World Bank Reprint Series: Number 211 Gregory K. Ingram and Alan Carroll The Spatial Structure of Latin American Cities Reprinted with permission from Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 9, no. 2 (March 1981), pp. 257-73. Copyright by Academic Press. JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS 9, 257-273 (1981) SYMPOSIUM ON URBANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT The Spatial Structure of Latin American Cities GREGORY K. INGRAM AND ALAN CARROLL' The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 20433 Received August 25, 1979; revised December 31, 1979 Using published census data, metropolitan area population and employment statistics are constructed for several large Latin American cities in 1950, 1960, and 1970, and compared to similar statistics from selected North American cities. The Latin cities are experiencing decentralization of population and some decentraliza- tion of employment. Overall population density patterns of large Latin cities resemble those in older North American cities; newer North American cities have lower densities and are much more decentralized than Latin cities. High-status groups are somewhat concentrated in the central cities of Latin American metro- politan areas, but their concentrations there are declining. The twentieth century has witnessed a profound increase in the world's population and an equally remarkable increase in the proportion of the world's population living in urban areas. Much of the rapid urbanization has occurred in less developed countries where it has brought a host of problems as govemments have sought to provide urban infrastructure, control development, and redirect growth from larger to smaller settle- ments. Many urban analysts question the relevance that urban economic theory has for the analysis of the problems of cities in less developed countries because most empirical work underlying this theory employs data from developed countries. This paper investigates the generality of empirical results by analyzing the spatial structure of selected Latin American cities and comparing it with that of selected North American cities. URBANIZATION AND LARGE CITIES IN LATIN AMERICA Table 1 indicates that between 1920 and 1970, the total population of North America nearly doubled while its urbanized population increased 'Support for the work reported in this paper has been provided by the City Study research project (RPO 671-47) funded by the World Bank. The views and conclusions reported here are those of the authors and not of the World Bank or its affiliated organizations. The authors thank Richard Davis and Yoon Joo Lee for research assistance and members of the City Study research staff at the World Bank and at Corporacion Centro Regional de Poblacion in Bogota for comments on the work presented here, wlth particular appreciation to Rakesh Mohan and Jose Fernando Pineda. Ingram was principally responsible for the analysis and Carroll, for the data assembly. 257 0094-1 190/81/020257-17$02.00/0 Copyright ( 1981 by AcademiC Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 258 INGRAM AND CARROLL TABLE I Total and Urbanized Population in North and Latin America Year Region' 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980b Total population (Millions) Latin America 90 110 130 162 213 284 374 North America 115 135 145 166 199 226 249 Urban population (Millions) Latin America 20 30 40 67 105 161 237 North America 60 75 85 106 139 168 196 Urban population as percentage of total population Latin America 22 28 31 41 49 57 63 North America 52 56 59 64 70 74 79 Source. From [7]; urban population figures are defined by each country. aNorth Amnerica includes, the United States and Canada; Latin America includes all countries south of the United States. bU.N. projections. slightly less than three-fold. During the same period, however, the total population of Latin America more than tripled while its urbanized popula- tion grew eight times as large as its 1920 base. By 1980 Latin America will be as urbanized as North America was in 1950, and its urban population will be absolutely larger than North America's. However, Table 1 also suggests that the percent of Latin America's population living in the urban areas is now growing less rapidly than before, and that the rate of urbanization is beginning to slow. The study of urban spatial structure reported here focuses on large Latin American cities-those with 1970 metropolitan area populations over one million or with 1970 central city populations of 600,000 or more. The 24 cities that meet this criterion are listed in Table 2. For purposes of comparison, in 1970 North America had 36 metropolitan areas (34 in the United States and 2 in Canada) with a million or more inhabitants. Having defined the universe of cities