In the last century, countries around the world have become more urbanized, and this trend will continue in years to come. With industrialization and modernization, people rely more on the multidimensional opportunities within cities, as opposed to rural areas; people of all socioeconomic backgrounds seek a wider range of economic opportunities in cities. Urbanization, increasing segregation, and rising income inequality have resulted a concentration of poverty and affluence throughout the world, and these trends have redefined the geographic nature of society. In other words, people are moving to cities and causing sharp contrasts between wealthy and poor neighborhoods. Given this geographic realignment, there is little opportunity for social mobility within the economic system. In short, the elite maintain control of vital resources and infrastructure, as the poor remain stuck in their economically inferior positions.
How can we relate some of these population trends to poverty, in particular? First, poverty has always existed within all cultures and civilizations (i.e. even going back to ancient hunter-gatherer societies in Africa). Recently, urbanization has resulted in spatial concentrations of poverty and affluence, and consequently class differences are more clear and extreme. It is interesting to follow the trends in poverty, as workers have gravitated from rural structures to urbanized settings. In developing countries, city populations are increasing extremely rapidly, and there are far too few resources available for the migrants. Furthermore, while these countries are able to produce a significant amount of material goods, there is an uneven distribution of such resources. According to Piel, “by 2015, of the twenty-seven mega-cities—with a population of 10 million or more—twenty three be in developing countries” (Piel, pp. 59-60). Of course, cities in developing countries are not prepared to support such a large amount of migrants.
Statistics on poverty are often limited (do not go back more than a few years), and these figures are especially difficult to acquire in developing countries. However, there are decent statistics on poverty in Latin America, dating back to the 1970s. In 1970 nearly two-thirds of the poor population in Latin America resided in the countryside; they lived in small rural hamlets, small agrarian villages and isolated farming communities (Massey, p. 396). In the ensuing decades poor people began to settle in urban areas, and by 1990 about 60% of the impoverished citizens lived in larger cities (Massey, p. 396). It is important to note that in developed countries (i.e. U.S.), the concentration of poverty has a much longer history.
Given the steady flow of people into these underdeveloped cities, there are many problems associated with the provision of essential resources (i.e. water) and the maintenance of good health among the inhabitants. As seen in many villages throughout history, the supply of water in these developing cities is unsanitary and inconsistent. According to the World Bank (1985), the provision of water and sanitation in developing countries for 2000 would require a $1 trillion investment; countries have not even come close to matching these requirements (Piel, p. 60). Another problem with urbanization is the lack of land available for housing; the newcomers have to settle for unsafe, unsanitary housing options. They find their building materials in dumps, and their structures are unfit for habitation.
There are other problems associated with these highly concentrated poor areas. Mainly, “as poverty grows more geographically concentrated over time, its harmful by-products also will be become more highly concentrated, intensifying social problems that the affluent will naturally seek to escape” (Massey, p. 399). And as poor people migrate from their rural communities into urban areas, they are likely to experience similar underprivileged conditions; for example, Massey suggests that Mexican migrants moving to L.A. will remain stuck in poverty.
Most of the research regarding poverty targets only impoverished people, as researchers do not place much emphasis on affluent citizens. Just as with poverty, there are high concentrations of wealthy people, as well. Rather than living in central urban areas, the affluent have moved out to suburbs, where they can segregate themselves from the impoverished inner-city regions. Massey argues that “advances in transportation, communication, and construction led to an increase in density at the urban core, a separation of work from residence, and new possibilities for physical separation between the classes” (Massey, p. 397). By residing in separate towns and severing ties with impoverished citizens, the wealthy are able to maintain control of power and resources.
According to Massey, the concentrations of poverty and affluence are only going to get worse in the future. There are three general factors that perpetuate the poverty problem: the computerization of production, the globalization of capital and labor markets, and the fragmentation of consumer markets” (Massey, p. 402). These recent trends are changing social and economic structures in countries around the world. Computerization has triggered the elimination of many jobs, as new programs have replaced many white-collar workers with more efficient measures. Closely related to computerization is the globalization of factor markets; unskilled labor is transferable, and companies can cross international borders and to find the cheaper, more efficient labor. This competition has accounted for many layoffs in the United States, considering the lower cost of labor in less developed countries, such as Mexico. In the face of these changes, there are stronger disparities between the wealthy and the poor; segregation is continuous and unavoidable. Essentially, the poor are suffering from “economic changes that have reshaped our economy and diminished the prospects of the underclass, the working poor, displaced factory workers, and the while-collar managers” (Danziger, p. 415).
