,594
148
1,053
37
2,204
52
752
28
3,341
-
3,815
223
2,070
58
3,940
95
1,332
83
7,506
-
21,074
2,675
4,005
343
14,897
1,418
3,631
535
9,391
-
5,075
367
3,686
111
6,383
220
1,901
275
10,565
-
Popn. density (Popn./Km 2)
1950
1960
1970
10,157
350
1,675
210
6,275
170
6,202
180
5,077
10,015
612
2,130
350
6,140
295
5,995
264
4,835
10,161
773
2,390
420
5,825
400
5,835
325
4,790
Area
(
Center or
periphery
777
4,758
1,326
9,213
578
9,054
334
8,868
158
5,936
119
2,437
1,028
15,250
552
10,484
88
5,201
246
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
119
221
355
6,735
662
580
22
606
21
2,833
47
1,690
5,860
780
913
31
1,038
44
3,315
124
2,008
5,387
867
1,198
49
1,257
63
3,805
179
2,092
21
47
77
9,233
P
318
64
166
10
681
143
684
10
1,480
202
906
17
300
3,067
642
23,069
C
P
C
P
North American
city
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.
Z
P
Boston
Houston
Z
San Diego
Miami
Denver
San Jose
Phoenix
al,622 in 1950 and 1960.
bFor 1951, 1964, and 1973.
C146 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 population densities decline exponentially with distance from the center, we can
estimate the intercept, D, and gradient, b, of the density function
D(x) = Debx
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 metropolitanr 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 Americatn 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 increses are typically accompanied 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. Ain 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 magnitude, 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 15,700 for 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 sinall 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 S
Population Density Gradients'
Latin American
city
4
Mexico City
1.0
S.,o Paulo
1.0
Buenos Aires
0.6
Rio de Janeiro
0.5
Bogota
0.5
Recife
0.6
Belo Horizonte
1.0
b
Guadalajara
1.0
Monterrey
1.0
Cali
0.5
Parameter'
1950
1960
1970
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
69,000
0.37
8,400
0.14
54,000
0.21
8,700
0.09
62,000
0.27
12,000
0.13
37,000
0.14
10,000
0.08
37,000
0.25
14,000
0.21
11,000
0.28
28,000
0.46
8,500
0.27
43,000
0.41
44,000
0.17
18,000
0.12
33,000
0.12
11,000
0.07
26,000
0.12
17,000
0.19
19,000
0.27
39,000
0.41
7,400
0.19
29,000
0.21
1)
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
-
13,000
0.25
5.000
0.26
14,000
0.45
6,200
0.32
-
1950
1960
1970
62,000 45,000 40,000
0.16
0.13
0.11
4,800 5,300
5,800
0.06
0.06
0.05
27,000 20,000 16,000
0.13
0.10
0.08
20,000 16,000 14,000
0.18
0.15
0.13
15,000 11,000 9,000
0.25
0.18
0.14
14,000 11,000
9,300
0.16
0.13
0.12
2,100
3,500 4,200
0.12
0.13
0.12
2,100 3,200
3,600
0.11
0.10
0.09
8,000
6,800
7,200
0.23
0.15
0.13
6,800 6,000
5,100
0.27
0.20
0.16
620
1,300
3,500
0.08
0.07
0.10
350 2,700
3,100
0.08
0.16
0.14
Parameter'
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
D
b
b
North American
city
0.6
New York
0.6
Los Angeles
0.5
Chicago
1.0
Philadelphia
1.0
Washington, D.C.
