IN COSTA RICA

American Geographical Society

Regional Inequalities in Well-Being in Costa RicaAuthor(s): Carolyn HallSource: Geographical Review, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 48-62Published by: American Geographical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/214760 .Accessed: 03/08/2014 13:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toGeographical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 13:12:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REGIONAL INEQUALITIES IN WELL-BEING IN COSTA RICA

CAROLYN HALL

M OST third-world countries are characterized by marked socioeconomic regional variation. Zones of primary production for export contrast with regions of subsistence agriculture, and metropolitan areas with

sparsely settled backlands. The differences in the structure of economic production and the pattern of population and settlement are usually accom- panied by pronounced spatial disparities in well-being because of variations in access to basic goods, services, and amenities. This distribution is a major problem in developing countries. Regional inequality is probably concom- itant with the process of economic development. Because capital for investment is scarce, export activities, towns, manufacturing, infrastructure, and services tend to be concentrated in one or more core regions with initial advantages such as favorable natural-resource base, dense population, or nodal position in a transportation network. As development gradually spreads, the decrease in spatial inequalities paves the way for a balanced regional structure.

Many geographical studies of the problem of regional inequalities as- sumed explicitly or implicitly that all countries undergo a similar sequence of spatial evolution.1 However, if underdevelopment is interpreted to be a corollary rather than a predecessor of development, there is no a priori reason to suppose that the regional inequalities in third-world countries are replicas of the ones that characterized the advanced industrial countries during the early stages of their evolution. Two categories of efforts to measure regional inequalities-economic indexes and multivariate analyses of modernization-have revealed limitations when well-being is the primary concern.2

During the past decade, geographers have expounded a conceptual framework for the analysis of regional inequality that recognizes socioeconomic well-being as both multidimensional and culturally relative. The components have no universal definition; they range from "hard" indicators related to basic physiological requirements, environmental conditions, and educational and recreational opportunities to "soft" indicators like need for

J. G. Williamson, Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: A Description of the Patterns, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 13, 1965, pp. 3-84; and Salah El-Shakhs, Development, Primacy and Systems of Cities, Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. 7, 1972, pp. 11-35. 2 Edward J. Soja, The Geography of Modernization in Kenya (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1968); Alan Gilbert, Latin American Development (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, 1974); Peter R. Gould, Tanzania 1920-63: The Spatial Impress of the Modernization Process, World Politics, Vol. 22, 1970, pp. 149-170; and T. R. Leinbach, The Spread of Modernization in Malaya, 1895-1969, Tijd- schrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 63, 1972, pp. 262-277.

* DR. HALL is an associate professor of geography at the University of Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, San Jose, Costa Rica.


REGIONAL INEQUALITIES

affection, self-fulfillment, and esteem.3 Most of the research deals with the regional inequalities of well-being that persist in advanced industrial countries like the United States or the United Kingdom.4 My use of this approach to analyze conditions in Costa Rica has two basic objectives: to explore the operational modifications required in the third world; and to investigate the extent that analysis of well-being opens new perspectives on the nature of regional inequalities in a developing country.

Costa Rica is a particularly interesting case study: the country has long been recognized as an exceptional developing country because of its stable democratic government and advanced welfare state. It ranks high in many conventional socioeconomic indexes such as gross national product (GNP), literacy, and access to social services and domestic amenities. Official statistics are wide-ranging, reliable, and available. Nevertheless, Costa Rica shares with third-world countries many socioeconomic problems like dependence on a few agricultural exports, an inequitable structure of land tenure, widespread poverty, and a rapid process of tertiary urbanization. Costa Rica is a small country, yet it contains sharp regional contrasts that stem from both physical geography and history.5 Approximately 2.3 million persons inhabit an area of 51,100 square kilometers. The smallest administrative units can be analyzed in a countrywide survey, which allows details not only for regions but also between urban and rural areas.

