INTRODUCTION. This is a report of the second bi-annual round of the Asian Urban Inquiry. It is designed to elicit views of Asian urban administrators on the problems they face and some of the ways they are addressing those problems. Questionnaires were sent to approximately 250 cities in ten countries. Replies were received from 133 cities in 10 countries. The distribution of cities by country is as follows:

Country	Cities		Country	Cities
1. China	14		5. Malaysia	9
2. India	8		7. Nepal	1
3. Indonesia	23		8. Pakistan	9
4. Japan	29		9. Philippines	9
5. S. Korea	18		10. Thailand	13
			TOTAL	133

1. NATIONAL CONTEXTS. The city responses are from countries that differ greatly in their national income and levels of social and economic development. These should be expected to affect the administrators' judgments of their urban problems. Japan is the wealthiest and has the high level of social indicators. Korea is next, showing a remarkable economic and social transition over the past 40 years. Southeast Asia is slightly ahead of South Asia in national income and levels of social indicators.

2. THE CITIES AND THE SURVEY. Most of the cities surveyed are what has come to be called medium-sized or second tier cities. Three quarters are less than a million in population. They are those that stand between the major megalopolises of the country and the small towns and villages that are growing in the rural countryside. All are part of the seemingly inexorable urbanization of Asia. All are growing at rates equal to or higher than the national population growth rates. Rates are highest in South and Southeast Asia, and lowest in Japan and Korea.

3. PERCEPTIONS OF CITY SIZE. Urban administrators differ in their views of the appropriateness of their city's size. Only a fifth find them too large or just large; a third find them of appropriate size; and 41 percent find their cities small or too small. Two-thirds, however, perceive that their city's administrative boundaries should be expanded. The major reasons are to facilitate more rational urban planning, and to increase the revenue base of the city.

4. URBAN MIGRATION. Administrators see their cities growing through both natural increase and in-migration. They recognize that data are lacking on immigration, but that it constitute a mixed blessing. The immigrants are usually young productive people seeking better opportunities, but they also strain the services and infrastructure of the city. Administrators recognize there is little to be done about urban migration; they have few projects to deal with the problem, and those projects they do have are not very effective. Asian urbanization appears both from the national aggregates and the perspective of the administrators an inexorable process.

5. FERTILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING. Asian urban administrators recognize that fertility limitation and family planning have been some of their most important successes. While perceptions vary in accuracy, there is a clear sense that the family planning programs have worked to reduce fertility, and where fertility is still high, family planning services represent a major urgent problem.

6. URBAN POLLUTION PROBLEMS. Air and water pollution are today the most important aspects of urban pollution. Air pollution for most countries comes primarily from auto exhaust and the increase of vehicles. Water pollution on the other hand comes from a strong combination of population growth and industrialization. For the poor countries and Korea, industrial development presents a serious source of pollution. Japan has the wealth to address the industrial pollution problems effectively, giving some promise for the poorer countries as they develop, but the increase in vehicle numbers remains an important source of urban pollution.

7. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. Traffic problems are some of the most serious problems all urban administrators face. They see the growth of the vehicle population clearly, and they also see this as the major cause of their traffic problems. The most common attempt to deal with traffic congestion, however, is through construction that attempts to move vehicles more effectively. Few urban administrators recognize that moving vehicles more effectively only supports the increase in vehicle populations. Alternatives, in mass transit systems that move people and goods more effectively are usually only a small element in the larger transportation strategy.

8. URBAN PROBLEMS. As in the previous survey, we gave administrators 38 urban problems, and asked them to classify each as (1) urgent major problem; (2) a serious problems; (3) a minor problem; (4) a satisfactory condition for their city; or (5) a major advantage for the city. This gave us a five point positive scale for 38 specific problem areas, which were in turn classified into 10 major problem areas.

As in the previous survey, issues in health and family planning and education presented the greatest advance and the least serious problems. At the other extreme, transportation, urban utilities and housing were the most serious problems. There were also some interesting differences among countries in the high and low scoring.

9. CONCLUSIONS. There are two general categories of conclusions. One concerns the perceptions of urban problems. Asian cities, apart from Japan, are beset with a series or problems that stem from population growth and urban inward migration. Their infrastructure and service capacities are being strained beyond the limits, thus leaving people living in exceptionally poor conditions, urban attempt to address these problems by seeking investment in basic urban infrastructure, fn areas of health, education, housing and jobs, this is a strategy that will clearly pay dividends. The more successful the administration, the greater will be the alleviation of urban problems. That conclusion is not so certain in the area of traffic volume, flow and congestion. It can be suggested that great attention to mass transit systems, which attempt to move people and goods, rather than vehicles, more effectively can make greater contributions to solving problems of urban traffic congestion.

There is an additional methodological problem presented by these surveys. To what extent do the 50 percent responses, and the even smaller proportions on some specific questions, truly represent the conditions and perceptions of Asian urban administrators? To what extent do they adequately represent the problems urban administrators face daily? Our only answer is that we cannot be sure. But the various cross tabulations testing the reliability of responses gives some credence to them. Moreover, even if we do not take these response literally, we believe we must take them seriously. They represent one attempt, however flawed, to give voice to the Asian urban administrators who stand at the front lines of modern urbanization and its problems. Their voices deserve to be heard, and to be taken seriously.