发展中国家的城市化外文翻译资料

 2023-01-06 11:35:45

发展中国家的城市化

处于快速城市化的许多发展中国家，在过去的半个世纪里，似乎一些疑问伴随着过高的水平城市人口超大城市集中。城市集中的某些程度可期望最初以减少互相区域间的基础设施的支出。但在城市的成熟系统中，经济活动更分散。标准化的生产制作往往在服务，研究和开发，以及非标准化生产的大都市圈重点领域被分散成更小和中型城市地区而生产。该费用过度集中（交通事故，暴露于高浓度空气和水污染的健康成本和时间失去了长途通勤）从特大城市和不发达机构和人力资源的城市规划的大尺寸和减轻管理过高城市集中需要在区域间跨港口投资和电信，以促进行业的分散化。它还要求财政分散化，使内陆城市可以提高财政资源，并提供灵长类城市的产业和人口的竞争需要的服务

大都市圈的总浓度的份额高度城市人口，刻画了快速的城市化在许多今天的发展中国家。该浓度还体现在全国城镇人口最大市城市首位，所占的份额。它涉及无与伦比的大小大城市，呈现健康和生活质量，国际工业竞争力，管理和制度建设，社会凝聚力和稳定性.什么主要问题助长了这种高度的城市集中在发展中国家，一个模式在许多发达地区没见过？已成为集中客服，中心定位？如果是这样，什么是关键的体制和政策问题减轻了集中，促进更加有序的发展和城市化进程？今天就发展中国家面临比面临更大的发达国家城市化的挑战。发达国家在城市化比较悠闲。美国是40％，城市化在1990年，70％的1960年，和75 每分1990年这种渐进的步伐是与鲜明的对比在许多发达国家。举例来说，韩国是40％的城市化在1970年和78％的城市化1990年拿了什么，美国90年代完成了，韩国20年，巴西30年。

这逐步的步伐，并结合相对较高的国内生产总值（GDP）和教育人均，在本世纪初，让时间发展，包换的政治和经济制度和市场手段的城市化必不可少的福伦有效形式和合理的质量城市生活。这些包括机制的城市，政府间安排，监管和金融工具的城际通信和传输网络，一个公务员，在城市和区域规划和服务提供技术专长，并为当地国家和土地市场有效运作的机构内部治理和融资。对于快速城市化的发展中国家，需要社会学习适应农村机构和治理城市的人成了一速成班，很少及时实验和调整.这是本文着眼于形式的城市化需要，浓度内典型的体制和政策环境程度比在城市化进程本身，在居住在城市地区的国家人口份额。它首先在基本理论概念和经验管理模式成熟的城市化经济。哪些城市的系统看起来像一个中等或高收入的国家，良好的开发德班机构治理和运作良好的土地市场和资本市场？这提供了一个基准。在寻找在发展中国家城市化进程，本文则探讨为什么城市集中，有时强劲增长在发展中国家。当是浓度过高的，什么是过度集中的费用？什么是间和国家内部的数据说明了什么？该最后一节着眼于政策和制度，帮助城镇化造型，在特别是经济自由化，财政分散化，城际基础设施投资，全球化和城市机构。什么是实现的原因，干练高效的城市化有利于全国人口的大多数部门的关键要素？

在一个成熟的城市系统的城市

城市化是发展的一个自然组成部分。节省劳力的技术在农业和班次国家产出的构成从农业发布劳动力工业化。不成比例的发生机会利用当地的集聚规模经济城市由于地区产业化。在城市化的越野变化大概70％由变化人均GDP解释。图1示出了1990年的对数线性关系。

它有助于有一个框架来审视城市化和发展之间的联系，以及处理与城市分配在一个国家的基础。帧-工作可以帮助结构思考的生产力城市，是天大的好？并了解，如产品周期和新的信息技术的现象。

Figure 1. Urbanization and Income

它可以帮助为什么城市形成答题，什么决定或限制在不同的点他们的大小的时候，为什么他们的成长，他们是如何专注于不同的类型生产，是什么因素决定城市在一个国家的大小分布。这个讨论设置阶段为研究机构和在法衣在城市发展基础设施的作用，并分析经济自由主义，全球化和城市化的政治分权的影响。

政府结构和机构的作用

政府结构和机构可以在确定城市活性在分散化中发挥关键作用。许多经济学家认为，分散的政府和机构带来更大的分散化。亨德森的证据（1999）提出的分散化显著但令人惊讶的影响较小，随着各国转向分散的政府结构。然而，历史机构跨截面的证据强。恒基兆业（1988）发现，其他事情是相等，即政府的联邦制度，40％以上的降低城市集中的共同赫希曼 - 赫芬达尔指数。阿德斯和格莱泽（1995）发现了类似的减少对于在政府体制类似的开关首位度（也见Petrakos和Brado1989）。

