DEMOGRAPHV© Volume 13, Number 4 November 1976

RECENT URBANIZATION TRENDS IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

Charles Hirschman Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706

Abstract-The pace of urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia was slower in the most recent intercensal interval, 1957 to 1970, than in the previous period, 1947 to 1957, Most of the small change in the rural-urban balance from 1957 to 1970 appears due to the growth of towns into the urban classification rather than to a redistribution of population into the previous urban settle­ ments. A number of towns in Peninsular Malaysia do show exceptional growth from 1957 to 1970, but there seems to be no clear relationship between a city's size and its subsequent growth. The rural areas on the outskirts of the largest cities do show rapid growth, especially the periphery of the capital city. It appears that neither the classic model of urbanization based upon Western experience nor the over-urbanization thesis explain the urbanization process in Peninsular Malaysia.

Understanding the path of population about 5-15 percent to a high of 70-90 per­ redistribution during the course of so­ cent. Both theoretical and empirical work cioeconomic development is heavily based based on this basic model abound in the upon the historical experience of industri­ literature (Davis, 1965; Hauser, 1957; alized countries. While there is consid­ Hawley, 1971; Lampard, 1955; Jacobson erable variation in both theory and empir­ and Prakash, 1971). Further stages of this ical observation, the key elements of the basic model include a deconcentration or basic model are (a) the increasing com­ decentralization of the population in large plexity of technology and (b) the scale of urban centers (Schnore, 1965, pp. 77-134) economic organization which gives rise to and perhaps an emerging reversal of the a shift in the demand for labor from the growth differentials between large metro­ agricultural to the nonagricultural sector. politan areas and the rest of the country The imbalance between labor demand and (Beale, 1975). These latter phases, how­ the geographical distribution of labor ever, will not be discussed here, since our supply leads to the various pushes and focus is on the pattern of urbanization pulls between urban and rural areas. that first accompanies socioeconomic de­ The primary demographic process con­ velopment. tributing to population redistribution The applicability of this basic model of has been internal migration from rural economically induced urbanization to the to urban areas. The demand for labor in countries of the Third World is highly urban areas is not confined to manufac­ problematic. In the words of McGee, turing industries alone but spreads to the there is a wide divergence between "West­ supporting construction and service sec­ ern theory and Third World reality" tors that also expand as economic growth (1971, pp. 13-34). The basic point raised continues. The end result is a rise in the by a number of researchers is that urbani­ proportion of the population of a nation zation may be occurring independently of living in urban areas, from a low level of the course of economic development. This

445

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 446 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 4, November 1976 perspective, variously labeled as over­ federation of the independent nation of urbanization and pseudo-urbanization, .Malaya with the British colonies of Sing­ has two important aspects (McGee, 1967, apore, Sabah, and Sarawak, the last two pp. 15-28; Hoselitz, 1957 and 1962). The being states on the island of Borneo, first is that urban growth and urbaniza­ about 400 miles from the Malaysian pe­ tion (ratio of urban population to total ninsula. Singapore left Malaysia in 1965. population) are not primarily caused by Malaya, now known as Peninsular Ma­ the "pull" forces of economic opportu­ laysia, had a population of 8.8 million in nities of the cities but, rather, by the 1970, which was about 84 percent of the "push" factors of rural poverty and over­ total population of Malaysia (Department crowding. The consequence is that, even of Statistics, 1972a, p. 45). The research in an economically stagnant society, there reported here is limited to Peninsular Ma­ may be significant additions to the urban laysia, both because of a lack of com­ population that are not absorbed into the parable time series data for Sabah and urban industrial economy but remain Sarawak and because the geographical marginally employed in unproductive jobs separation of Peninsular Malaysia from or even openly unemployed. The second Sabah and Sarawak limits the flow of pop­ point that emerges from the over­ ulation movements between them. urbanization thesis is that urban growth becomes a drag on economic progress. Be­ Historical Urbanization Trend cause most of the rural to urban migrants Most of the analysis reported here will do not contribute significantly to eco­ be limited to the pattern of population nomic production but do demand increas­ redistribution from 1957 to 1970, the most ingly larger outlays of public services, recent intercensal interval. However, such as housing, transportation, educa­ some perspective on the historical trend of tion, and welfare services, scarce govern­ urbanization can be obtained from the mental funds, when used to provide these data in the five national censuses from increased services, are lost to potential 1921 to 1970. Table 1 shows the trend in productive investments elsewhere in the the proportion of the total population of economy. Thus, urbanization, instead of Peninsular Malaysia living in urban areas, being a sign of economic progress as in the according to three definitions of urban basic model, may connote an additional areas: obstacle for Third World countries in I. census towns of 1,000 persons or their efforts to achieve development. more, It is not my intent here to review all 2. census towns of 5,000 persons or aspects of these perspectives or other in­ more, and terpretations of urbanization in devel­ 3. census towns of 10,000 persons or oping countries. There have been attempts more. to criticize the over-urbanization thesis The question of what is an urban area is (Sovani, 1964; Wellisz, 1971, pp. 43-46) not a simple one. Working definitions in and to develop new perspectives on the the 1957 census and earlier ones relied urbanization process (McGee, 1971). This upon a minimum size of 1,000 to define an brief summary is only meant to provide urban area, while the 1970 census, in some background on, and to "set the order to avoid the inclusion of small set­ stage" for, an interpretation of recent eco­ tlements in the urban category, chose to nomic change and urbanization in Penin­ define urban areas as towns with at least a sular Malaysia. population of 10,000. Published tabula­ tions in both the 1957 and 1970 censuses PENINSULAR MALAYSIA listed the population of all population set­ Malaysia, one of the new states of tlements defined as gazetted areas (an ad­ Southeast Asia, was formed in 1963 by the ministrative status similar to an in-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Recent Urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia 447

TABLE I.-Population in Thousands and Percent of Total in Urban Areas According to Various Minimum Criteria, Peninsular Malaysia: 1921-1970"

Urban Criteria 1,000 or more 5,000 or more 10,000 or more Total

1921 570 (19.6) 425 (14.6) 408 (14.0) 2,907 (100)

1931 836 (22.1) 643 (16.9) 571 (15.0) 3,788 (100)

1947 1,301 (26.5) 1,038 (21.1) 930 (19.0) 4,908 (100)

1957 2,680 (42.7) 1,985 (31. 6) 1,667 (26.5) 6,279 (100)

1970 3,692 (41.9) 2,992 (34.0) 2,530 (28.7) 8,810 (100)

a- All figures are based upon census reports with no adjustments.