that we hope to analyze, the next step is to obtain comparable data on the spatial distribution of population, employment, and other activities in (approximately) 1950, 1960, and 1970. Although several demographic censuses are available for virtually all Latin American countries, the availability of data at the metropolitan and sub-metropolitan area varies widely. We have been able to obtain data for a central core and peripheral ring for 11 of the 24 cities; only 8 of the cities provide data disaggregated at that level for two decades.2 Since tabulations 2See the Appendix for data sources used. LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 259 TABLE 2 Latin American Cities with Central City Populations over 600 Thousand in 1970 Country City Population date Population (000) City proper Metro area Argentina Buenos Aires 1970 2,972 8,189 Bolivia La paZa 1973 605 - Brazil Belo Horizonte 1970 1,235 1,606 Porto Alegrea 1970 870 - Recife 1970 1,061 1,793 Rio de Janeiro 1970 4,252 7,082 Salvadora 1970 998 - Sao Paulo 1970 5,979 8,195 Chile Santiago 1970 1,118 2,820 Colombia Barranquillaa 1972 682 694 Bogota 1973 2,855 - Cali 1973 898 - Medelina 1972 1,092 1,208 Cuba Havana b 1972 2,346 - Dominican Rep. Santo Domingoa 1970 671 - Ecuador Guayaquil' 1972 861 - Guatemala Guatemala Citya 1970 731 - Mexico Guadalajara 1970 1,199 1,455 Mexico City 1970 2,903 8,657 Monterrey 1970 858 1,213 Peru Lima 1972 1,448 3,302 Uruguay Montevideob 1963 1,159 - Venezuela Caracas 1970 1,035 2,199 Maracaibo' 1970 690 - 'From [6]. bFrom [10]. Note: Other figures are from country censuses; see the Appendix. for the economic censuses are typically disaggregated only to the state level, examining the intra-metropolitan distribution of employment is possible for even fewer cities. And in these few cases, moreover, it is likely that small enterprises are not well covered, so that economic census data may only reflect the experience of large establishments. Although problems of coverage and comparability are more serious than those encountered with the U.S. Census, Latin American census data are likely reliable enough to reflect broad trends of growth and change in metropolitan spatial structure. METROPOLITAN AND CITY POPULATION GROWTH Table 3 presents estimates of populations and annual average metro- politan population growth rates during the two most recent decades for 13 TABLE 3 Populations and Growth Rates-Selected Latin and North American Metropolitan Areas Latin American Population (000) Annual growth rate Population (000) Annual growth rate North American City 1950 1960 1970 50-60 60-70 1950 1960 1970 50-60 60-70 City MexicoCity 3180 5246 8657 5.1 51 9556 10695 11572 1.1 0.8 NewYork Z Sao Paulo 2708 4818 8195 5.9 5.5 4152 6039 7032 3.8 1.5 Los Angeles 0 Buenos Aires 4723 6739 8189 2.8 2.0 5178 6221 6979 1.9 1.2 Chicago Rio de Janeiroa 3298 5012 7082 4.3 3.5 3671 4343 4818 1.7 1.0 Philadelphia Limab - 1846 3302 - 5.4 1508 2077 2861 3.3 3.3 Washington, D.C. > Bogotac 715 1697 2855 6.9 5.9 2414 2595 2754 0.7 0.6 Boston tV Santiagod 1509 2170 2820 4.6 2.7 936 1418 1985 4.2 3.4 Houston Q Caracas' 724 1388 2199 6.1 4.7 557 1033 1358 6.4 2.8 San Diego Recife 819 1240 1793 4.2 3.8 495 935 1268 6.6 3.1 Miami 3 Belo Horizonte 475 888 1606 6.5 6.1 612 929 1228 4.3 2.8 Denver r Guadalajara 440 851 1455 6.8 5.5 291 642 1065 8.2 5.2 San Jose Monterrey 376 708 1213 6.5 5.5 332 664 968 7.2 3.8 Phoenix Calic 284 638 898 6.4 3.9 a1947,1960,1970. b1961,1972. C1951,1964,1973. dl952,1960,1970. '1950,1961,1971. Source: For Latin American cities, see the Appendix; data for North American cities are from [8, Table&32] based on 1970 SMSA definitions. LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 261 large Latin American cities with available data and for 12 large single- centered U.S. metropolitan areas selected for their range of location, size, and growth rates. Of the 13 Latin American cities, 11 had metropolitan areas defined in 1970. The data in Table 3 for these cities were obtained for 1950 and 1960 by aggregating populations in the central city and surrounding municipalities for those earlier years using the 1970 metro- politan area definitions.3 Data for Bogota and Cali, the two Latin Ameri- can cities lacking metropolitan area definitions, are for populations within the cities' urban perimeters. The average growth rates for the metropolitan areas in Table 3 exhibit several consistent patterns. First, the decennial average population growth rates in each metropolitan area declined from the fifties to the sixties except in Mexico City and Washington, D.C., where the growth rates were unchanged. For the 13 Latin American cities the average growth rate fell from 5.5% in the fifties to 4.6% in the sixties, a decline that was less marked than that of the 12 North American cities whose average growth