CONCLUSION

1. Urbanization generally contributes to the lowering of population

fertility rates and average family sizes. This is largely a result of
the behavioural and lifestyle changes which characterize
urbanization, including better education, higher age at first
marriage, increased female employment and higher rates of
contraceptive use. In addition, the cost of caring for the diverse
needs of children, combined with the desire for improved living
conditions and higher quality of life, tends to discourage urban
residents from having large families. This conclusion is supported
by evidence from both developed and developing countries.

2. Evidence on mortality suggests that in developed countries,

urbanization initially led to higher mortality rates in urban than in
rural areas, largely due to severe overcrowding, combined with
very bad sanitation conditions. At present, there is hardly any
difference between urban and rural mortality rates in developed
countries. However, recent evidence from developing countries
suggests that urban areas have lower mortality rates than rural
areas. This is largely a result of the greater concentration of
medical facilities within urban areas.

3. With regard to general socio-economic development, it is very

clear from historical evidence that cities and towns are both the
loci and agents of innovation, innovation diffusion and socio-
economic transformation. The history of scientific and
technological innovation, and that of civilization in general, is
inseparable from that of towns and cities. Among the significant
manifestations of most of the ancient civilizations were their towns
and cities.
4. Worldwide empirical evidence demonstrates clearly that there
is a positive correlation between GNP per capita and level of
urbanization (measured as the percentage of the total national
population resident within urban areas). It is generally recognized
that towns and cities are the engines of national economic growth,
largely as a result of the agglomeration economies which
characterize them.

5. At the household level, the net effect of urbanization is an

increase in average real income. For individuals and their
households, urban areas offer better opportunities of income
generation, whether through formal employment or through
informal sector activities. It is also clear that expectation of higher
incomes is the main factor underlying rural-to-urban migration in
developing countries.

6. Finally, evidence from developing countries suggests that

urban centres have many positive impacts on their rural
hinterlands through a variety of urban-rural linkages. These
linkages include: remittances of money by urban residents to their
rural kin; transfer of knowledge and skills through migrants
returning from urban to rural areas; and the provision of retail,
transport, social and administrative services to rural hinterland
populations.

Historical experience suggests that urbanization is an inevitable

process. In light of this observation, combined with the positive
impacts or urbanization outlined above, it is clear that the main
challenge at present is not that of slowing-down urbanization, but
of learning how to cope with rapid urban growth. In recognition of
the role of cities as engines of economic development, there has
recently been a resurgence of interest in urban management as
the main tool for coping with rapid urban growth and maximising
the positive demographic and socio-economic impacts of
urbanization
Although there is quite a sizeable literature pertaining to urban policies,
urbanization, and urban planning in Malaysia, most of it deals with the
local, regional, or national perspective, and the international dimensions
pertinent to the evolution of the national urban system have been largely
ignored.

Over the past three decades (1960-1990), Malaysia has seen a

tremendous social and economic transformation. In the 1960s, the initial
efforts at import substitution in industrial policy had begun to provoke
the movement of people from rural areas to urban centres. In the 1970s,
especially with the change in strategy to export-oriented industries, the
country enjoyed a comparatively high rate of economic growth even
though it was a time when primary commodities were subject to extra-
national shocks. The nature of the country's economy had also begun to
adjust to a realignment with international dealings as transnational flows
of goods, services, capital, labour, and technology expanded quickly.
Although the 1980s are often described as a "lost decade" for the
developing countries (Karaosmanoglu, 1991), Malaysia had a rapidly
industrializing economy. In other words, the many policy adjustments
introduced in the 1980s in response to the changing world economy have
been successful. However, policy adjustments such as enhancing the role
of the private sector in generating economic growth; the privatization of
government agencies and selected services; greater emphasis on the
development of export-oriented industries and urban growth centres; and
the people-prosperity strategy have led to greater urbanization in a few
selected nodes, in particular the Kuala Lumpur Core Urban Region
(KLCUR) - the main urban settlements in and around the Klang Valley,
including its immediate "umbra!" hinterland. The unprecedented growth
of KLCUR has important ramifications for other urban areas, the rural
areas, as well as the lagging areas, all of which need to be studied in the
light of the continued globalization of the Malaysian economy.

It is the intention of this chapter to examine the process of urbanization

in Malaysia and analyse how the patterns of internationalization of the
economy have led to the further accentuation of existing primal and
macrocephalic tendencies in the urban system. Focusing on KLCUR,
this chapter highlights the locational predilection of selected global
economic activities, their spatial implications, and eventual effect on
urban services and infrastructure. The irony of this is that what initially
attracted and accelerated the globalization process may eventually erode
the competitiveness of these very services and goods, which may then
lead to a reduction in labour absorption and unemployment.

The nature and trends of the national urban system

Definition of urban population

The population censuses in Malaysia define "urban" as "gazetted areas"

with a minimum population of 10,000. The term "gazetted area" refers to
a local administrative unit with clearly defined boundaries (Malaysia,
1983). The 1970 and 1980 censuses also classified urban areas into three
categories: "metropolitan," with a population in excess of 75,000; "large
town," with a population size of 10,000 and over; and "small town," with
a population size of 1,000 to 9,999 persons. "Small towns," however, are
excluded from the consideration of urbanization levels. Based on this
definition, there are 14 metropolitan areas, and 53 towns with a
population of 10,000 to 75,000 (fig. 10.1)

Undoubtedly, there are problems associated with such a methodology

and these difficulties have been discussed by Lee (1977) and Aziz
Othman (1988). A good example is the reclassification of the local
authority areas conducted in 1976. Before 1976, local authority areas
were classified into five categories: municipality, town council, town
board, local council, and new village. From 1976 onwards, they were
reclassified into two categories: municipal council and district council.
This regrouping has led to some 12 urban centres with their boundaries
extended to incorporate neighbouring local authority areas. For example,
in 1972 Kuala Lumpur annexed Jinjang, which had a population of more
than 27,000.