Sources: Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 1972a, pp. 207-283; Department of Sta­ tistics, Federation of Malaya, 1960, pp. 53-55; Malaya, 1949, pp. 161-170; Bri­ tish Malaya, 1932, pp. 138-141; 1921, 170-175.

corporated place in the United States), three definitions of an urban area for the regardless of population size. Earlier cen­ 50-year period. A gradual increase in ur­ suses seemed to have relied upon other banization from 1921 to 1947 is followed criteria for choosing to include population by a sharp jump from 1947 to 1957. This settlements in the tabulations of the pub­ jump was 16 percentage points for areas lished reports. I simply have labeled all with a minimum population of 1,000, but settlements listed in census reports as only 8 points for the towns defined by a "census towns" and presented three alter­ minimum population of 10,000. The native minimum size criteria to define ur­ standard explanation for the 1947-1957 ban areas. The subsequent tables have rise in urbanization is based upon the gue­ been adjusted in various ways to increase rilla war and the resettlement program un­ the comparability of data between the dertaken during this last decade of colo­ 1957 and 1970 censuses, but the figures in nial rule. During most of this period, there Table I are unadjusted; they are simply was an insurgency led by Communist summations based upon the original fig­ forces against the colonial government. ures published in the census reports. One strategy of the government was a These adjustments have some minor ef­ compulsory resettlement of hundreds of fects upon the figures but will not seri­ thousands of rural residents into "new vil­ ously change the general interpretation lages," in order to deny the insurgents a based upon Table 1. potential base of support. These "new vil­ In 1970, using the 1,000 minimum cri­ lages" were either new towns or settle­ teria, almost 42 percent of the population ments adjacent to already existing towns.. could be classified as urban residents. This resettlement program undoubtedly With the more conservative definitions of contributed to the rapid pace of urban 5,000 and 10,000, the urban proportion is growth from 1947 to 1957, with most of reduced to 34 percent and 29 percent, re­ the effect on towns at the lower end of the spectively. Whether one concludes that urban hierarchy (for reviews of the re­ Peninsular Malaysia has a comparatively settlement program and urbanization dur­ low or high level of urbanization depends ing this period, see Sandhu, 1964; Ham­ very much on the yardstick used. The zah, 1962, 1964, 1965; Caldwell, 1963). overall trend is roughly similar for all There is no doubt that the pace of urban-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 448 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 4, November 1976 ization has slackened in the most recent the growth and shift of economic produc­ intercensal interval (for prior recognition tion [measured by gross domestic product of this finding, see Saw, 1972; Pryor, (GOP) at factor cost] for Peninsular Ma­ 1973). Using either the minimum criteria laysia from 1960 to 1970, and Table 3 of 5,000 or of 10,000 residents, there is shows comparable figures on the indus­ only a 2 percentage point rise in the urban­ trial structure of the experienced labor ization measure, while, with the 1,000­ force from the 1957 and 1970 censuses. person definition, there has been essen­ During the ten-year period from 1960 to tialIy no change in the percent urban (ac­ 1970, total GOP expanded by almost two­ tually a small decrease in the proportion, thirds, which meant an average annual though not in absolute numbers). Further growth rate of over 5 percent (there was inquiry into this unexpected slowdown in only minimal inflation during the 1960s, urbanization from 1957 to 1970 will be the averaging less than 1 percent per year; see subject of the rest of this paper. Department of Statistics, 1972c, p. 29). Although all sectors of the economy grew, RECENT SOCIOECONOMIC CHANGE I it is clear that the agricultural expanded The socioeconomic progress of Ma­ much more slowly than the nonagricul­ laysia since the independence of Malaya tural sector. The most dynamic sector in 1957 and the formation of Malaysia in was manufacturing which expanded by 1963 has been lauded as one of the few almost 200 percent and grew from 9 to success stories in the Third World. Al­ 15 percent of the economy. The agricul­ though best known as the world's leading tural sector declined proportionally from producer of natural rubber and tin ore, 41 percent of the economy to 29 percent, there have been significant efforts in the while other sectors increased their share. period since independence to diversify the Table 2 indicates that the economy of economy (for an overview of the econ­ Peninsular Malaysia is moving in the di­ omy, see Lim, 1973 and Malaysia, 1971). rection of the basic model suggested by To provide some measures relevant to the the experience of industrial countries. basic urbanization model, Table 2 shows However, it is uncertain whether changes

TABLE 2.-Gross Domestic Product" by Industrial Origin, Peninsular Malaysia: 1960-1970

1960 1970 Industrial Gross Domestic Product Gross Domestic Product 1960-1970 Origin Malaysian Malaysian Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Growth

Agriculture $2,013 41 $2,428 29 21 Mining 301 6 548 7 82 Manufacturing 425 9 1,254 15 195 Construction 149 3 290 3 95 Services 2,074 42 3,832 46 85

Total Gross Domestic Product $4,962 100 $8,352 100 68

a- In millions of Malaysian dollars.

Sources: Department of Statistics, 1972b, p. 18; and The Treasury, Malaysia, 1974, pp. vi-vii.