rate fell from 4.1 to 2.5% in the same two periods. In both areas these declines reflect a reduction in birth rates and a decline in the overall rate of urbanization, although the average growth rates are still much higher in Latin America than in North America. Second, Table 3 suggests that small metropolitan areas tend to grow more rapidly than large metropolitan areas. For example, if large metropolitan areas are defined as those with 1970 populations over 2.5 million and small metropolitan areas as the rest, we find that average growth rates for large Latin American areas were 4.9% in the fifties and 4.3% in the sixties while average growth rates for small Latin American areas were 6.1% in the fifties and 4.9% in the sixties. For North American areas the respective average growth rates are 2.1% in the fifties and 1.4% in the sixties for large areas, and 6.2% in the fifties and 3.5% in the sixties for small areas. Although the Latin American average growth rates are generally higher than those in North America, the low growth rates of large North American metropolitan areas differentiate the North American pattern of urban growth most sharply from that found in Latin America. The high growth rates of large Latin metropolitan areas, typified by Mexico City and Sao Paulo, are of major concern to analysts of Latin American urban development. Another major difference between North American and Latin American urban growth is that urbanization in Latin America is occurring at much lower real income levels. Gross national product per capita in 1975 was $7100 (in current dollars) for North America and $1000 for Latin America [11]. Based on growth rates of per capita product reported by Kuznets,4 3The metropolitan areas are defined in the Appendix. 4Kuznets [3, p. 64], estimates that per capita product in the U.S. grew at 17.2 per decade from 1839 to 1960. 262 INGRAM AND CARROLL North America would have had a per capita GNP of $1000 (1975 dollars) roughly 120 years ago, or in the 1850's. Since no cities in North America then had populations over one million, it is obvious that per capita income and urbanization have no simple causal relationship over time. INTRAMETROPOLITAN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION The pattern of population growth and the distribution of population within cities is often used to characterize urban spatial structure. Table 4 presents sumnmary information over a 20-year period for the central and peripheral areas of the 10 Latin American cities with available data and the 12 North American cities from Table 3. It is striking that both the central and peripheral densities vary by an order of magnitude across the cities on both continents. Central densities are very high but are stabilizing in Mexico City and Buenos Aires; in the other 8 Latin American cities, central densities are increasing. For all 10 Latin American cities the peripheral densities are rising, and only in Belo Horizonte is the peripheral density rising less rapidly than the central density. For 9 of the 10 Latin cities, therefore, the periphery's population share is rising. Five of the North American cities have declining or stable central city densities. Although a declining central density is not strictly a concomitant of stagnation (Washington, D.C., for example, has a declining central density yet is one of the fast growing U.S. metropolitan areas), increased central densities seem always to be associated with high population growth. For all 12 North American cities peripheral densities are risirig; in all but the two smallest (San Jose and Phoenix), peripheral densities are consistently increasing faster than central city densities. In comparing the data for Latin and North American cities in Table 4, it is apparent that the central densities of cities in the two continents cover similar ranges. Most Latin American central cities (with the possible exception of Mexico City) do not appear to be significantly more dense than older central cities in the U.S. The peripheral densities of Latin American cities are similar to those found in North American cities. The newer, rapidly growing cities in the southwest of the United States have central densities that are lower than those of older U.S. cities and lower than those of most Latin American cities. Only Monterrey has a central density as low as that found in the rapidly growing south-western U.S. cities. DENSITY FUNsTCTION COMPARISONS Observations based on the data in Table 4 must be made carefully because they are based upon comparisons of arbitrarily specified central and peripheral areas. Examination of central and peripheral land areas in Table 4 reveals vast differences in the absolute and relative magnitudes of TABLE 4 Central and Peripheral Areas and Plopulation Densities Latin American Center or