0.7
Boston
1.0
Houston
0.5
San Diego
0.5
Miami
1.0
Denver
0.5 San Jose
1.0 Phoenix
'Calculated using the technique described in [9].
bProportion of circle that can be developed.
cParameters from density = De bx, where x is distance from center in kilometers; D is central density in persons/km 2 .
o
r
LATIN AMERICAN 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 tne intrametropolitan 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 ca,gories 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 groups.5 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.6 Manufacturing employment seems to be less concentrated in (he central city than
employment in either commerce ori services. In most cases, however, it
appears that even manufacturing employment is more centralized than the
economically active population. 7 The extensive decentralization of the
5
The center-periphery comparison may conceal decentralization of high status groups
occuring within narrow radial zones of cities, as in the north of Bogota, Colombia. For
reports on the movement of affluent groups outward in specific directions, see [1, 5].
6
1n Bogota, Colombia both firms and jobs in the manufacturing sector have moved
outward from the center during the 1970-1975 period [4].
7
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
Year
Mexico City
SaoPaulo
Buenos Aires
Rio de Janeiro
Recife
Belo Horizonte
Guadalajara
Monterrey
50
60
70
50
60
70
50
60
70
50
60
70
50
60
70
50
60
70
50
60
70
50
60
70
Econ. active
popn.
Prof.
tech.
73
59
39
85
86
72
52
-
81
66
47
-
43
-
-
-
-
-
75
65
46
37
76
56
68
63
77
81
87
88
84
91
86
66
-
62
56
95
96
91
94
89
78
55
48
57
44
-
91
82
54
79
82
90
--
90g
-
92'
87
-
-
Office
sales Service
Blue
collar
71
Mfg.
Commerce
Service
-
-
-
-
49a
-
-
-
-
-
84
80
71
67
49'
77
75
76
59
63
63
56
47
53
28
-
86
By job location
70a
-
94
94
89
95
89
76
Autos
owned
84
92a
850
70
95
92
-
90
-
83b
66b,C
88
86
86
85
91
92
-
-
82
-
86
-
88
-
-
-
-
'Service and blue collar combined.
bCommerce and service combined.
CFor 1964.
dFor 1956.
'For 1965.
Source: Various population and economic censuses; see the Appendix.
economically active population in Mexico City and Buenos Aires is sirmiar
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 population 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 A.nerica is beginning 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 similatity 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 timne and money
travel costs are also likely to encourage high densities. The great differences in density function parameters between new North American
cities and smaller Latin American cities is likely due to the North American 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 Nacion 1947, Tomo I and II; Censo
Nacional de Poblacion 1960, Tomo II; Censo Nacional de Vivienda 1960,
Tomo III; Censo Nacional de Poblacion, Faniilias, 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 Nacional Economico 1964: Vols. Industria Manufacturera, Comercio, Prestacion del Servicios.
Brazil
Population: Censos Demograficos 1950; Censos Demograficos 1960;
Censos Demograficos 1970; Censos Domicilios 1970.
Economy: Censos Industriais 1950; Censos Comercial e dos Servicos
1950; Censos Industriais 1960; Censos Comercial e dos Servicos 1960;
Censo Comercial 1970; Censo dos Servicos 1970.
Chile
Population: XII Censo Nacional de Poblacion y Vivienda 1952; XIII
Censo Demografico 1960, including vol. "Entidades de Poblacion"; Censo
Nacional de Poblacion y Vivienda 1970, including vol. "Entidades de
Poblacion;" Vols. 6 and 7, Santiago.
Economy: IV Censo Nacional de Manufacturas 1968, Tomo III.
Colombia
Population: Censo de Poblacion 1951; Censo de Edificios y Viviendas,
1951; Decimotercero Censo Nacional 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. Octavo
Censo General de Poblacion 1960; Vols. Distrito Federal, Estado Nuevo
Leon, Estado Jalisco, Estado de Mexico. Noveno Censo General de
Poblacion 1970; Resumen Nacional Direccion General de Estadistica y
Direccion General de Programacion y Estudios Economicos, "Encuesta
Nacional de Hogares 1976, Area Metropolitana de la Ciudad de Mexico."
