China’s Urbanization: City Population Surpasses Rural Population

China’s urban population has surpassed the rural population for the first time.

The Economist writes,

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.

Count me as a skeptic of the continuity of urbanization trends, a phenomenon derivative of the industrial age.

Basically urbanization has been driven by economic opportunities, the economies of scale and centralization of facilities all of which may be changing.

The dynamics of urbanization, according to Wikipedia.org (bold emphasis mine)

People move into cities to seek economic opportunities. A major contributing factor is known as "rural flight". In rural areas, often on small family farms, it is difficult to improve one's standard of living beyond basic sustenance. Farm living is dependent on unpredictable environmental conditions, and in times of drought, flood or pestilence, survival becomes extremely problematic. In modern times, industrialization of agriculture has negatively affected the economy of small and middle-sized farms and strongly reduced the size of the rural labor market.

Cities, in contrast, are known to be places where money, services and wealth are centralized. Cities are where fortunes are made and where social mobility is possible. Businesses, which generate jobs and capital, are usually located in urban areas. Whether the source is trade or tourism, it is also through the cities that foreign money flows into a country. It is easy to see why someone living on a farm might wish to take their chance moving to the city and trying to make enough money to send back home to their struggling family.

There are better basic services as well as other specialist services that aren't found in rural areas. There are more job opportunities and a greater variety of jobs. Health is another major factor. People, especially the elderly are often forced to move to cities where there are doctors and hospitals that can cater for their health needs. Other factors include a greater variety of entertainment (restaurants, movie theaters, theme parks, etc.) and a better quality of education, namely universities. Due to their high populations, urban areas can also have much more diverse social communities allowing others to find people like them when they might not be able to in rural areas.

These conditions are heightened during times of change from a pre-industrial society to an industrial one. It is at this time that many new commercial enterprises are made possible, thus creating new jobs in cities.

The transition to the information age extrapolates to more specialization, as commerce will evolve along with improvements in technology. This means reduced cost advantages of centralized organizations which simultaneously has been accelerating and deepening the trends of business outsourcing.

Moreover real time connectivity should enhance this process, which again reduces the motivation for commerce to congregate in specific areas—or cities.

Also business focus will increasingly be directed to specific needs (niche marketing) rather than mass production and also on where the consumers and markets are.

In the Philippines, shopping malls have sprouted not only in major cities but also in capitals of provinces or secondary cities. Take for example the largest shopping mall chain the SM Group which has 43 malls nationwide and growing. This is a noteworthy example of the deepening dispersion trends, where facilities have been mushrooming outside of mega cities.

Also this serves as an example of the evolving location based markets—businesses locating and providing goods and services where the consumers are.

On the supply side, the call center industry, whose firms have been looking for agents to fill up outsourcing jobs, has been spreading outside the metropolis (Metro Manila). According to Wikipedia.org, there are 788 call centers in over 20 locations, where growing number firms are being established again in secondary cities and in the provinces.

All these suggest that the snowballing forces of decentralization should dampen urbanization trends--that depends on the dynamics of centralization--over the long run.

Philippines as Call Center Capital of the World Has Not Been about Wages

If markets are to function freely, we are likely to see division of labor and competition based competitive advantage as the main force driving economic growth.

One such remarkable evidence has been the booming call center industry of the Philippines which has recently been enthroned as “A New Capital of Call Centers” by the New York Times.

And contra Keynesians, who see economics as operating in a homogenous dynamic, the local boom HAS NOT BEEN about wage LEVELS.

From the New York Times (bold emphasis mine)

Over the last several years, a quiet revolution has been reshaping the call center business: the rise of the Philippines, a former United States colony that has a large population of young people who speak lightly accented English and, unlike many Indians, are steeped in American culture.

More Filipinos — about 400,000 — than Indians now spend their nights talking to mostly American consumers, industry officials said, as companies like AT&T, JPMorgan Chase and Expedia have hired call centers here, or built their own. The jobs have come from the United States, Europe and, to some extent, India as outsourcers followed their clients to the Philippines.

India, where offshore call centers first took off in a big way, fields as many as 350,000 call center agents, according to some industry estimates. The Philippines, which has a population one-tenth as big as India’s, overtook India this year, according to Jojo Uligan, executive director of the Contact Center Association of the Philippines.

The growing preference for the Philippines reflects in part the maturation of the outsourcing business and in part a preference for American English. In the early days, the industry focused simply on finding and setting up shop in countries with large English-speaking populations and low labor costs, which mostly led them to India. But executives say they are now increasingly identifying places best suited for specific tasks. India remains the biggest destination by far for software outsourcing, for instance.

Executives say the growth was not motivated by wage considerations. Filipino call center agents typically earn more than their Indian counterparts ($300 a month, rather than $250, at the entry level), but executives say they are worth the extra cost because American customers find them easier to understand than they do Indian agents, who speak British-style English and use unfamiliar idioms. Indians, for example, might say, “I will revert on the same,” rather than, “I will follow up on that.”…

In addition to language skills, the Philippines has better utility infrastructure than India — so companies spend little on generators and diesel fuel. Also, cities here are safer and have better public transportation, so employers do not have to bus employees to and from work as they do in India.

The Philippine call center boom has been about serving the needs of consumers, where consumers perceive that the Philippine preference for American English has been providing her the comparative edge, and of the more superior utility infrastructure investments made by local companies.

Quoting David Ricardo (Mises Wiki) [bold emphasis mine]

Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labor to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by rewarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labor most effectively and most economically: while by increasing the general mass of productions, it diffuses general benefit, and binds together, by one common tie of interest and intercourse, the universal society of nations throughout the civilized world. It is this principle which determines that wine shall be made in France and Portugal, that corn shall be grown in America and Poland, and that hardware and other goods shall be manufactured in England.