Area Popn. density (Popn./Km2) Popn. density (Popn./Km2) Area Center or North American city periphery (Kn2) 1950 1960 1970 1950 1960 1970 ( periphery city Mexico City C 138 16,225 20,558 21,074 10,157 10,015 10,161 777 C New York P 2192 432 1,101 2,675 350 612 773 4,758 P Sao Paulo C 1493" 1,380 2,287 4,005 1,675 2,130 2,390 1,326 C Los Angeles P 6458 79 172 343 210 350 420 9,213 P Buenos Aires C 200 14,952 14,872 14,897 6,275 6,140 5,825 578 C Chicago P 3860 473 1,025 1,418 170 295 400 9,054 P Rio de Janeiro C 1171 2,030 2,824 3,631 6,202 5,995 5,835 334 C Philadelphia P 5293 174 322 535 180 264 325 8,868 P Deogotab C 304 2,352 5,582 9,391 5,077 4,835 4,790 158 C Washington, D.C. Z P - - - - 119 221 355 5,936 P Recife C 209' 3,594 3,815 5,075 6,735 5,860 5,387 119 C Boston P 1992 148 223 367 662 780 867 2,437 P Belo Horizonte C 335 1,053 2,070 3,686 580 913 1,198 1,028 C Houston P 3335 37 58 111 22 31 49 15,250 P Z Guadalajara C 188 2,204 3,940 6,383 606 1,038 1,257 552 C San Diego P 1164 52 95 220 21 44 63 10,484 P Monterrey C 451 752 1,332 1,901 2,833 3,315 3,805 88 C Miami P 1292 28 83 275 47 124 179 5,201 P Calib C 85 3,341 7,506 10,565 1,690 2,008 2,092 246 C Denver P - - - - 21 47 77 9,233 P 318 681 1,480 300 C San Jose 64 143 202 3,067 P 166 684 906 642 C Phoenix 10 10 17 23,069 P al,622 in 1950 and 1960. bFor 1951, 1964, and 1973. C146 in 1950. Source: For Latin American cities, see Bibliography; data for North American cities is from (8), Table 32 (based on 1970 SMSA definitions). 264 INGRAM AND CARROLL the center and periphery of the 22 metropolitan areas. It is possible, however, to reduce the effects of such arbitrary definitions by estimating a population density function for each metropolitan area. Using a technique described by White [9], with the data at hand and assuming that popula- tion densities decline exponentially with distance from the center, we can estimate the intercept, D, and gradient, b, of the density function D(x) = Debx where D(x) is the population density at distance x from the center. Parameters D and b can then be used to characterize the distribution of population within metropolitanr areas and to provide further insights about urban spatial structure. Table 5 displays estimates of density function parameters for the 10 Latin American cities that have sufficient data for their calculation, and for the 12 North Americatn described above. In both the Latin and North American cities, the density gradient, b, generally declines over time. Only in Guadalajara, Belo Horizonte, Houston, San Jose, and Phoenix does the gradient increase, and in each case this happens in only one of the two decades shown. Moreover, these cities all have 1970 populations less than 2.5 million and high population growth rates. The density gradients are steeper for the Latin American than the North American cities: 16 of the 28 estimated gradients exceed 0.2 in Latin America while only 4 of the 36 do so in North America. Most of this difference in gradients is accounted for by the smaller (1970 population less then 2.5 million) Latin cities, however. For example, the average 1970 gradient of 0.25 for the small Latin cities is over twice the 1970 average gradient of 0.12 for the small North American cities, while the average 1970 gradient of 0.12 for large Latin cities is similar to the 0.105 average for large North American cities in 1970. These averages also suggest that on both continents smaller cities tend to have steeper gradients than large cities. The change in intercept density, D, over time is less regular than that observed for the density gradient. The intercept density has increased during the two decades shown for 6 of the 10 Latin American cities and for 6 of the 12 North American cities. Intercept increses are typically accom- panied by high population growth rates, but high growth rates are not sufficient for intercept increases. Mexico City is the paramount example of rapid growth accompanied by a declining intercept density. Ain North American cities, increases in the intercept density are likely to occur in cities that also have low intercept densities, say below 7500, but this pattern is less clear in Latin American cities where intercept densities continue to increase beyond values of 20,000. In terms of absolute magni- tude, intercept densities are significantly higher in Latin America than in LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 265 North America. The average 1970 intercept density of 24,000 in Latin America was more than twice the 10,000 observed in North America. However, in North America there is a strong tendency for intercept densities to be higher in large cities than in smaller ones whereas this pattern is less apparent for the Latin American cities. In 1970, for example, the North American average intercept