在浓度回归发现这一事实的首都是国家资本超过25％增加它的大小，说明该资源集中不无关联电源的座位。中央政府在政府总消费措施的比重，对浓度很强大积极的影响，超出了国家的资本粗效果.对比高度城市集中和高政府权力下放孟加拉国，印度尼西亚或泰国，例如，与低城市浓度和低的政府集中在中国和印度

经济学家看向蒂布特（1956年）的模型来解释城市集中和政府集权之间的关系。这种模式要求地方财政自治提供服务，这是地区性的。关键成功地方政府过程是在政治进程当地参与（当地的民主外界投票中央政府和合理约束由国家级党政官员的影响），当地决定地方税收和收入的保证金，和当地的决心支出水平

地方财政自主性被认为是有效的两个相互关联的原因。首先，每个地方的工业需求和服务的口味不同，有不对称，形成-国家政府将不知道当地的具体需求和口味，可以通过当地的政治进程得到更好的确定。如果当地公共服务，至少在边缘时，就会使支出根据决定上（真）的边际成本，所以分配可能更有效。其次，统一政府可能有利于国家的首都，创造公共服务，基础设施投资，以及资本和进口出口市场分配灵长类城市偏见。这种偏袒吸入移民。一种分散化的情况造成并授权腹地城市和地方政府自由工业和居民与民族资本竞争，通过基础设施和公共服务提供量身定制的投资。这需要复杂的资本市场监管的地方政府信用，良好的沟通和信息收集，以及生态济发展可能是一个适当的水平

在快速城市化在许多发展中国家，在过去的半个世纪似乎一直伴随着非常大的城市过高的水平城市居民的浓度。这种模式被认为是最突出的亚洲大城市的近期发展。

城市集中的某些程度可期望最初以减少互与区域内基础设施的支出。但在城市的成熟的系统，标准化的制造业生产趋于分散成更小的和中型城市地区，而生产大都市地区重点在线服务，研发和非标准化生产。在今天的发展中国家的问题是，似乎有很强的偏见走向过度集中浓度.这样反映几股势力。拥堵和污染的外部性相对低估的相对较小的城市，大城市的鼓励人口过剩的大城市。寻租和城市偏向中央政府官员导致集权，往往在省会城市，资本市场和许可出口，进口，工厂生产和物料的分配，迫使生产集中位置。最后，基础设施投资和公共服务提供主要城市和地区间的联系之外似乎保持太低水平太久。

过度集中的从城市规划和管理的大尺寸大城市和欠发达机构和人力资源的成本。这些费用包括交通意外，医疗费用由接触高水平的空气和水的污染，时间失去了过长的通勤。

缓解过高的城市集中在需要跨区域运输投资和电信，以方便行业.这样的分散化也需要财政分散化，使内陆城市可以提高财政重新来源和提供灵长类城市的人口工业和竞争所需的服务.

外文文献出处：World Bank Res Obs (2002) 17(1): 89-112.doi: 10.1093/wbro/17.1.89

Urbanization in Developing Countries

Vernon Henderson

The rapid urbanization in many developing countries over the past half century seems to havebeen accompanied by excessively high levels of concentration of the urban population in verylarge cities. Some degree of urban concentration may be desirable initially to reduce inter- andintraregional infrastructure expenditures. But in a mature system of cities, economic activityis more spread out. Standardized manufacturing production tends to be deconcentrated intosmaller and medium-size metropolitan areas, whereas production in large metropolitan areasfocuses on services, research and development, and nonstandardized manufacturing. The costsof excessive concentration (traffic accidents, health costs from exposure to high levels of airand water pollution, and time lost to long commutes) stem from the large size of megacitiesand underdeveloped institutions and human resources for urban planning and management.Alleviating excessively high urban concentration requires investments in interregional trans-port and telecommunications to facilitate deconcentration of industry. It also requires fiscaldeconcentration, so that interior cities can raise the fiscal resources and provide the servicesneeded to compete with primate cities for industry and population

A high degree of concentration—the share of large metropolitan areas in total urbanpopulation—characterizes the rapid urbanization in many developing countriestoday. That concentration is also reflected in urban primacy—the share of the larg-est city in national urban population. And it involves megacities of unparalleled size,presenting major problems in health and quality of life, international industrial com-petitiveness, management and institution building, social cohesion, and stability.What has fostered such high degrees of urban concentration in developing countries,a pattern not seen in many developed areas? Has concentration become overcon-centration? If so, what are the key institutional and policy issues for alleviatingoverconcentration and promoting more orderly development and urbanization?Developing countries today face greater urbanization challenges than developedcountries faced. Developed countries urbanized at a comparatively leisurely pace. TheUnited States was 40 percent urbanized in 1990, 70 percent in 1960, and 75 per-cent in 1990. This gradual pace is in marked contrast with that in many developingcountries. For example, the Republic of Korea was 40 percent urbanized in 1970 and78 percent urbanized by 1990. What took the United States 90 years to accomplishtook Korea 20 years and Brazil 30 years.

