As we all know that based on their experiences & perceptions of urbanization & trends, western theories contextualize generalization to the the third world cities. there are lot of ambiguity and confusion about it. One of the interesting discussions participated by Prof.Ananya Roy & Solomon Benjamin has illustrated the direct examples to disapprove to unify the global theory of sub-urbanisation.
Annaya Roy directly disfavored these arguments and suggested these generalization are not the universal ones as they can not spread beyond certain boundaries, hence they are not hegemonic theory. Similarly, Prof.Benjamin suggested that this big terminologies loose its significance to explain the realistic situation at micro level and that too from global south cities.He emphasized upon the ethnographic cases which could directly give the flavor of that case/ site.
Definitely, the formulation of theories should come from the empirical understand of the local cases, then it can be validated for similar context featuring homogeneous characteristics in terms of governance, economy and institutional aspects.
I think that we couldn't use more this pejorative terms created from eurocentric perspectives. Indeed, the term "third world" is completely out of fit for the actual context, normally used in a pejorative colonial context, created from euro-centralised visions and taken after by the cold-war context...we can´t expect much from these pejorative visions applied to theories for urban studies. Nowadays, in this post colonial context, europe need to make a mea-culpa and repay from different ways for all the stupid acts on the countries that they invaded and the cultures broken by this invasions need to arise again....difficult, but not impossible.
Suburbanization as a spatialization of phenomenon assumes: inclusion and exclusion; a core and periphery; poles and outer regions ( e.g. Francois Perroux's growth poles). The real issue is that of scaling.These ideas are hegemonic to the extent that they are generic.Hence as a matter of scalling one needs to determine the level of analysis:political economy (North, South), economic development (developed, developing), national development (urban,rural), city development (business district, inner city). These are very normative-laden terms but may manifest itself in the geographic realm as spatial differentials. Hence may fit into any "world" if we know what spatial signatures to measure and which explanatory model to link it to. Whether it be economics ( e.g. agglomeration economies), anthropology etc. Another way to think about it is the suboptimal and the optimal .Ideals have a purpose that goes beyond mere abstraction, without them it would be futile to undertake any form of assessment in the shifting sands of time and opinions. Even ill-fitting theories can provide cues as to points for improvements/deficiencies.
Dear Vishal Dubey,
I think it is still relevant for third countries. The global phenomenon of suburbanization require low-density settlement on the outskirts of urban areas, most of it is caused by urbanization, increase in transport, decentralization of work, public policy, and the general preference for living in the suburbs. I've conducted research related to housing policy as an instrument of population distribution. This is because most suburban developed by private agents guided by the local government. They plan various types of development: residential, industrial, mix-planned; spread-planned: the elite, the middle class, low income. They reflect the influence of suburbanism. Suburbanization required and can reduce the cost of housing, but require large public and private spending, reduce agricultural land, and disrupt the natural environment.
Best,
Pindo Tutuko
It is important to remember that "third world" was a term proposed by leaders of newly independent formerly colonized countries, at a 1946 conference in Bandung, Indonesia, to refer to a third way of development (neither Euro-capitalist nor Soviet-communist). It was not originally used by colonizers to mean third best--although it has come to mean that since.
You might like to take a look at a book I'm reading at the moment: 'Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe'. It is edited by Kiril Stanilov and Ludek Sykora (2014, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester) who have a broad and simple (but not simplistic) definition of the characteristics of suburbanization globally as well as regionally and contrast urbanisation and suburbanisation in socialist countries before the turn to capitalism. This might give you a new perspective on the breadth of literature in this field so, hopefully, you can align yourself with some whose approach you have sympathies with as well as making critiques.
I think that suburbanization is mostly US phenomenon. It also exists to less scale in European cities and to much less scale in the 3rd world cities. If one looks at urban economic theory (see, for example, M. Fujita), suburbanization refers to "low-density settlement on the outskirts of urban areas" (I cite Pindo Tutuko). Such settlers do not like congestion and have a possibility to buy big parcels of land where it is relatively cheap (comparing to city center), to construct a large house there and to afford commuting with city center ( it requires both money and time). Hence, they should be relatively rich. There is higher fraction of rich people in OECD countries comparing to the 3rd world.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India