densities were 15,700 for large cities and 4500 for small cities while for Latin American cities the average intercept densities for the two-size categories were 26,400 and 22,300, respectively. When we combine the comparison of intercept densities with that made for density gradients, two major points emerge. First, there is a surprising degree of similarity between the density function parameters of large Latin and large North American cities. This similarity is enchanced when we compare the large Latin cities to only the five older northeastern cities (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston) in Table 5. The 1970 average intercept and gradient, 17,700 and 0.116, for these five cities are similar to the 1970 averages, 24,600 and 0.12, respectively, for the large Latin American cities. Second, it appears that density function parameters follow different patterns in Latin and North America: as size varies, North American cities tend to have fairly constant density gradients and varying intercept densities, while Latin American cities tend to have fairly constant intercept densities and varying density gradients. Coupling this pattern with the similarity of parameters for large cities suggests that sinall Latin American cities have larger intercept densities and steeper gradients, and therefore are much more centralized, than small North American cities. Although the density function comparisons have been based on city size categories, the data for North American cities in Table 5 suggest that city age and transportation technology are also important determinants of density function parameter values. Older North American cities were developed during a period when transit was the dominant transport mode, and the newer North American cities are developing when autos are the dominant transport mode. The older cities are therefore more centralized and have higher densities than the newer cities. Although mode split data are not widely available, the scattered evidence we have suggests that motorized transit is the dominant mode in large Latin American cities, accounting for roughly seven-tenths of work trip travel. The balance is comprised of auto travel, taxis, and walking. Walking typically accounts for 5 to 10% of work trip travel in Latin cities, so its modal share is the same order of magnitude in Latin as in North American cities. The degree of motorized travel is, therefore, similar in Latin and North American cities. This similarity plus the historical dependence on transit in older North American cities probably explains the similarity of density function parameters in large Latin American cities and the older U.S. cities. TABLE S Population Density Gradients' Latin American North American city 4b Parameter' 1950 1960 1970 1950 1960 1970 Parameter' b city Mexico City 1.0 D 69,000 62,000 44,000 62,000 45,000 40,000 D 0.6 New York b 0.37 0.27 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.11 b S.,o Paulo 1.0 D 8,400 12,000 18,000 4,800 5,300 5,800 D 0.6 Los Angeles b 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.05 b Buenos Aires 0.6 D 54,000 37,000 33,000 27,000 20,000 16,000 D 0.5 Chicago b 0.21 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.08 b Rio de Janeiro 0.5 D 8,700 10,000 11,000 20,000 16,000 14,000 D 1.0 Philadelphia b 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.18 0.15 0.13 b Bogota 0.5 D - 37,000 26,000 15,000 11,000 9,000 D 1.0 Washington, D.C. b - 0.25 0.12 0.25 0.18 0.14 b Recife 0.6 D 13,000 14,000 17,000 14,000 11,000 9,300 D 0.7 Boston b 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.12 b Belo Horizonte 1.0 1) 5.000 11,000 19,000 2,100 3,500 4,200 D 1.0 Houston o b 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.12 0.13 0.12 b Guadalajara 1.0 D 14,000 28,000 39,000 2,100 3,200 3,600 D 0.5 San Diego b 0.45 0.46 0.41 0.11 0.10 0.09 b Monterrey 1.0 D 6,200 8,500 7,400 8,000 6,800 7,200 D 0.5 Miami r b 0.32 0.27 0.19 0.23 0.15 0.13 b Cali 0.5 D - 43,000 29,000 6,800 6,000 5,100 D 1.0 Denver b - 0.41 0.21 0.27 0.20 0.16 b 620 1,300 3,500 D 0.5 San Jose 0.08 0.07 0.10 b 350 2,700 3,100 D 1.0 Phoenix 0.08 0.16 0.14 b 'Calculated using the technique described in [9]. bProportion of circle that can be developed. cParameters from density = De bx, where x is distance from center in kilometers; D is central density in persons/km2. LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 267 Although the population density characteristics found in large Latin American cities are similar to those of older North American cities, it is important to note that living conditions in Latin American cities are very different. It is likely, for example, that Latin American cities will have lower ratios of capital to land, in terms of both housing and public service infrastructure, than otherwise similar North