WELL-BEING IN COSTA RICA

Economic growth and diversification of economic production, particularly development of modern industry, were the main goals of the Costa Rican development plans for the period 1965-1972. The goals were partially achieved. The annual average rate of economic growth for that period was 7 percent. The industrial sector expanded by more than 10 percent a year and eventually contributed one-quarter of the total value of exports. Eco- nomic growth, however, did not mean automatically improved well-being or eradication of poverty. Nor were the benefits of rapid economic growth evenly distributed throughout the country.

The priorities for governmental policy began to shift during the 1970s from economic growth to social well-being and from planning for the economic sectors to regional planning. A system of six official planning regions, each relatively homogeneous in both physical geography and socioeconomic development, was adopted in 1975. The regional units were modified in 1978 (Fig. 1). Preliminary analyses showed the excessive concentration of

3 B. E. Coates and others, Geography and Inequality (London: Oxford University Press, 1977); and David M. Smith, Human Geography: A Welfare Approach (London: Edward Arnold, 1977). 4 David M. Smith, The Geography of Social Well-Being in the United States (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1973); and P. L. Knox, Social Well-Being: A Spatial Perspective (London: Oxford University Press, 1975). 5 Carolyn Hall, Costa Rica: Una Interpretaci6n Geografica con Perspectiva Hist6rica (San Jose: Edi- torial Costa Rica, 1984).

49


THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

?. OFIPLAN, after Nuhn,1975

Pacific Ocean

b- OFIPLAN, 1978 Pacific

Ocean

KEY:

BOUNDARY BETWEEN REGIONS

BOUNDARY BETWEEN PROVISIONAL REGIONS

REGION

PROVISIONAL REGION

REGIONAL CAPITAL

FIG. 1-Costa Rican planning regions.

50

CENTRAL

(NORTH) CANAS

0



socioeconomic development in the Central Region, particularly the metropolitan area of San Jose, and stressed the need to decentralize public admin- istration and to promote economic growth outside that region.6

Several studies of regional inequalities in levels of living are antecedents of my analysis.7 These studies reached the same general conclusions. Spatial disparities in well-being were more pronounced in Costa Rica than in the developed countries; average levels of living were higher in the urban areas than in the countryside and in the Central Region than elsewhere. These pioneering studies drew attention to problems that had previously received scant notice. They also offered insight about the components of well-being that Costa Ricans considered to be important. The studies, however, contained methodological limitations. Each study was based on either a small number of variables or a large number of uncorrelated variables. As a result, none identified different dimensions of well-being. Each study restricted the spatial coverage and the detail of regional analysis. Some, for example, did not include data for the entire country or presented the data already grouped in an a priori regionalization.

FACTOR ANALYSIS: VARIABLES AND DATA

In order to solve the methodological problems, I performed two multivariate factor analyses of socioeconomic well-being. My choice of variables was conditioned by two main considerations: appropriateness of the variable for a developing country, and availability of data. Each variable should be a meaningful indicator of conditions of well-being in a developing country. Variables reflecting the satisfaction of basic needs like literacy or sanitary water supply are vital measures for the third world. Conversely variables like automobile ownership and access to hotels and restaurants that are significant for advanced industrial societies are not relevant for the majority of the population in a developing country. Whenever possible, I included variables that were recurrent in previous studies because the items were indicators of Costa Rican perceptions of well-being. Data came mainly from the most recent census, which was taken in 1973, but were supplemented by information from other governmental sources and private research for the same or adjacent year.8 The dependence on census data restricted the

