Daily chart: Over half of China's people now live in urban areas

[ice berg]

Daily chart: Going to town | The Economist

Daily chart

Going to town

Jan 18th 2012, 15:09 by The Economist online





..

Over half of China's people now live in urban areas

FOR a nation whose culture and society have been shaped over millennia by its rice-farming traditions, and whose ruling party rose to power in 1949 by mobilising its put-upon peasantry, China has just passed a remarkable milestone: its city-dwellers now outnumber its rural residents. New data from the National Bureau of Statistics show that of China's 1.35 billion people, 51.3% lived in urban areas at the end of 2011. In 1980 less than a fifth of China's population lived in cities, a smaller proportion than in India. Over the next ten years the government remained wary of free movement, even as it made its peace with free enterprise. Touting a policy of "leaving the land but not the villages, entering the factories but not cities", it sought industrialisation without urbanisation, only to discover it could not have one without the other. Even now, its ratio of city-dwellers is, if anything, low for an economy at its stage of development. America reached the 50% mark before 1920. Britain passed it in the 19th century. Go further back, however, and China's cities dazzled the world. It is likely that one thousand years ago, the Song Dynasty capital of Kaifeng was the world's most populous city. Marco Polo, who visited China in the 13th century, claimed that Hangzhou was "the most splendid city in the world" with 13,000 bridges—although later estimates suggest the true number was 347.

 

[Ray]

As a layman, it appears to me that this can have a serious repercussion.

 

[ice berg]

As a layman, it appears to me that this can have a serious repercussion.

Urbanization has always serious repercussions.

 

[Ray]

Urbanization has always serious repercussions.

What I meant is that the infrastructure in the cities are not geared for such an influx.

This will lead to cramped accommodation, less of resources since the consumption will rise and if the rural farmlands are not highly mechanised to include the storage, there will be food shortages.

Also, the divide between the labour (poor) and the rich will be evident and it will cause social problems.

America and the UK may have crossed the 50% but then they had made years of market economy and so they could build the infrastructure over the years and absorb the same.

Nations just emerging from command economies can hardly be compared with the US or UK figures since they had a huge timelag to adjust and today maybe in a comfortable situation.

UK during the industrial phase when the rural population relocating to urban surrounding, it was a morass in teh UK and so was it in the US.

 

[trackwhack]

The larger repercussion will be that the next revolution will be on a scale that CCP cannot handle. In 89, the urban population was less than 30%. Imagine the mass mobilization thats going to take place next time around. Brace yourselves CCP.:thumb:

 

[nimo_cn]

The larger repercussion will be that the next revolution will be on a scale that CCP cannot handle. In 89, the urban population was less than 30%. Imagine the mass mobilization thats going to take place next time around. Brace yourselves CCP.:thumb:

Maybe that is why India keeps the majority living in countryside, which makes them easier to be handled.

 

[trackwhack]

Maybe that is why India keeps the majority living in countryside, which makes them easier to be handled.

We dont keep anyone anywhere. We are free to stay anywhere we want. We don't try to 'Hanize' a region and destroy its society or dilute its culture. Look at the graph carefully - Do you notice how natural the growth trend for India is? And how unnatural it is for China. But enjoy your interpretations.

 

[Param]

Easier to target a country's entire population in event of a nuclear war. Nuking urban centres will be easier than targeting those in spread out rural areas.

 

[p2prada]

What I meant is that the infrastructure in the cities are not geared for such an influx.

This will lead to cramped accommodation, less of resources since the consumption will rise and if the rural farmlands are not highly mechanised to include the storage, there will be food shortages.

Also, the divide between the labour (poor) and the rich will be evident and it will cause social problems.

America and the UK may have crossed the 50% but then they had made years of market economy and so they could build the infrastructure over the years and absorb the same.

Nations just emerging from command economies can hardly be compared with the US or UK figures since they had a huge timelag to adjust and today maybe in a comfortable situation.

UK during the industrial phase when the rural population relocating to urban surrounding, it was a morass in teh UK and so was it in the US.

China can absorb this influx way more easily than other countries can. India will follow suit someday if we see land reforms and reforms in banking laws.

What US and UK may have taken 50 to 100 years to achieve, China can do the same in 20 years because of massive advances in engineering and urban planning. China has already built multiple cities and plans for more. I guess the current Chinese rate is at 10 cities a year.

This is a small news clip from Reuters about the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial corridor which will see 24 cities being built from scratch and occupied by 2030 with 7 cities built in Phase I of the project.
India's Grand Ambition: 24 Cities Built From Scratch - Home - Staple News

TN is already 50% urbanized and Gujarat will follow suit soon. The faster a population is urbanized, the richer the country gets. Of course this should be well managed and there should be plenty of employment opportunities.

 

[Ray]

Just a clarification.

Urban cities have to be located near areas where there is industry and commerce.

It cannot be seen in isolation.

What about agriculture if farmers migrate to urban areas as labour?

What about the basic amenities in urban areas to cater for the influx?

 

[no smoking]

Just a clarification.

Urban cities have to be located near areas where there is industry and commerce.

It cannot be seen in isolation.

What about agriculture if farmers migrate to urban areas as labour?

What about the basic amenities in urban areas to cater for the influx?

That is the exactly problem that CCP leaders faced in past 30 years: creating job opportunies as much as you can and as fast as you can.
That is also the main reason that Hukou system hasn't been disminished: to control the speed of urbanization.
That is also a part of reason that CCP was in rush to build infractucture in every city: to satisfy these new city residents' basic needs.

In term of agriculture, machines are playing more and more important role in it. Actually, based on china's cultivable land size, we don't need 700 millions people working on it.

 

[p2prada]

Just a clarification.

Urban cities have to be located near areas where there is industry and commerce.