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Recent Urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia 449

TABLE 3.-Experienced Labor Force by Industry, Peninsular Malaysia: 1957-1970

1957 1970 Experienced Labor Force Experienced Labor Force Industry 1957-1970 Number in Number in Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Growth

Agriculture 1,245 59 1,359 52 9 Mining 58 3 55 2 -5 Manufacturing 135 6 252 10 87 Construction 68 3 60 2 -12 Services 601 29 865 33 44

Total Experienced Labor Forcea 2,108 100 2,591 100 23

a- This represents the total experienced labor force (economically active popu­ lation in 1957) that was classified by industry. A small percentage in both censuses were in a residual category, called "unknown," and they are excluded here. Totals were rounded independently.

Source: Department of Statistics, 1960, p. 123; Department of Statistics, 1976, forthcoming.

in the industrial composition of economic tional economy and labor force, there are production will lead to a change in the definite signs in the direction of the basic demand for labor. Much of the industrial­ model which would lead one to expect a ization in Malaysia, as in other Third shift in the distribution of the population World countries, is of a capital-intensive from rural to urban areas. Has this shift nature which provides fewer employment actually occurred? We turn now to an ex­ opportunities than was the case of indus­ amination of this question. trial growth 100 years ago. Table 3, how­ ever, indicates a moderate shift in the in­ POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION, dustrial composition of the labor force. 1957 TO 1970 Agricultural employment grew at less than half of the national growth rate of Adjustments to Base Data the work force, while manufacturing em­ From a comparison and matching of ployment almost doubled in size during the names and geographical location of all 1957 to 1970. It must be noted, though, towns listed in the 1957 and 1970 census that, even in 1970, over half of the labor reports, it is apparent that a number of force worked in agriculture, while only 1957 towns were merged or joined to one in ten worked in manufacturing activ­ other towns by 1970. Sometimes, this took ities. The small absolute declines in min­ place through a large city expanding its ing and construction may be due to mea­ urban boundaries to encompass some surement differences in the two censuses. small towns on its periphery. In other I conclude from Tables 2 and 3 that cases, two towns with similar names (usu­ measurable economic progress has oc­ ally one being a "new village") and in curred in Peninsular Malaysia in the first close proximity to one another are listed 13 years since independence. While the as only one town in the 1970 census re­ modern sector (secondary) industries are port. In order to control for variations in still a fairly small proportion of the na- urban growth and for urbanization figures

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 450 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 4, November 1976 that are caused by such annexations and fringe" that can be applied to earlier cen­ mergers, I have reclassified all these cases suses in order to look at trends. The rural according to the 1970 list of census towns. population is subdivided into metro­ In some cases, this required joining to- politan-rural and nonrnetropolitan-rural. gether two parts of the same town that categories. The division was made upon were in separate administrative districts. the basis of districts (comparable to coun­ (A list of all adjustments to the 1957 and ties in the United States) which contained 1970 data on census towns is available a city of at least 75,000 or more. Thus, the from the author.) Despite these adjust- rural population living within close prox­ ments, urban growth from 1957 to 1970 imity (in the same district) to a large city may still be inflated by classificatory of 75,000 is labeled as metropolitan-rural, changes rather than differential natural in- and the balance as nonmetropolitan-rural, crease or population redistribution. This The choice of 75,000 as the appropriate would result from the expansion of urban size was made to correspond with the des­ boundaries to include ungazetted areas ignation of such cities as metropolitan (outside of census towns). This process towns in the publications of the 1970 cen­ undoubtedly occurred during the 1957 to sus. 1970 period, but there is no information available in published reports that would Urbanization Trend allow for a quantitative estimate of its Table 4 shows the population distribu­ impact on measures of population redis­ tion by size of town in 1957 and 1970 tribution. based upon the adjusted census data in each year. Column 2 gives the 1970 figures A Size-ofTown and Urban Fringe based upon the 1970 size-of-town classifi­ Classification cation, while column 3 gives the 1970 fig­ In order to measure population redistri­ ures based upon the 1957 size-of-town bution along the urban hierarchy as well classification. The objective here is simply as between rural and urban areas, a six­ to check on how much of the population category size-to-town classification is used redistribution from 1957 to 1970 is due to which ranges from small towns of 1,000 to the inclusion of new towns in 1970 and the 1,999 to large cities of 75,000 or more. A crossing of size classes by some towns dur­ residual category consists of "census ing the intercensal interval. towns of less than 1,000 population and In 1957, the population could be char­ ungazetted areas," which I have labeled acterized as moderately urbanized for a "rural." This is not meant to suggest that developing country. More than 20 percent the criteria of 1,000 population is the only lived in medium to large cities of more or best division between rural and urban than 25,000 persons, and another 20 per­ areas. cent lived in small towns of from 1,000 to In both 1957 and 1970, this rural cate­ 24,999. Still, the majority of the popu­ gory contained almost 60 percent of the lation, almost three-fifths, lived in rural population of Peninsular Malaysia. Some areas, although a small fraction (3.7 per­ of these people lived in very remote areas, cent ofthe total population) could be clas­ but others lived simply on the periphery of sified as metropolitan-rural, because they very large cities. In a pioneering effort, the lived on the outskirts of the four largest 1970 census defined the built-up areas towns of over 75,000. around ten state capitals as conurbations The 1970 figures in column 2 show only and counted about 4.6 percent of the a marginal shift from the 1957 distribu­ total population living in these areas tion. The only notable changes were an (Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 1971, increase of about 4 percentage points in p. 14). For this paper, I have developed the proportion living in cities with popu­ an alternative measure of the "urban lations over 75,000 (13.0 to 16.8 percent)

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Recent Urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia 451

