The Asian Urban Information Center of Kobe (AUICK) conducted its second Asian Urban Inquiry in 1992-93. This is the third step in a planned series of studies of urban conditions in Asia. The original plan was to carry out a broad survey of various cities every other year. These surveys would ask urban administrators to identify some of their major problems, and to describe briefly some of the projects they were undertaking to address those problems. In alternate years, the Center planned to carry out more in-depth studies of a smaller number of cities to learn about urban problems and the way these are being addressed in a smaller number of cities.

The first survey was conducted in 1989-90, with a report published in January 1991. It established the basic form of questions, including descnptive materials on cities, and a series of items asking administrators to identify their major problems. That survey included responses from 128 cities in ll countries. It was followed by a series of comparative inÅ|depth studiesof two portcitiesin five countries: China, India, Indonesia, Korea and Japan. That study, Population Dynamics and Port City Development, Was published in 1992. The second Inquiry, for 1992-93, reported here, covers 133 citjes in lO countries: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic ofKorea, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, The Philipplnes, and Thailand. Appendix Table A shows the cities covered in each of the two surveys, together with their population and area

This report will be presented in eight substantive sections and a conclusion, as seen in the table Of contents. The firs provides information on the social and economic conditons of the countries in Which these cities are located. The tables in this section provide national aggregate data on conditions roughly parallel to those on which the individual city adminjstrators are asked to give judgments of their specific problems. Thus the school enrollment data and the total fertility and contraceptive prevalence data renect objective national conditions parallel to the conditions on which urban admimistrators are telling us how serious their problems are. This will help to put into proper perspective both the objecdve information and the subjective judgments orperceptionsofproblemsthatcomefiom adminlstrators'responses. Sections 2 through 8 are based on data from the 133 completed questionnaires received from the cities. Section 2 provides infbrmation on the number and size of cilies for each coulltry. Sections 3 through 7 are from special sections in the survey, asking about specific condilions. Section 8 reports on the administrators judgments of the seriousness of problems in different sectors, using the same five part scale and many of the same categories of problem areas that were used in the first Inqulry two years ago. Finally, the conclusions provides some general remarks on the substantive findings and on the survey strategy itself.

As before the instructions sent with the survey requested that it be completed by the chief elected or administrative office, the mayor or city administrator. Appendix B shows the respondent's position for each city, where it is known. To preserve the anonymity of the city and the respondent, we give information by the case number of the city. It is obvious that there is substantial variance in the respondents' positions. Moreover, we have only names of positions, and can not always be sure these represent the same type of organizational position with the same responsibilities and access to data in all cases. In any event, only 24, or 18 percent were actually completed by the chief elected or administrative officer. Fully half were completed by a high level planning officer. Almost a fifth, 23 or 18 percent, were completed by a statistical officer or city clerk. All of the questionnaires for China were completed by academics, usually in a university population research institute. The Chinese responses are thus the most different from the others. Here it is not administrators but academic social scientists who are providing the data and making the judgments.*1 We are not certain how to interpret this difference and the Chinese responses, but the reader will do well to keep them in mind when reading the report. In four cases the actual respondent was not identified. We have not yet found any systematic patterns of responses by respondent position, but we have admittedly not had time to examine this dimension of the survey very extensively.

All in all, as we say in the conclusion, we have a sample about which we know relatively little. Yet we feel it is important to take these responses seriously, if not literally, since they are the voices of urban administrators telling us about the problems they face.

*1. This condition is due to the special relationship a senior AUICK advisorl has with Chinese scholars, and the lack of easy access to administrators.