American cities. Accordingly, similarities in population density patterns between North and Latin American cities do not have much significance as indicators of welfare levels. INTRAMETROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS AND JOBS Because questions about household income are infrequent in Latin American censuses, it is not possible to investigate directly tne in- trametropolitan distribution of income groups. Instead we must examine the distribution of household characteristics, such as occupation, that are thought to be correlated with income. In Table 6, the center's share of the economically active population is compared to its share of up to four occupational groups in four cities. Assuming that professional/technical and office/sales worker ca,gories proxy high socio-economic status, the data suggest that high status groups are somewhat concentrated in central cities. At the same time, it is apparent that the central city shares of these two occupational groups are declining over time in the four cities with data available. Auto ownership is another reasonable proxy for high incomes in Latin American cities. The high shares of auto ownership in central cities also suggest a concentration of high status groups.5 This concentration is likely attributable to the greater availability and higher quality of utilities and public services in central cities. The summary of available data about central city shares of employment over time in Table 6 indicate that jobs are decentralizing somewhat, although Recife and Belo Horizonte are notable exceptions.6 Manufactur- ing employment seems to be less concentrated in (he central city than employment in either commerce ori services. In most cases, however, it appears that even manufacturing employment is more centralized than the economically active population.7 The extensive decentralization of the 5The center-periphery comparison may conceal decentralization of high status groups occuring within narrow radial zones of cities, as in the north of Bogota, Colombia. For reports on the movement of affluent groups outward in specific directions, see [1, 5]. 61n Bogota, Colombia both firms and jobs in the manufacturing sector have moved outward from the center during the 1970-1975 period [4]. 7This conclusion remains tentative due to the census coverage problems mentioned earlier, particularly with respect to small firms. 268 INGRAM AND CARROLL TABLE 6 Central City Shares of Population and Employment Percent of Items Located in Center By residential location By job location Econ. active Prof. Office Blue Autos Year popn. tech. sales Service collar owned Mfg. Commerce Service Mexico City 50 73 86 81 70a - - - - 60 59 72 66 49a - - - - 70 39 52 47 43 28 SaoPaulo 50 85 - - - - 84 95 60 - - - - - 80 92 90 70 75 - - - 82 71 - - Buenos Aires 50 65 - - - - 67 83b 60 46 62 55 57 - 49' 66b,C 70 37 56 48 44 54 - Rio de Janeiro 50 76 - - - 77 88 - 60 - - - - 75 86 82 70 56 - - 79 76 - - Recife 50 68 - - - 59 86 - 60 - - - - 63 85 86 70 63 - - 82 63 - - Belo Horizonte 50 77 - - - 56 91 - 60 - - - - 47 92 88 70 81 - - 90 53 - - Guadalajara 50 87 95 94 91 - - - 60 88 96 94 90g - 92' - 70 84 91 89 86 84 87 Monterrey 50 91 94 95 92a - - - - 60 86 89 89 850 - - - 70 66 78 76 71 70 'Service and blue collar combined. bCommerce and service combined. CFor 1964. dFor 1956. 'For 1965. Source: Various population and economic censuses; see the Appendix. economically active population in Mexico City and Buenos Aires is sirmiar to that of North American cities and is apparently the major reason why the density functions of these two cities are so similar to North American cities. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Latin American cities are experiencing extremely high rates of popula- tion growth at low levels of income and across all city size categories. Small cities seem to be growing more rapidly than large cities in Latin LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 269 America, and the growth rate of urbanization in Latin A.nerica is begin- ning to moderate. While the level of urbanization is roughly 30 years behind that of North America, average per capita product in Latin America approximates that of the United States 120 years ago. High city population growth rates also occur in North America, but not typically in the largest cities. A general similatity exists between the spatial structure of large Latin American cities and large North American cities that experienced their peak periods of growth in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. However, any similarity between large Latin American and large, old North American cities does not imply that the welfare levels of their residents are similar. The spatial structure of smaller Latin American cities differs from that of similar