TABLE 4.-Percent Distribution of Population by Size of Town for 1957 and 1970 and for the 1957 Towns in 1970: Peninsular Malaysia

a 1970 a 1957 All Only 1970 Towns 1957 Townsb

Size of town 75,000 or more 13.0 16.8 12.3 25,000-74,999 8.9 7.7 9.0 10,000-24,999 5.3 4.2 5.6 5,000-9,999 4.7 5.3 4.3 2,000-4,999 6.3 5.6 5.6 1,000-1,999 3.9 2.3 2.9

Rural areas In metropolitan districts 3.7 8.5 5.6 In nonmetropolitan districts 54.1 49.6 55.1

Total population 100.0 100.0 100.0 (Number in thousands) (6,279) (8,810) (8,810)

Summary measures c Percent metropolitan 16.7 25.2 17.6 Percent urban 10,000 or more 27.2 28.7 26.9 5,000 or more 31. 9 34.0 31.2 1,000 or more 42.1 41.9 39.7

10,000 or more and rural areas in metropolitan districts 30.9 37.2 32.5

a- Census data have been adjusted for annexations or mergers of towns; a list of all adjustments are available from the author upon request. b- Includes only those 1970 towns in this size class in 1957. c- Metropolitan includes those in towns of 75,000 or more and those in me­ tropolitan-rural areas. Sources: Department of Statistics, Federation of Malaya, 1959, Tables 3 a, and 4; Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 1972 pp. 207-283.

and a similar increase in the fraction in laysia became more urbanized during metro-rural areas (3.7 to 8.4 percent). The 1957 to 1970. The most positive response rise in the proportion living in the largest would come from the statistics based size towns was accompanied by a decrease upon the shift in the proportion classified in the proportion living in small towns, as metropolitan (persons living in towns not in the rural share of the total popu­ of 75,000 or more and those in rural areas lation. Various summary measures are of districts containing a town of 75,000) shown in the lower part of Table 4 to or, alternatively, from an urban definition indicate the potential range of responses based upon those in towns of 10,000 or to the question whether Peninsular Ma- more, plus those in metropolitan rural

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 452 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 4, November 1976 areas. These summary measures would 3. the major flow of rural to urban mi­ imply a population redistribution of 6 to 8 gration occurs from Peninsular Malaysia percentage points. However, a definition to Singapore, across an international of urban areas based upon the official boundary. boundaries of census towns of 1,000, The urban to rural migration stream is 5,000, or 10,000 persons would suggest not a completely implausible hypothesis. there was no shift or only a very modest Saw (1972, p. 119) has suggested that rise of 1 or 2 percentage points. perhaps many of the rural residents who A comparison of columns 1 and 3 in­ were resettled into "new villages" during dicates that there was basically no popu­ the early 1950s returned to their original lation redistribution if the list of census villages and homes during the 1960s. Such towns is held constant for the two cen­ a hypothesis cannot be tested with the suses. This means that most of the redis­ data at hand. While it may be that some tribution observed between 1957 and 1970 older persons have a desire to return to was due to the appearance of new towns their rural origins, it seems unlikely that and of towns crossing size-class bound­ economic opportunities would have been aries. For instance, the largest changes great enough to attract very many per­ noted between columns 1 and 2 were asso­ sons. It seems more likely that younger ciated with metropolitan towns (towns persons reared in "new villages" would with populations of 75,000 or more and have been more attracted to larger cities metropolitan-rural areas), but most of than to rural areas. this was due to the increase in the number Little systematic evidence exists on of metropolitan towns from four to eight rural-urban differences in natural increase between the two censuses. Looking at the and their contribution to differential various summary indexes between col­ population growth. Indeed, several other umns I and 3, it would be possible to studies of population redistribution have interpret the trend as a decrease in the relied upon the unlikely assumption that level of urbanization as measured in es­ there were na rural-urban differentials in tablished towns (towns existing in 1957). natural increase, in order to obtain a rough estimate of the contribution of mi­ Possible Interpretations gration to urban growth (Caldwell, 1963; How can we reconcile the evidence in Pryor, 1974, p. 46). Although there is Table 4 with the initial expectation that some evidence that fertility is lower in urbanization should increase as a result of urban than in rural areas (Smith, 1952, economic growth, as suggested in the p. 51 and p. 76; Cho et al., 1968, p. 742; basic Western model, or simply as a result Palmore and Ariffin, 1969, p. 394), it of the "push" factors that are supposedly seems unlikely that substantial rural to endemic in rural areas of developing urban migration would be completely hid­ countries? Although a full discussion of den by differential rates of natural in­ this and related issues will be delayed until crease. Preliminary analysis of the age dis­ the final section of this paper, there are at tributions of rural and urban populations least three demographic patterns that from the 1970 census shows a higher pro­ could be suggested as partial explanations portion of children in rural areas and a of the apparent trend: somewhat higher proportion of young I. A sizeable urban to rural migration adults in towns (Department of Statistics, stream counters the effect of the expected Malaysia, 1973, p. 62-64). This question rural to urban movement; deserves further study. 2. urban-rural differentials in natural The third alternative explanation-that increase, especially fertility, mask the population redistribution to Singapore is effects of rural to urban migration on the main channel of urbanization-is also population redistribution; and a plausible one. Although Singapore was

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Recent Urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia 453 part of Malaysia from 1963 to 1965, it has total population of both countries living been an independent country since 1965. in large cities is sharply increased, there Even after 1965, however, there were pos­ seems little difference in the urbanization sibilities for movement across the border trend in Tables 4 and 5. In other words, (actually only a mile-long causeway) for even with the inclusion of Singapore, economic or social reasons. Indeed, analy­ there is no sign of substantial population sis based upon a balancing formula frame­ redistribution from rural to urban areas. work suggests a substantial movement of Though considerable internal migration persons from Malaysia to Singapore dur­ may be occurring, the other elements of ing the 1957 to 1970 period (Hirschman, population growth and change may have 1975). Although Singapore can be divided been working in the opposite direction to into urban and rural areas, it seems to be weaken any urbanization trend. more realistic to classify the city-state as one metropolitan city and place it in the THE GROWTH AND DECLINE OF TOWNS population size class of 75,000 and over. One of the related aspects of population The main island of Singapore and several redistribution is the growth of towns­ offshore islands are only 225 square miles especially as new towns appear over time but had a population of 1.4 million in and existing ones cross size-class bound­ 1957 that grew to 2.1 million in 1970 (De­ aries. Because of such confounding fac­ partment of Statistics, Singapore, 1973, p. tors and also because the interpretation of 231). Table 5 is a reproduction of Table 4, population redistribution almost always but the population of Singapore has been implies some interpretation of growth of included. Although the proportion of the towns, our focus will now shift to towns as