It cannot be seen in isolation.

Yes. They should have easy access to employment centers like tech parks and industrial corridors and also to supply routes like ports, roadways and railways. China has connected each of their cities with big expressways and more recently, with high speed rails. For water, rivers can be linked and an example of such a system is the Grand Canal in China. It is an artificial river system built 1500 years ago in China. It is 1700 Km long and connects important cities along the east coast.

The Delhi-Mumbai corridor will see the use of bullet trains between the 24 planned cities. Similar corridors will be built between Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad over the next 50 years. If we want a 80-90% urbanized population we are going to have to build multiple cities the size of Delhi or Mumbai by the time our population doubles. Some estimate suggested we need a Chicago built every year for the next 30 years to support urbanization in India. We have plans for interlinking our rivers in a $100Billion+ project.

What about agriculture if farmers migrate to urban areas as labour?

In terms of statistics, the US employs 3% of their population in agriculture and their total yearly output equals that of India's which employs twice the American population in agriculture. This is because of the use of genetic engineering, modern techniques of farming and high tech machinery. They also have way better storage facilities which provides greater life. The average farm size in the US is over 400 acres. In India the average size is 3 acres.

What about the basic amenities in urban areas to cater for the influx?

If you consider how things are going in India, then it is not very good. But China is different, they are way ahead in planning and implementing. We must be able to emulate their success and achieve similar results or we will be left behind.

 

[p2prada]

There is a lot of negativity on China in the eyes of the western media for no real reason. China is the second largest economy on the planet and is still supposed to be a poor country. India's economy rivals the countries in Europe and is also a poor economy. This is because of our huge population. So, imagine how large we can really be to be considered rich. Goldman Sachs predicted China will overtake the US only in 2040 and Japan in 2015 when the BRICs report was first released in 2004. Funny part is it will happen 20 years before the prediction date. Heck China's GDP is nearly half of US's GDP today. China has already surpassed Japan.

India is doing quite well too. We will cross $2Billion in a few months. If we take exchange rate to be 45 to a dollar then we will have already achieved it by March, 2012. India's GDP will be 90 Trillion Rupees this year. The BRIC report predicted India will cross Japan in 2030. As of today we are already bigger than Japan by PPP. We are a little less than half of Japan's GDP as of today and our GDP is set to quadruple by 2020 on nominal growth alone, without taking currency fluctuations into consideration. We should be $7-8 Billion in 2020 without taking inflation and currency fluctuations into the picture. We will surpass Japan by 2015. Actual BRIC report from Goldman Sachs said India will overtake Japan only after 2030.

China has shown over 10% growth for over 30 years. Now they are slowing down. But this slow down is not 2 or 3% like the G6 economies. It's going to be 7-8% for China and this growth will happen for many more decades. India has the potential to grow at 10% for many decades and slow down like China after 2 or 3 decades. The ceiling for our economies has not yet been determined. It is currently impossible to predict the combined buying power of 1 Billion people for each of our countries. So don't simply buy all the negative news about China.

 

[nimo_cn]

We dont keep anyone anywhere. We are free to stay anywhere we want. We don't try to 'Hanize' a region and destroy its society or dilute its culture. Look at the graph carefully - Do you notice how natural the growth trend for India is? And how unnatural it is for China. But enjoy your interpretations.

Right, you may not take measures to keep them in rural area, neither do you take measures to get them out of there. You are simply indifferent to what is gonna happen, you let them at the pity of themselves.

In contrast to you India's indifference, China sees the urgency of improving people's livelihood by liberating them from the farmland and locating them to the cities, and takes measures to accomplish that goal.

That is why the growth trend in India is natural, whereas the growth trend of China is aggressive or unnatural.

 

[nimo_cn]

What about agriculture if farmers migrate to urban areas as labour?

As a people from a peasant family, I can address this one with my personal experience.

It wasn't until 2000 that peasants in my village began to seek opportunities in big cities, a lot of girls and boys left the small village for cities Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, etc. It caused a shortage of labor force for agriculture at first and farmland went out of cultivation. Of course, another factor we had to count in is that the low price of agriculture product back then also demotivated the peasants who were staying to cultivate more farmland.

But after 2004, with the price going up and machines being introduced, the situation has been reversed. No farmland in my village are out of cultivation anymore. With the assistance of machines, they are able to handle much more farmland than they used to.

 

[HeinzGud]

^^^^ SL should seek assistance from China about the farm land issue cuz we have lot of uncultivated farm lands.

 

[Ray]

As a people from a peasant family, I can address this one with my personal experience.

It wasn't until 2000 that peasants in my village began to seek opportunities in big cities, a lot of girls and boys left the small village for cities Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, etc. It caused a shortage of labor force for agriculture at first and farmland went out of cultivation. Of course, another factor we had to count in is that the low price of agriculture product back then also demotivated the peasants who were staying to cultivate more farmland.

But after 2004, with the price going up and machines being introduced, the situation has been reversed. No farmland in my village are out of cultivation anymore. With the assistance of machines, they are able to handle much more farmland than they used to.

Could you tell us if FDI has helped the Farmers?

Do the Food retail Giants like Carrefour contract farmers for their produce and do they get a fair deal?

Also, how is it done and how are the farmers' interest protected?

 

[nimo_cn]

Could you tell us if FDI has helped the Farmers?

Do the Food retail Giants like Carrefour contract farmers for their produce and do they get a fair deal?

Also, how is it done and how are the farmers' interest protected?

I can't answer, since I don't have knowledge with regard to that.

I can only tell you, main agricureture prodcucts such as rice, wheat, corn, etc are regarded as strategic asset. So the distribution of main agricureture prodcucts is mostly decided by government, I don't think companies like Carrefour have much impact in this regard.

But I might be wrong.