6 Helmut Nuhn, Regionalizaci6n de Costa Rica para la Planificaci6n del Desarrollo y la Adminis- traci6n (San Jose: Oficina de Planificaci6n, 1973); and Helmut Nuhn, Regionalisierung und Ent- wicklungsplanung in Costa Rica (Hamburg, 1978). 7 John Booth, Caracteristicas Sociograficas de las Regiones Perifericas de Costa Rica (San Jose: In- stituto de Fomento y Asesoria Municipal, 1974); El Desarrollo Rural en Costa Rica (San Jose: Instituto de Fomento y Asesoria Municipal, 1976); Victor Hugo Cespedes and others, La Pobreza en Costa Rica: Problemas Metodolo6gicos para Determinar Algunas de sus Caracteristicas (San Jose: La Aca- demia de Centro America, 1977); Manuel J. Carvajal and others, Pobreza en Costa Rica (San Jose: Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos, 1977); and La Dimensi6n de la Pobreza: Estudio de la Pobreza Rural en Costa Rica (San Jos6: Oficina de Planificaci6n, 1981). 8 Censo de Poblaci6n 1973 (2 vols.; San Jose: Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos, 1974); Censo Agropecuario 1973 (San Jose: Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos, 1974); Censo de Vivienda 1973 (San Jose: Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos, 1974); Rosa M. Novygrodt and Carlos

51



range of variables to "hard" indicators of well-being, and there are some notable omissions for which no spatially disaggregated data were available: indicators of public security like crime rates, of environmental characteristics like traffic congestion or atmospheric pollution, and of recreational facilities.

The census data were disaggregated according to a three-tier structure of administrative areas. In 1973, there were 7 provinces, 80 cantons, and 406 districts. The anachronic provinces are so heterogeneous that they are vir- tually meaningless as units for geographical analysis. There is also considerable diversity within many cantons. The principal factor analysis, the end product of which was a detailed map of the spatial distribution of affluence and social well-being, used data from the district level. These units ranged in area from less than 1 square kilometer to 2,421 square kilometers and in population from 255 to more than 40,000 inhabitants. Most districts were predominantly rural or urban, but in the peripheral regions some large districts contained both extensive rural and urban areas. A supplementary factor analysis used canton-level data, because statistics for some important variables were available only at this administrative level. In addition to published census data, I had access to a large quantity of manuscript-census material in the library of the Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos. Data from this source were tabulated by district, which is invaluable for geographical research, although a disadvantage (apart from the tedium of working with such a large pool of statistics) is that some indexes-for example, the rate of infant mortality and the number of deaths with medical attention-are meaningless because of the small size of the population.

Thirty-one variables were used in the cantonal analysis and twenty-three in the district analysis (Table I). The indicators of socioeconomic well-being are divided in five categories. The first category is economic indexes. Income is measured by the proportion of workers who earned more than 400 colones a month; the minimum legal wage in 1973 was 305 colones a month. An index of poverty was included although the data were available only at the cantonal scale.9 The next three categories deal with the three social services- education, health, and housing-that the government planning office considered most important.10 Housing is represented by variables on the con- dition of repair and three basic amenities: running water, hygenic sewage disposal, and electricity. No data are available by cantons or districts for overcrowding, although the problem is widespread. The housing census included statistics about domestic appliances, but many of them such as washing machines, electric floor polishers, and water heaters are not relevant indicators of well-being in the third world. Only refrigerators are in-

Dias Amador, Situaci6n del Estado Nutricional en Costa Rica 1978-1979 (San Jose: Ministerio de Salud, 1979); and C6mputo de Votos y Declaratorias de Elecci6n: Elecciones del 3 de febrero de 1974 (San Jose: Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, 1974). 9 Carvajal and others, footnote 7 above. 10 La Dimensi6n de la Pobreza, footnote 7 above.

52


REGIONAL INEQUALITIES 53

TABLE I-VARIABLES

VARIABLES DEFINITION

Economic indexes Poverty' % of poor families Income % of workers with income above e400 a month Employment % of labor force employed

Housing & amenities Housing % of houses in good repair Water % of houses with piped water Sewerage % of houses with sewerage/septic tank Electricity % of houses with electricity Refrigerator % of houses with refrigerator

Education Literacy % of literates 10 or more years old Primary education % of population 6 or more years old with a primary education Secondary education % of population 10 or more years old with secondary education University education % of population 20 or more years old with university education

Health & social security Social security I % of population insured by CCSSb for illness & maternity Social security IIP % of workers insured by CCSS for disability, old age, & death Infant mortality' % of deaths among infants less than 1 year old Malnutrition" % of malnutrition among lst-grade children Deathsa % of deaths with medical attention