sized, rapidly growing North American cities by being much more centralized. There is ample evidence of suburbanization in nearly all of the Latin American cities with available data, as measured by a decrease in the central city's share of population and employment, as well as by a decrease in the population density gradient. Various indices of socio-economic status suggest that higher income households are somewhat concentrated in central cities, although the center's share has fallen over time. Although this paper has not identified all of the determinants of urban spatial structure in Latin America, several contributing factors suggest themselves. Low incomes are likely to keep housing consumption at low levels and to contribute to high densities. Since intra-city travel in Latin American cities is primarily by transit, especially bus, high timne and money travel costs are also likely to encourage high densities. The great dif- ferences in density function parameters between new North American cities and smaller Latin American cities is likely due to the North Ameri- can dependence on autos, but the causal significance of this and other factors remains to be tested. Since the highest density cities considered have varying population growth rates, the data presented here suggest that high growth rates by themselves are not strong determinants of density patterns. APPENDIX A. Data Sources Argentina Population: IV Censo General de la Nacion 1947, Tomo I and II; Censo Nacional de Poblacion 1960, Tomo II; Censo Nacional de Vivienda 1960, Tomo III; Censo Nacional de Poblacion, Faniilias, y Vivienda 1970; Vols. Resultados Obtenidos por Muestra; Resultados Provisionales. 270 INGRAM AND CARROLL Economy: IV Censo Industrial 1947: Tomo II, Censo Industrial y Comerical. Censo Nacional Economico 1964: Vols. Industria Manufac- turera, Comercio, Prestacion del Servicios. Brazil Population: Censos Demograficos 1950; Censos Demograficos 1960; Censos Demograficos 1970; Censos Domicilios 1970. Economy: Censos Industriais 1950; Censos Comercial e dos Servicos 1950; Censos Industriais 1960; Censos Comercial e dos Servicos 1960; Censo Comercial 1970; Censo dos Servicos 1970. Chile Population: XII Censo Nacional de Poblacion y Vivienda 1952; XIII Censo Demografico 1960, including vol. "Entidades de Poblacion"; Censo Nacional de Poblacion y Vivienda 1970, including vol. "Entidades de Poblacion;" Vols. 6 and 7, Santiago. Economy: IV Censo Nacional de Manufacturas 1968, Tomo III. Colombia Population: Censo de Poblacion 1951; Censo de Edificios y Viviendas, 1951; Decimotercero Censo Nacional de Poblacion, 1964; II Censo Na- cional de Edificios y Viviendas, 1964; Anuario Municipal de Estadistica, Bogota, 1952; Anuario Estadistico, Distrito Especial de Bogota, 1964; Anuario Estaditico de Bogota, D.E. 1972; Anuario Estadistico de Cali, various years. Economy: Bogota Urban Development Study Phase II, "Employment Location and Decentralization Technical Appendix," Bogota; September 1973. Mexico Population: Septimo Censo General de la Poblacion 1950; Vols. Distrito Federal, Estado Nuevo Leon, Estado Jalisco, Estado de Mexico. Octavo Censo General de Poblacion 1960; Vols. Distrito Federal, Estado Nuevo Leon, Estado Jalisco, Estado de Mexico. Noveno Censo General de Poblacion 1970; Resumen Nacional Direccion General de Estadistica y Direccion General de Programacion y Estudios Economicos, "Encuesta Nacional de Hogares 1976, Area Metropolitana de la Ciudad de Mexico." Peru Population: Censo Nacional 1940; Censo Nacional de Poblacion, includ- ing vol. "Centros Pobladas"; Primer Censo Nacional de Vivienda 1961; VII Censo Nacional de Poblacion 1972; II Censo Nacional de Vivienda 1972; Anuario Estadistico de Peru 1970-71. LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 271 Economy: Primer Censo Economico 1963, Censo de Manufacturas y Censos de Comercio y Servicios. Venezuela Population: Octavo Censo General de Poblacion 1950; Noveno Censo General de Poblacion 1961; Vol. 6, Metro Caracas; X Censo General de Poblacion y Vivienda 1971; Nomenclados de Centros Poblados 1971. Economy: Tercer Censo Economico 1963, Vol. Comercio, Manufactura. B. Jurisdictiorns Comprising Centers and Peripheries (All demarcations are official; year of demarcation in parentheses) Belo Horizonte (1970) Center: Municipio Belo Horizonte. Periphery: Municipios Betim, Caete, Contagem, Ibirit6, Lagoa Santa, Nova Lima, Pedro Leopoldo, Rapcsos, Ribenao dos Neves, Rio Acima, Sabara, Santa Lucia, Vespasiano. Buenos Aires (1970) Center: Jurisdiction within "Gran Buenos Aires" called Capital Federal. Periphery: Partidos of Gran Buenos Aires: Alte Brown, Avellaneda, E. Echeverria, F. Varela, Gral. San Martin, Gral. Sarmiento, Isla San Fernando, Isla Tigre, La Matanza, Lanus, Lomas de Zamora, Merlo, Moreno, Moron, Quilmes, San Fernando, San Isidro, Tigre, Tres de Febrero, V. Lopez. Caracas (1971) Center: Departamento Libertador of Distrito Federal. Periphery: Parroquia Carayaca in Departamento Vargas of Distrito Federal; plus Distrito Sucre and Municipios San Antonio, Carrizal, and Cecilio Acosta in Distrito Guaycapuro of State of Miranda. Guadalajara (1970) Center: Municipio Guadalajara in State of Jalisco. Periphery: Municipios Tlaquepaque and Zapopan in State of Jalisco. Lima (1972) Center: Distritios Barranco, del Cercado, Chorillos, La Victoria, Lince, Magdalena del Mar, Miraflores, Rimac, Pueblo Libre, San Isidro, San Miguel, and Santiago del Surco in Province of Lima. Periphery: Entire remainder of Province of Lima plus entire Province of Callao. 