TABLE 5.-Percent Distribution of Population by Size of Town of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore, Combined Populations: 1957 and 1970·

1970 1957 All Only 1970 Towns 1957 Towns

Size of town b 75,000 or more 29.3 32.7 28.9 25,000-74,999 7.2 5.3 7.3 10,000-24,999 4.3 3.4 4.6 5,000-9,999 3.8 4.3 3.4 2,000-4,999 5.2 4.5 4.5 1,000-1,999 3.1 1.9 2.3

Rural areas In metropolitan districts 3.0 6.9 4.5 In nonmetropo1itan districts 44.0 40.1 44.6

Total population 100.0 100.0 100.0 (Number in thousands) (7,725) (10,884) (10,884)

a- All footnotes to Table 4 apply to Table 5. b- The entire population of Singapore (1,446,000 in 1957 and 2,075,000 in 1970) has been added to the 75,000 or more size-class. Sources: Same as Table 4; also Department of Statistics, Singapore, 1973, p. 231.

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 454 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 4, November 1976 the unit of analysis, rather than popu­ jumped size classes between the censuses, lation. but most were very small settlements of Table 6 compares the size class of all less than 5,000 or even 1,000 people in towns (gazetted areas) listed in the 1957 both 1957 and 1970. Using the criteria of census reports with the size class of the 10,000 persons to define an urban area, same universe from the 1970 census pub­ there were 36 urban settlements in 1957 lications. After making the adjustments which were joined by 13 additional towns noted earlier, a matching of all individual in this category in 1970, of which three towns was attempted. If a 1957 town was were "new towns" (ungazetted in 1957). not found in the 1970 census (and not The interpretation of the growth of thought to be part of another town), it is towns in Table 6 is determined in large listed as "ungazetted" in 1970. Similarly, part by our choice of size-class categories; a 1970 town for which a match could not that is, all variance within categories in be made from the 1957 census reports is both 1957 and 1970 is unmeasured. A categorized as ungazetted in 1957. more precise way to look at the associa­ Of 590 census towns in 1957, 77 (13 tion between size and growth is to exam­ percent) had become "ungazetted" and ine the patterns for individual towns. were not listed in the 1970census. There is no published information on whether CITY SIZE AND GROWTH these settlements simply lost their admin­ Individual towns with a population of istrative status or actually disappeared. over 5,000 in 1957 were ranked by size, Most of the "lost" towns were very small, and, for each, the average annual growth although one (Sungei Lembing) had a rate for 1957 and 1970 was calculated (as­ population of over 5,000 in 1957, and suming instantaneous compounding). seven others were in the 2,000-4,999 size These towns were grouped by the size-of­ class. In the 1970 census, there were a place classification used earlier. Table 7 total of 639 gazetted areas, of which 125 presents summary population growth fig­ (20 percent) are "new towns" that had not ures and rates for towns in each size class, been gazetted in 1957. Over three-quarters including the areas classified as metropol­ of these new census towns were very itan-rural and nonmetropolitan-rural, in small, with less than 1,000 persons, but 1957, and ranks all towns with popu­ three had a population above 10,000, and lations of over 10,000 by size. (The de­ nine others were in the 5,000-9,999 size tailed figures for individual towns with class. populations below 10,000 are available The cells of Table 6 show the shifting of from the author on request.) towns across size classes between the cen­ Peninsular Malaysia grew from 6.3 mil­ sus. Most towns are in the diagonal, in­ lion in 1957 to 8.8 million in 1970, at an dicating relative stability from 1957 to average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. 1970. Those in cells below the diagonal Interestingly, both rural categories (metro represent towns which have moved up the and nonmetro) had higher growth rates urban hierarchy, while the few above the than the national average. Of course, one diagonal shifted downward in size class reason for the slower average growth rate over the 13-year period. of all towns with populations 1,000 to The four largest towns in the metropol­ 1,999 is the number of towns which be­ itan size class (population over 75,000) came ungazetted or disappeared between were joined by three from the 1957 and 1970. While this phenomenon 25,000-74,999 size class (Johore Bahru, was largely concentrated in the smaller Malacca, and Seremban) and by one town size classes, the larger towns 'do not show which had less than 25,000 people in 1957 exceptional growth either. The average (Petaling Jaya-a suburb of Kuala Lum­ annual growth rate of the largest size class pur, the national capital). Over 100 towns (75,000 and over) and of towns in the

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 on 30 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf

::a nCD CD ...:::s TABLE 6.-Comparison of Size Class of Gazetted Areas in 1957 and 1970: Peninsular Malaysia ...c: f7 III :::s ;::r 1970 Size Class ...III Less Ungazetted All 1957 0' 1957 Size Class 75,000 25,000- 10,000- 5,000- 2,000- 1,000- Than Area in Gazetted :::s or more 74,999 24,999 9,999 4,999 1,999 1,000 1970 Areas ;- ." CD ;-:::s 75,000 or more 4 4 ... c iii... 25,000-74,999 3 9 12 ~ III iii 10,000-24,999 1 6 13 20 '<... iii 5,000-9,999 9 33 1 1 44

2,000-4,999 1 22 100 6 1 7 137

1,000-1,999 43 88 16 17 164

Less than 1,000 1 4 34 119 52 210 Ungazetted areas in 1957 3 8 10 9 94 All 1970 gazetted areas 8 15 26 64 158 137 230

Sources: Same as Table 4.