That gradual pace, combined with relatively high gross domestic product (gdp) andeducation per capita at the beginning of

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Urbanization in Developing Countries

Vernon Henderson

The rapid urbanization in many developing countries over the past half century seems to havebeen accompanied by excessively high levels of concentration of the urban population in verylarge cities. Some degree of urban concentration may be desirable initially to reduce inter- andintraregional infrastructure expenditures. But in a mature system of cities, economic activityis more spread out. Standardized manufacturing production tends to be deconcentrated intosmaller and medium-size metropolitan areas, whereas production in large metropolitan areasfocuses on services, research and development, and nonstandardized manufacturing. The costsof excessive concentration (traffic accidents, health costs from exposure to high levels of airand water pollution, and time lost to long commutes) stem from the large size of megacitiesand underdeveloped institutions and human resources for urban planning and management.Alleviating excessively high urban concentration requires investments in interregional trans-port and telecommunications to facilitate deconcentration of industry. It also requires fiscaldeconcentration, so that interior cities can raise the fiscal resources and provide the servicesneeded to compete with primate cities for industry and population

A high degree of concentration—the share of large metropolitan areas in total urbanpopulation—characterizes the rapid urbanization in many developing countriestoday. That concentration is also reflected in urban primacy—the share of the larg-est city in national urban population. And it involves megacities of unparalleled size,presenting major problems in health and quality of life, international industrial com-petitiveness, management and institution building, social cohesion, and stability.What has fostered such high degrees of urban concentration in developing countries,a pattern not seen in many developed areas? Has concentration become overcon-centration? If so, what are the key institutional and policy issues for alleviatingoverconcentration and promoting more orderly development and urbanization?Developing countries today face greater urbanization challenges than developedcountries faced. Developed countries urbanized at a comparatively leisurely pace. TheUnited States was 40 percent urbanized in 1990, 70 percent in 1960, and 75 per-cent in 1990. This gradual pace is in marked contrast with that in many developingcountries. For example, the Republic of Korea was 40 percent urbanized in 1970 and78 percent urbanized by 1990. What took the United States 90 years to accomplishtook Korea 20 years and Brazil 30 years.

That gradual pace, combined with relatively high gross domestic product (gdp) andeducation per capita at the beginning of the century, allowed time for the develop-ment of the political and economic institutions and market instruments essential foran efficient form of urbanization and a reasonable quality of urban life. These includedmechanisms for the internal governance and financing of cities, intergovernmentalarrangements, regulatory and financial instruments for intercity communicationsand transport networks, a civil service with technical expertise in urban and regionalplanning and service provision, and institutions for efficient functioning of nationaland local land markets. For rapidly urbanizing developing countries, the societallearning required to adapt rural institutions and governance to urban ones becamea crash course, leaving little room for timely experimentation and adjustment.This article looks at the form urbanization takes—the degree of concentration withina typical institutional and policy context—rather than at urbanization itself—the shareof the national population residing in urban areas. It looks first at the basic theoreticalconcepts and empirical patterns governing a mature urbanized economy. What doesa system of cities look like in a medium- or high-income country with well-developedurban institutions and governance and well-functioning land and capital markets?That provides a benchmark. In looking at the urbanization process in developingcountries, the article then explores why urban concentration sometimes increasesstrongly in developing countries. When is concentration excessive, and what are thecosts of excessive concentration? What do inter- and intracountry data show? The finalsection looks at the policies and institutions that help shape urbanization, in particulareconomic liberalization, fiscal deconcentration, intercity infrastructure investments,globalization, and urban institutions. What are the key elements for achieving reason-ably efficient urbanization that benefits most segments of the national population?

Cities in a Mature Urban System

Urbanization is a natural part of development. Labor-saving technologies in agricul-ture and shifts in the composition of national output away from agriculture releaselabor for industrialization. Industrialization occurs disproportionately in urban areasbecause of opportunities to exploit scale economies of local agglomeration. About70 percent of the cross-country variation in urbanization is explained by variationsin gdp per capita. Figure 1 illustrates the log-linear relationship for 1990.

Figure 1. Urbanization and Income

It can help answer questions about why cities form, what determines or limits theirsize at various points in time, why they grow, how they specialize in different typesof production, and what determines the size distribution of cities in a country. Thisdiscussion sets the stage for examining the role of institutions and infrastructure in-vestments in urban development and for analyzing the effects of economic liberal-izations, globalization, and political decentralization on urbanization.

Role of Government Structure and Institutions

Government structure and institutions may play a key role in determining thedec

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[287613]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word

原文和译文剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 30元 才能查看原文和译文全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章