Urban Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pugh, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Studies, Vol. 33, No. 7, 1045-1060 (1996)
DOI: 10.1080/00420989650011492

'Urban Bias', the Political Economy of Development and Urban Policies for Developing Countries

Cedric Pugh

School of Urban and Regional Studies, Sheffield Hallam University, Pond Street, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK

Theories of urban overdevelopment and 'urban bias' have a long, but discontinuous history, dating from the 1920s when policy-makers in the former Soviet Union considered urban-rural sectoral balance in planned economic development. The idea of urban bias has had continuing relevance in macroeconomic and trade policies (especially in many developing countries) since the 1960s. Although theories of urban-rural economic balance and urban bias have fundamental significance for urban economic development, much of the relevance is either unacknowledged or misunderstood. However, it is appropriate to review the circumstances of the theory of urban bias from the perspective of the 1990s. The results of some modern research shed light on the outstanding issues from past controversies; in the context of developing countries, the World Bank and other leading policy-makers have been advocating a closer relationship between macroeconomic and urban policy development; and economic policies for structural adjustment have been indirectly removing some of the structures which supported the political economy of urban bias. Thus, even if urban bias and urban overdevelopment have some arcane elements in their history and their association with development economics, the subject has importance in post-1990 contexts. This article gives an exposition, an interpretation and a review of the relationships between urban bias, the political economy of development and urban processes and policies for developing countries.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Progress in Development StudiesHome page
B. Mbiba and M. Huchzermeyer
Contentious development: peri-urban studies in sub-Saharan Africa
Progress in Development Studies, April 1, 2002; 2(2): 113 - 131.
[Abstract] [PDF]