~ (Jl (Jl on 30 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf

TABLE7.-Growth of Towns from 1957to 1970by Size Class and Type of Area in 1957: Peninsular Malaysia ". UI G)

1957-1970 a 1957 Size Class and 1957 Population 1970 Population Population Change Average Annual Type of Area (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (in Thousands) Growth Rate

Gazetted areas of 75,000 or more 819 1,083 264 2.15

Kuala Lumpur 327 452 125 2.49 Georgetown 235 269 34 1.05 Ipoh 181 248 67 2.41 Klang 76 114 38 3.13 Gazetted areas of 25.00Q-74,999 559 797 238 2.72 ICJ '"~ 0 Johore Bahru 75 136 61 4.60 l:) Malacca 70 87 17 1. 70 ::Ill> 'V Alor Star 53 66 13 1. 73 % Seremban 57 81 24 2.71 :< < Taiping 48 55 6 0.96 0 Butterworth 43 61 19 2.80 C 3 Batu Pahat 39 53 14 2.34 III Muar 39 61 22 3.46 ... ~ Kota Bahru 38 55 17 2.84 ::lI Telok Anson 37 45 7 1.42 c 3 Kluang 31 43 12 2.52 c:r Kuala Trengganu 29 53 24 4.57 ..CD !" Gazetted areas of z 0 10,000-24,999 _ 334 497 163 3.06 < CD 3 c:r Bukit Mertajam 25 27 2 0.59 ..III Kampar 25 27 2 0.60 ... CD Kuantan 23 43 20 4.87 -..a Sungei Petani 23 36 13 3.47 G) on 30 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf

Table 7.--Continued

~ 1957-1970 nCD a CD 1957 Size Class and 1957 Population 1970 Population Population Change Average Annual ..:;, Type of Area (in Thousands) (in Thousands) fin Thousands) Growth Rate c:.. f7 til :;, N Ayer Itam 22 26 3 1.05 til :::t Bentong 19 23 4 1.43 0 Segamat 18 18 -1 -0.28 :;, Kulin 18 19 1 0.38 :;

Jinjang 17 27 11 3.80 CD ":;, Petalina Jaya 17 93 77 13.30 :; ... Sungei Siput 16 22 6 2.52 c Raub 15 18 3 1.40 ..iii Kuala Kangsar 15 15 0 0.00 3: til Kajang 15 22 7 3.00 iii Dungun 13 18 5 2.60 '<... Kuala Pilah 12 13 0 0.30 ii" Pangkal Kalong 11 14 3 1. 91 Chukai 11 13 2 1.13 Batu Gajah 10 11 1 0.40 Serdang Bahru 10 14 4 2.52 Gazetted areas of 5,000-9,999 297 378 82 1.88 Gazetted areas of 2,000-4,999 398 495 97 1. 69 Gazetted areas of 1....000-1,999 243 255 12 0.36

Metropolitan rural areas 233 491 258 5.74 Nonmetropo1itan rural areas 3,396 4,814 1,418 2.68 Total Peninsular Malaysia 6,279 8,810 2,532 2.61 ... UI ..... a - Average annual growth rate = i/,n P(1970) Sources: Same as Table 4. P(195])~ 458 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 4, November 1976 5,000-9,999 size class were below the na­ urban population) and urbanization (per­ tional average, while the average rates of centage point change in the ratio of urban the 10,000-24,999 and 25,000-75,999 size population to total population). From classes were above it. 1957 to 1970, Peninsular Malaysia did ex­ There seems no clear relationship, how­ perience a rapid rate of urban growth with ever, between initial size of town in 1957 most towns growing at an annual rate of and growth from 1957 to 1970. Exam­ over 2 percent, many at higher rates. ination of the pattern for individual towns However, the population of the rural hin­ indicates that there are about two dozen terland was growing at about the same towns with above national average growth pace, maybe even a bit faster. Although rates, but they are scattered throughout one may choose different summary meas­ the ranking. The annual growth rate of 5.4 ures to indicate a slight rise in the urbani­ percent in rural areas outside of the four zation level, most indicate little or no largest cities (metropolitan-rural) suggests change; and most of the change which is that the growth of large cities cannot be noticeable is a result of new towns cross­ measured by consideration of urban ing various threshold levels, rather than boundaries alone. This is particularly evi­ change occurring in the existing stock of dent for Kuala Lumpur, the national capi­ urban areas in 1957. Adding Singapore, tal. While her growth was only a moderate an independent country, to the urban sys­ 2.5 percent annually, the neighboring tem of Peninsular Malaysia does not towns and suburbs (Klang, linjang, Petal­ change the basic finding of a negligible ing Jaya, Kajang, and Sendang Bahru) change in urbanization. had very rapid growth rates. Petaling The analysis of urban growth showed a laya, a residential suburb and industrial wide variation in rates of growth among park within the Kuala Lumpur district, the towns of Peninsular Malaysia. No grew from a town of 16,000 in 1957 to be' consistent relationship emerged of initial the sixth largest city with more than size in 1957 to growth from 1957 to 1970. 90,000 in 1970. While the capital city of Kuala Lumpur The only other association with growth did not show exceptional growth, its that is apparent in Table 7 is the status of suburbs and the surrounding rural areas several fast-growing cities as regional cen­ were growing at faster than average ters and state capitals. This includes rates. Kuantan, Kuala Trengganu, and Kota Do the findings reported here represent Bahru on the East Coast, which has gener­ an exception to the process of urbaniza­ ally been considered the least developed tion in Third World countries or a chal­ region on the peninsula. Additionally, 10­ lenge to the basic theoretical model of hore Bahru, across the causeway from joint association of economic growth and Singapore, and, to a lesser extent, Butter­ urbanization? First, let us consider the worth on the West Coast (across from the findings of other studies of urbanization island of Penang which contains George­ in Asia. town) have also experienced rapid Commenting upon the process of growth, but a number of other state capi­ urbanization in India during the first half tals and regional centers, such as Malacca of the twentieth century, Kingsley Davis and Alor Star, have experienced slow (1962, pp. 7-10) raises the question ofwhy growth. It is difficult to make any consist­ the urbanization process has been so slow. ent generalizations from this evidence He suggests the primary cause has been alone. the slowness of economic development in India. More recently, after completing a DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS two-volume study of world urbanization In summarizing the empirical findings (Davis, 1969 and 1972), Davis comments of this study, it is important to distinguish on the current pace of urbanization in between urban growth (percent change in Asia (1975, p. 73):