272 INGRAM AND CARROLL Mexico City (1976) Center: Jurisdiction within Distrito Federal called Ciudad de Mexico. Periphery: Entire remainder of Distrito Federal plus Municipios Atiza- pan, Chimalhuacan, Coacalco, Cuautitlan, Ecatepec, Huixquilucan, La Paz, Naucalpan, Netzahualcoyotl, Tlalnepantla, and Tultitlan in State of Mexico. Monterrey (1970) Center: Municipio Monterrey in State of Nuevo Leon. Periphery: Municipios Garza Garcia, Guadalupe, Santa Catalina, and San Nicolas de los Garza in State of Nuevo Leon. Recife (1970) Center: Municipio Recife. Periphery: Municipios Cabo, Igarassu, Itamaraca, Jaboatao, Moreno, Olinda, Paulista, and Sao Lourenso da Mata. Rio de Janeiro (1970) Center: City of Rio de Janeiro, equivalent to Distrito Federal or State of Guanabava. Periphery: Municipios Duque de Caxias, Itaborai, Itaguai, Mage, Mangaratiba, Marica, Nil6polis, Niteroi, Nova Iguacu, Paracambi, Petr6p- olis, Sao Gongalo, and Saio JMao de Meriti. Santiago (1970) Center: Comunas La Reina, Providencia, Quinta Normal, San Miguel, and Santiago in Department of Santiago. Periphery: Comunas Barrancas, Conchali, La Cisterna, La Granja, La Florida, Las Condes, Maipu, Nufioa, Puente Alto, Quilicura, Renca, and San Bernardo in Departments of Aguirre Cerda, Puente Alto, and Santiago. Sao Paulo (1970) Center: Municipio Sao Paulo. Periphery: Municipios Aruja, Barueri, Biritiba-Mirim, Caieras, Cajamar, Carapicuiba, Cotia, Diadema, Embu, Embu-Guacu, Ferraz de Vasconce- los, Franciso Morato, Franco da Rocha, Guararema, Guarulhos, Itape- cerica da Serra, Itapeui, Itaquaque Cetuba, Jandira, Juquitiba, Mairipora, Mava, Mogi das Cruces, Osasco, Pirapora du Bom Jesus, Poa, Riberao Pires, Rio Grande da Serra, Sales6polis, Santa Isabel, Santana de Parnaiba, Santo Andre, Sao Bernardo do Campo, Sao Caetano do Sul, Suzano, Taboao da Serra. LATIN AMERICAN CITIES 273 REFERENCES 1. P. Amato, "An Analysis of the Changing Patterns of Elite Residential Areas in Bogota, Colombia," Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, (June 1968). 2. J. Heilbrun, "Urban Economics and Public Policy," St. Martin's, New York, 1974. 3. S. Kuznets, "Modern Economic Growth," Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn. 1966. 4. K. S. Lee, Intra-urban location of manufacturing employment in Colombia (paper presented at AEA meetings, Chicago, August, 1978), J. Urban Econ., 9, 222-241 (1981). 5. A. Portes and J. Walton, "Urban Latin America: The Political Condition from Above and Below," Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1976. 6. U.N. Demographic Yearbook 1973, N.Y. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office, 1974. 7. U.N. World Housing Survey, 1974, N.Y. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office, 1974. 8. U.S. Sunmary, Final Report PC(l)-AI, U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 Census of Population. 9. L. J. White, How good are two point estimates of urban density gradients and central densities?, J. Ujrban Econ., 4, No. 3 (July, 1977). 10. J. W. Wilkie, Ed., "Statistical Abstract of Latin America," UCLA Latin American Center Publications, Los Angeles, 1976. 11. "World Bank Atlas," World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1977. World Bank Headquarters: 1818 H Street, N.W. U Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Telephone: (202) 477-1234 Telex: RCA 248423 WORLDBK WUI 64145 WORLDBANK Cable address: INTBAFRAD WASHINGTONDC European Office: 66, avenue d'1ena 75116 Paris, France Telephone: 723.54.21 Telex: 842-620628 Tokyo Office: Kokusai Building 1-1, Marunouchi 3-chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan Telephone: 214-5001 Telex: 781-26838 The full range of World Bank publications, both free and for sale, is described in the World Bank Catalog of Publications, and of the continuing research program of the World Bank, in World Bank Research Program: Abstracts of Current Studies. The most recent edition of each is available without charge from: PUBLICATIONS UNIT THE WORLD BANK 1818 H STREET, N.W. IN'ASHINGTON, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. ISSN 0253-2131