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.