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Recent Urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia 459 The idea is frequently expressed that the rate ing the pace of urbanization in the Third of urbanization is extremely rapid in Asia, as World. One point to recognizeis that both one might expect at an early stage of the perspectives equate rapid urban growth process. The truth is that neither by past with changes in the level of urbanization. standards nor by present ones is the rate of In the basic Western model, city growth to urbanization in Asia spectacular. meet labor demand must come from pop­ ulation redistribution from rural areas, In a recent article, Gavin Jones (1975, p. since natural increase in urban areas was 99) says "it is necessary to put to rest one fairly low. In the over-urbanization thesis, important misconception: namely that the key image is one of massive rural to rapid urbanization (that is, an increase in urban migration, which gives rise to the the proportion of population living in ur­ rapid growth of cities and a variety of ban areas) is occurring in Southeast associated urban problems. It seems that Asia." Jones goes on to cite figures based natural increase, however, rather than mi­ upon Davis' research that the level of gration, is the main demographic process urbanization in Southeast Asia only rose behind urban growth rates in Peninsular from 14 to 20 percent between 1950 and Malaysia, and perhaps elsewhere in Asia. 1970. Jones suggeststhat Malaysia may be Of course, there may be a moderate flow an exception to this process of slow of rural to urban migrants which is par­ urbanization because of its rapid eco­ tially obscured by differential rates of nat­ nomic development (Jones, 1975, p. 101). ural increase, but it doesn't seem to be of Sidney Goldstein (1971, pp. 207-208) such large proportions as to shift the ur­ presents evidence of a somewhat higher ban-rural balance of the population in rate of urbanization in Thailand. Using a Peninsular Malaysia. definition of municipal area (an adminis­ In terms of the economic progress in trative status) for urban places, he finds a Peninsular Malaysia which should have rise in the level of urbanization from 9.9 stimulated urbanization, it may be that percent in 1947 to 14.4 percent in 1967; the rise in urban growth alone (without a while restricting urban areas to places change in urbanization) is sufficient to over 20,000, he finds the comparable fig­ supply the necessary labor for the growing ures of 5.2 percent in 1947 and 11.7 per­ manufacturing enterprises. While the cent in 1967. Nonetheless, these faster manufacturing sector and employment in rates of growth partially reflect the small it has grown dramatically, the absolute initial urban population. number of jobs created has been fairly Considering these studies, I did not small because of the small initial base. It regard the slow pace of urbanization in appears that neither have opportunities in Peninsular Malaysia to be exceptional, at urban areas been so great nor have the least in terms of neighboring Asian coun­ rural conditions been so poor as to push tries. Thus, in spite of popular beliefs to significant numbers to the cities. It will the contrary and academic cliches like "In require deeper examination of these pat­ less developed countries around the terns in Malaysia and elsewhere to under­ world, migrants are continuously on the stand what accounts for the paradox of march into mushrooming cities ...." rapid urban growth in conjunction with a (Whitney and Jones, 1973, p. 42), the em­ slow pace of urbanization. pirical evidence seems to indicate that, in Peninsular Malaysia and other Asian ACKNOWLEDGMENTS countries, the process of urbanization has An initial draft of this paper was writ­ not been particularly rapid. ten while the author was working as a Perhaps more important is to reconsi­ demographic consultant to the Depart­ der whether the basic Western model or ment of Statistics of Malaysia. All views the revisionist over-urbanization thesis expressed in the paper are those of the has much theoretical import in explain- author and do not necessarily reflect those