Communications & societal participation Roadsa road density in km/sq. km Radio % of houses with radio Television % of houses with television Telephone % of houses with telephone Voters % of population voting in 1974 presidential election

Others Population density persons/sq. km Urbanization % of urban population Agricultural workers % of workers employed in agriculture Distance" distance in km between San Jos6 & canton capital Migration" rate of net migration since birth Annual crops % of farm area in annual crops Permanent crops % of farm area in permanent crops Pasture % of farm area in pasture Forest % of farm area in forest Source: Compiled by author. a Variables used only in the cantonal analysis. b Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (Department of Social Security).

cluded in my analysis, because they are not a luxury in a tropical climate where food quickly decomposes. The fifth category contains the variables that measure communications and participation in society. The sixth category is a mixed set of variables that are included in order to test their correlations with the variables for well-being. No data on land tenure are available at the cantonal or district level. The population of Costa Rica is racially mixed, but race is not a significant factor in social differentiation, except for some small minority groups like the blacks in the Caribbean lowlands and the Indians in isolated peripheral areas. The census that I used did not contain data on race or ethnic groups.


54 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

TABLE II-COMPOSITION OF F1: AFFLUENCE AND F2: SOCIAL WELL-BEING

VARIABLE GROUPING CANTONS DISTRICTS

F1: Affluence Eigenvalue 16.08 11.52 Explained variance 51.9% 50.1% Highest loadings:

Telephone 0.94 0.90 University education 0.88 0.74 Urbanization 0.82 0.83 Sewerage 0.79 0.81 Population 0.79 0.81 Refrigerator 0.77 0.84 Television 0.73 0.74 Poverty -0.71 Agricultural workers -0.69 -0.65 Secondary education 0.64 0.88 Income 0.55 0.60

F2: Social well-being Eigenvalue 3.60 2.48 Explained variance 11.6% 10.8% Highest loadings:

Social security I 0.72 0.52 Social security II 0.63 Water 0.62 0.73 Distance -0.62 - Deaths 0.54 - Electricity 0.52 0.56 Literacy 0.48 0.66 Primary education 0.47 0.70

Source: Calculated by author.

FACTOR ANALYSIS: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

The correlation matrices produced five factors in the cantonal analysis and four in the district analysis with an eigenvalue greater than 1. The variables grouped in F1: Affluence and F2: Social Well-Being together account for more than three-fifths of the variance in both analyses and represent clearly identifiable dimensions of levels of living (Table II). The variables in both F1 and F2 come from each of the six categories of variables. F1 contains eleven variables used in the cantonal analysis and ten in the district analysis. These reflect the level of wealth and affluence. They include a positive value for income and a negative value for poverty. Most of the variables in this set are either goods, services, and amenities such as sewerage, refrigerators, and television sets that are provided by private enterprise, or state-supported services such as secondary and higher education with a substantial portion of the cost being borne by the individual consumer. These variables correlated positively with population density and the level of urbanization but negatively with the proportion of agricultural workers.

F2 has eight variables used in the cantonal analysis and five in the district analysis. The variables are basic social services provided by the state and financed mainly by the central government rather than the individual consumer. They include basic education, social security, health services, and



Ft AFFLUENCE

GROUPING OF DISTRICTS, BASED ON SCORES FOR

F AND F2

.-2 -1 g

' , ...

* *-- * A

* .:. ., :. *

IV ? . :

??? ?? ??? ?? ?, ? ? ?? ? ? ? ?? 1 ? ??? ?? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ?

? "r,r Y. ?C ? ??2????;C ??? ? ??? ?2''' ... .' ? ? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ? r? ? ? ? ?

?? ?

FIG. 2

supplies of electricity and piped water. There is an inverse correlation with distance from San Jose, the capital city.