Considering the amount of urbanization, class segregation and income inequality existing in cities across the world, the concentrations of poverty and affluence are not surprising. But in America there is another extremely important factor of inequality: a resurgence of ethnic and racial segregation. The contrasts between rich and poor “neighborhoods” become even sharper when groups are segregated on the basis of race, or ethnicity. According to John Kasarda, 41% of impoverished blacks in American cities resided in poor neighborhoods, whereas 42% lived in very poor neighborhoods (Massey, p. 404); comparable figures for whites were much lower. Despite strong efforts to eliminate racism and segregation (really beginning in the 1960s), there still exists a strong black/white division in many regions across America. According to Massey, “were black-white discrimination to be eliminated, a principal force behind the spatial concentration of poverty in the United States would disappear” (Massey, p. 404).
There are some side effects that spatial poverty has within such communities: density of joblessness, crime, family dissolution, drug abuse, alcoholism, disease, and violence (Massey, p. 407). While the concentration of poverty increases in urban areas, these problems become more intense and common. One of the disheartening implications of these social and economic problems is associated with children growing up in these rough environments. According Danziger, “growing up in a poor neighborhood has negative effects on children’s development and on their subsequent outcomes as young adults” (Danziger, p. 413). As violence becomes more frequent in impoverished regions, the younger generations are using violence (at least the threat thereof) in order to protect themselves. In other words, what happens today in areas of concentrated poverty directly affects how adults in such regions will interact with each other in years to come.
Clearly, considering the detrimental effects of urbanization, governments must take action to eliminate some of the inherent problems associated with concentrated poverty and affluence. In the future, the poor will continue to suffer in their underdeveloped neighborhoods, while the rich will enjoy much more comfortable conditions. Furthermore, the extent to which segregation occurs will increase as these class-related, racial and economic barriers continue to develop in cities. The future geopolitical structures will need to be “capable of compounding the benefits and liabilities of class by superimposing administrative segmentation on economic segregation” (Massey, p. 405).
One of the most effective ways of improving poor peoples’ opportunities for good jobs is better education; college degrees are becoming more important, as an increasing number of jobs require technical proficiencies of some sort. In poor urban areas, the public schools are not up to par with educational standards necessary for many industries. Conversely, affluent areas enjoy much better organized, funded and maintained schools and facilities. Children born into poor urban areas do not even get a chance to compete with their suburban counterparts, who are groomed for college and other higher forms of education. Of course, funding new schools and better teaching is easier said than done; Heckman et al. estimate that “if government investments in education and training yielded a 10% annual return via participants’ increased earnings, human capital investments of about $1.7 trillion would be needed to reduce inequalities enough to restore the wage distribution of 1979” (Danziger, p. 415).
In recent decades, international leaders have taken strides to fight poverty (especially in developing countries), improve health conditions and insure relative equality among citizens in various countries across the world. Various developed countries have generated plans to assist impoverished, developing countries; these more affluent countries plan to help facilitate economic growth and urban development within the poorer regions. However, these promises in most cases have not materialized as of yet. UN conferences “on development and population, development and child health, development and the status of women, and development and the environment has educated a minority of the population of the industrialized world but has yet to stir its conscience” (Piel, p. 66).
Not all economists have such a cynical view of poverty, and the future of urban areas. First, Massay’s analysis does not include one of the most important social, economic trends of the last half-century: women in universities and in the workforce. As women have become much more influential in the workforce, they have contributed significantly to family welfare. They have helped to increase the earning potential for families throughout the United States. Also, while economic inequality and segregation do exist and indeed are problems associated with urbanization and modernization, currently there are “programs assisting those adversely affected by economic trends” (Farley, p. 419). In the United States, these programs include government spending on health and education, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs all are designed to assist lower-income citizens. While they do not eliminate the poverty problems in cities, they do provide hope for those struggling to support themselves and or their families. In short, “these programs have minimized but certainly have not reversed the trend toward greater inequality” (Farley).
In conclusion, it is clear that that urbanization has contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and resources among citizens; and this trend applies to developed countries, and even more so to developing countries. As people continue to migrate to cities in pursuit of economic success, there will be sharp contrasts between poor and affluent communities. Segregation and racism will continue to exist within these communities. Governments in developed and developing countries will need to implement programs designed to redistribute wealth, and to integrate poor people into the economic structures.
Douglas S. Massey, "The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and Poverty in the Twenty-First Century" in Demography, Volume 33, Number 4, November 1996, pp.. 395-412.
Sheldon Danziger, "Comment On 'The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and Poverty in the Twenty-First Century'" in Demography, Volume 33, Number 4, November 1996, pp.. 413-416.
Reynolds Farley, "The Age of Extremes: A Revisionist Perspective"in Demography, Volume 33, Number 4, November 1996, pp.. 417-420.
Gerald Piel, "The Urbanization of Poverty Worldwide", Challenge, January-February 1997. pp. 58-71.