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 460 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 4, November 1976 of the Department of Statistics. Mr. of Malaya: Reports Nos. 2-12 (State Reports). Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. Ramesh Chander, Chief Statistician of --. 1960. 1957 Population Census of the Feder­ Malaysia, and Ms. Dorothy Fernandez, ation of Malaya: Report No. 14, by H. Fell. Head of the Census and Demography Di­ Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. vision of the Department of Statistics, Department of Statistics, Malaysia. 1971. 1970Pop­ were helpful in facilitating my work. Mr. ulation and Housing Census of Malaysia: Urban Connurbations-Populations and Households in Harbans Singh and Mr. K. G. R. Nathan Ten Gazetted Towns and Their Adjoining Built­ of the Department of Statistics provided Up Areas, by R. Chander. Kuala Lumpur: De­ generous assistance in the matching of partment of Statistics. towns between the 1957 and 1970 censuses. --. I972a. 1970Population and Housing Census of Malaysia: Community Groups, by R. Chander. At Duke University, I have been assisted Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. by Ms. Ellen Cohen in checking and pre­ --. 1972b. National Accounts of West Ma­ paring the final tables and by Ms. Valerie laysia. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. Hawkins who typed the manuscript. I am --. I972c. Consumer Price Index for West Ma­ indebted to Robert Bach, David Brown, laysia. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. --. 1973. 1970 Population and Housing Census Avery Guest, and the anonymous referees of Malaysia: Age Distributions, by R. Chander. of Demography for their constructive Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. comments. This research has been sup­ --.1974. Revised Inter-Censal Population Esti- ported by financial assistance from The mates, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. Ford Foundation. Department of Statistics, Singapore. 1973. Report on the Census of Population, 1970, Singapore. REFERENCES Vol. I, by P. Arumainathan. Singapore: Depart­ Beale, Calvin. 1975. The Revival of Population ment of Statistics. Growth in Nonmetropolitan America. ERS-605. Goldstein, S. 1971. Urbanization in Thailand. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, Demography 8:205-223. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Harnzah Sendut. 1962. Patterns of Urbanization in British Malaya. 1922.The Census of British Malaya, Malaya. Journal of Tropical Geography 1921. The Straits Settlements, Federated Malay 16:114-130. States and the Protected States of Johore, Kedah, --. 1964. Urbanization. In Wang Gunguwu Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu, and Brunei, by J. E. (ed.), Malaysia: A Survey. New York: Frederick Nathan. London: Waterlow and Sons. A. Praeger. --. 1932. A Report on the 1931 Population Cen­ --. 1965. Some Aspects of Urban Change in sus and on Certain Problems of Vital Statistics, by Malaya, 1931-1957. Kajian Ekonomi Malaysia C. A. Vlieland. London: Crown Agents for the 2:87-103. Colonies. Hauser. P. 1957. World and Asian Urbanization in Caldwell, J. C. 1963. Urban Growth in Malaya: Relation to Economic Development and Social Trends and lmplications. Population Review Change. Pp. 53-95 in Phillip Hauser (ed.), Urban­ 7:39-50. ization in Asia and The Far East. Calcutta: Cho, L. J., J. Palmore, and L. Saunders. 1968. Re­ UNESCO. cent Fertility Trends in West Malaysia. Demog­ Hawley, Amos. 1971. Urban Society. New York: raphy 5:732-744. Ronald Press. Davis, K. 1962. Urbanization in India: Past and Hirschman, C. 1975. Net External Migration from Future. Pp. 3-26 in Roy Turner (ed.), India's Peninsular Malaysia, 1957-1970. Malayan Eco­ Urban Future. Berkeley: University of California nomic Review 20 (forthcoming). Press. Hoselitz, B. F. 1957. Urbanization and Economic --. 1965. The Urbanization of the Human Pop­ Growth in Asia. Economic Development and ulation. Scientific American 213:40-53. Cultural Change 6:42-54. --. 1969. World Urbanization, 1950-1970. Vol. --. 1962. The Role of Urbanization in Eco­ I. Population Monograph Series NO.4. Berkeley: nomic Development: Some International Com­ University of California Press. parisons. Pp. 157-181 in Roy Turner (ed.), India's --. 1972.World Urbanization, 1950-1970. Vol. Urban Future. Berkeley: University of California [I. Population Monograph Series No.9. Berkeley: Press. University of California Press. Jacobson. 1.., and V. Prakash. 1971. Urbanization --. 1975. Asia's Cities: Problems and Prospects. and Urban Development: Proposals for an In­ Population and Development Review 1:71-86. tegrated Policy Base. Pp. 15-38 in Leo Jacobson Department of Statistics, Federation of Malaya. and V. Prakash (eds.), Urbanization and National 1959. 1957 Population Census of the Federation Development. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Recent Urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia 461 Jones, G. 1975. Implications of Prospective Urbani­ ---. 1974. Spatial Analysis of Internal Migra­ zation for Development Planning in Southeast tion. Townsville, Australia: James Cook Univer­ Asia. In John Kantner and L. McCaffrey (eds.), sity. Population and Development in Southeast Asia. Sandhu, K. S. 1964. Emergency Resettlement in Ma­ Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company. laya. Journal ofTropical Geography 18:157-183. Larnpard, E. 1955.The History of Cities in the Eco­ Saw See Hock. 1972. Patterns of Urbanization in nomically Advanced Areas. Economic Develop­ West Malaysia, 1911-1970. Malayan Economic ment and Cultural Change 3:81-136. Review 17:114-120. Lim, David. 1973. Economic Growth and Develop­ Schnore, Leo. 1965. The Urban Scene. New York: ment in West Malaysia: 1947-1970. Kuala Lum­ The Free Press. pur: Oxford University Press. Smith, Thomas E. 1952. Population Growth in Ma­ Malaya. 1949. A Report on the 1947 Census of laya. London: Royal Institute of International Af­ Population, by M. V. Del T~fo. London: Crown fairs. Agents for the Colonies. Malaysia. 1971. Second Malaysia Plan, 1971-1975. Sovani, N. V. 1964. The Analysis of "Over-Urbani­ Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. zation." Economic Development and Cultural McGee, Terence G. 1967. The Southeast Asia City. Change 12:113-122. London: G. Bell and Sons. The Treasury, Malaysia. 1974. Economic Report, --. 1971. The Urbanization Process in the 1974-75. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. Third World. London: G. Bell and Sons. Wellisz, S. 1971. Economic Development and Ooi Jin Bee. 1975. Urbanization and the Urban Urbanization. Pp. 39-56 in Leo Jacobson and V. Population in Peninsular Malaysia, 1970. The Prakash (eds.), Urbanization and National Devel­ Journal of Tropical Geography 40:40-47. opment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Palmore, J. A., and Ariffin bin Marzuki. 1969. Mar­ Whitney, V. H., and G. Jones. 1973. Population riage Patterns and Cumulative Fertility in West Change and Development in Southern Asia: An Malaysia, 1966-67. Demography 6:383-401. Overview. In W. Howard Wriggins and J. F. Pryor, R. J. 1973. The Changing Settlement Systems Guyot (eds.), Population, Politics, and the Future of West Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Geography of Southern Asia. New York: Columbia Uni­ 37:53-67. versity Press.

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/13/4/445/906628/445hirschman.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021