D. Administrators' Perceptions of Growth

Another question asked administrators to state whether the movement of the population in the 1980s constituted a Great Inflow, a Small Inflow, Stagnation, a Small Outflow, or a Great Outflow. The same question was asked for the 1970s and the 1960s as well, and for Japan the question was also asked for the period 1989. Here we report only the estimate for the 1980s. Table 6 shows the distribution of the administrators on this measure, and Figure 1 provides a graphic display of the overall distribution. It is obvious that most of the administrators see a substantial flow of population into their cities. Almost half (40%) consider this a great inflow. There are only 19 cases where an outflow is perceived. As might be expected, because of its more advanced economic condition and higher level of urbanization, Japan shows the greatest amount of outflow, with 8 administrators reporting an outflow, and another five reporting stagnation.

The administrators were asked whether they considered the problem of population movement into or out of their cities to be an Important and Urgent Problem, only an Important Problem, or "Not an Important Problem". As Table 7 shows, 124 of the 128 respondents replied to this question. (See also Figure 2.) Of those, 44 (35%) thought this constituted an important and urgent problem. Another 59 (48%) thought the problem was an important one. In only 21 (18%) cities did the administrators see this movement to be no problem. The countries differed greatly, however, in the distribution of these perceptions. The problem is perceived as urgent by two thirds of the Indian and The Philippines administrators. Just under half of the administrators in Indonesia, Malaysia and Nepal, and only a quarter of the Japanese administrators see it as an urgent problem. On theother hand only a quarter or less in all countries see the movement as no problem.

Table 6.
Judgements of Population Movement
by 126 Asian Urban Administrators

As might be expected, there is a fairly close relationship between the perception of population movement and the perception of problems in that movement. It is not, however, a perfect relationship. Table 8 shows the relationship between the perception of movement the perception of a problem, and Figure 3 provides the graphic display. For those who see a Great In-migration in the 1980s, more than half (54%) perceive this to be an urgent problem, and less than 10 percent see it to be no problem. When there appears to be no movement, or stagnation, a third (36%) see the movement to be no problem. While there is a predicted overall relationship - i.e. more perception of a problem where the inflow is greater - whether this movement is a problem or not obviously depends on other conditions as well. Identifying what those other conditions are is a specific analytical problem that is addressed later.

Table 7.
Perceptions of A "Problem" in The City's Migration Flow

Finally, the administrators were asked if they had special projects to deal with the problem. One hundred and fifteen replied, of which 46 (40%) said they had NO projects to address the problem. Five (4%) said they had projects to reduce the inflow; Five (4%) had projects to promote an outflow; and 42 (37%) had projects to redirect the population to other places. The latter tend to be development programs in suburbs or in satellite towns. Japan is somewhat unique in this group of countries in that nine of its administrators reported programs to promote inflow, and one reported a program to limit the outflow. Thus overall the cities are not using direct methods to stem the flow of urbanization. This may reflect the recognition that attempting to move people out, or to stop the movement into the cities by direct action does not work. It requires far more force than most governments can mobilize to make such direct actions work, and when such attempts are made, the results are usually bad for both the government and the people.

Table.8.
Perceptions of Migration Problems by
Perceptions of the of the Migrant Flows in 1980s

Figures 1.-3.
Perceptions of Urban Migration Flows