Peru
Population: Censo Nacional 1940; Censo Nacional de Poblacion, including vol. "Centros Pobladas"; Primer Censo Nacional de Vivienda 1961;
VII Censo Nacional de Poblacion 1972; II Censo Nacional 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: Octavo 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. Jurisdictiorns Comprising Centers and Peripheries
(All demarcations are official; year of demarcation in parentheses)
Belo Horizonte (1970)
Center: Municipio Belo Horizonte.
Periphery: Municipios Betim, Caete, Contagem, Ibirit6, Lagoa Santa,
Nova Lima, Pedro Leopoldo, Rapcsos, Ribenao dos Neves, Rio Acima,
Sabara, 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, Carrizal, 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, del Cercado, Chorillos, La Victoria, Lince,
Magdalena del Mar, Miraflores, Rimac, Pueblo Libre, San Isidro, San
Miguel, and Santiago del Surco in Province of Lima.
Periphery: Entire remainder of Province of Lima plus entire Province of
Callao.
272
INGRAM AND CARROLL
Mexico City (1976)
Center: Jurisdiction within Distrito Federal called Ciudad de Mexico.
Periphery: Entire remainder of Distrito Federal plus Municipios Atizapan, 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 los Garza in State of Nuevo Leon.
Recife (1970)
Center: Municipio Recife.
Periphery: Municipios Cabo, Igarassu, Itamaraca, Jaboatao, Moreno,
Olinda, Paulista, and Sao Lourenso 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, Mage,
Mangaratiba, Marica, Nil6polis, Niteroi, Nova Iguacu, Paracambi, Petr6polis, Sao Gongalo, and Saio JMao 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, Nufioa, Puente Alto, Quilicura, Renca, and
San Bernardo in Departments of Aguirre Cerda, Puente Alto, and Santiago.
Sao Paulo (1970)
Center: Municipio Sao Paulo.
Periphery: Municipios Aruja, Barueri, Biritiba-Mirim, Caieras, Cajamar,
Carapicuiba, Cotia, Diadema, Embu, Embu-Guacu, Ferraz de Vasconcelos, Franciso Morato, Franco da Rocha, Guararema, Guarulhos, Itapecerica da Serra, Itapeui, Itaquaque Cetuba, Jandira, Juquitiba, Mairipora,
Mava, Mogi das Cruces, Osasco, Pirapora du Bom Jesus, Poa, Riberao
Pires, Rio Grande da Serra, Sales6polis, Santa Isabel, Santana de Parnaiba,
Santo Andre, Sao Bernardo do Campo, Sao Caetano do Sul, Suzano,
Taboao 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, "Modern Economic Growth," Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn. 1966.
4. K. S. Lee, Intra-urban location of manufacturing employment in Colombia (paper
presented at AEA meetings, Chicago, August, 1978), J. Urban Econ., 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 Survey, 1974, N.Y. Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Statistical Office, 1974.
8. U.S. Sunmary, Final Report PC(l)-AI, U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 Census of Population.
9. L. J. White, How good are two point estimates of urban density gradients and central
densities?, J. Ujrban 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.
U
World Bank
Headquarters:
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
Telephone: (202) 477-1234
Telex: RCA 248423 WORLDBK
WUI 64145 WORLDBANK
Cable address: INTBAFRAD
WASHINGTONDC
European Office:
66, avenue d'1ena
75116 Paris, France
Telephone: 723.54.21
Telex: 842-620628
Tokyo Office:
Kokusai Building
1-1, Marunouchi 3-chome
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan
Telephone: 214-5001
Telex: 781-26838
The full range of World Bank publications, both free and for sale, is
described in the World Bank Catalog of Publications,and of the continuing
research program of the World Bank, in World Bank Research Program:
Abstracts of Current Studies. The most recent edition of each is available
without charge from:
PUBLICATIONS UNIT
THE WORLD BANK
1818 H STREET, N.W.
IN'ASHINGTON, D.C. 20433
U.S.A.
ISSN 0253-2131