The emergence of F1 and F2 as the two principal factors is highly important and questions the validity-at least for Costa Rica and possibly for other developing countries with a mixed economy and welfare state-of a single, homogeneous category to indicate levels of living. Rather the circum- stance points to the existence of two distinct, if interrelated, dimensions in

55



FIG. 3-Regions of affluence and social well-being.

levels of living: an economic dimension of affluence and wealth, and a social dimension of welfare. F1 reflects variables that operate wholly or partially according to the principles of free market capitalism, whereas F2 monitors the effect of intervention by the state. Previous Costa Rican studies did not reveal these two dimensions in levels of living.

The factor scores for Fi were plotted against those for F2 (Fig. 2). The largest concentration of scores occurs in the bottom right of the graph, while the remaining scores disperse in three directions from this cluster. This pattern suggests four groups of districts, although they are not sharply sep- arated. I allocated districts in the transitional zones between the cores of each group according to geographical affinity. The districts in group I con- stitute the most developed areas with high scores for F1 and medium-to- high scores for F2. Districts in group II combine medium-to-high scores for F2 with low scores for F,. In group III the pattern is reversed: scores of F1 are moderately high, those for F2 are low. The districts in group IV have low scores for both factors and are the least developed areas of the country.

56



TABLE III-POPULATION AND AREA OF REGIONS OF AFFLUENCE AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING

POPULATION AREA

% of % of REGION N total km2 total

I High affluence, medium-high social well-being 551,236 29.45 185.22 0.36

II Low affluence, medium-high social well-being 894,252 47.77 8,579.72 16.79

III Medium affluence, low social well-being 129,877 6.94 5,434.97 10.64

IV Low affluence, low social well-being 296,415 15.84 36,900.09 72.21

Total 1,871,780 100.00 51,100.00 100.00

Source: Calculated by author.

Transferred to a map, this classification produces a detailed illustration of regional inequalities in levels of living (Fig. 3). At this stage of the analysis the tedium of working with the district-level data is rewarded. The cantonal analysis, though useful because of the large number of variables that it includes, yields only a crude map. The districts are not homogeneous spatial units, but they do afford a base for regionalization that is derived from the data rather than superimposed on them. The resultant map is much closer to reality than the maps in previous studies that did not employ district- level data.

The spatial disparities in affluence and social well-being reflect regional variations in age of settlement, structure of economic production, level of urbanization, and governmental investment. The districts in group I cover less than 1 percent of the country but contain almost 30 percent of the population (Table III). These relatively affluent, developed portions are predominantly urban and suburban, including most of the metropolitan area of San Jose, the cities of Cartago, Heredia, Alajuela, Grecia, Palmares, and San Ram6n, all in the Central Valley, as well as Puntarenas, the principal port of the country on the Pacific coast. Founded during the colonial or early republican periods, these urban centers are among the oldest in Costa Rica. Their growth during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was as- sociated with the development of the coffee industry in their hinterlands. In recent years they have received substantial immigration from rural areas and small urban centers throughout the country. The rapid increase of urban population has exceeded the creation of employment in industry. Employ- ment, including many activities that yield only irregular work and low incomes, is concentrated in the tertiary sector. The urban centers of Costa Rica like those in many third-world countries harbor great socioeconomic inequalities. Several districts in the San Jose metropolitan area had high scores for F1 and only medium scores for F2, a pattern that reflected concentration of wealth among the middle and upper classes as well as the existence of slums and shantytowns.

57



The districts in group II account for approximately one-sixth of the country and contain almost half of its population. The level of affluence was much lower than in the districts of group I, because there was a smaller proportion of the very rich and the urban middle class. The level of social well-being, however, was as high, if not higher, possibly because fewer people lived in shantytowns. Located mainly in the central and western parts of the country on the Pacific slope, the districts in group II comprised rural areas and market towns. They included the two principal regions of colonial Spanish settlement. The Central Valley, the core of the colonial province of Costa Rica, has been the principal coffee-producing region of the country since the mid-nineteenth century. The central part of the province of Guanacaste, a lowland region with a tropical dry climate, was an- nexed to Costa Rica from Nicaragua shortly after independence. The tradi- tional, extensive cattle ranching is gradually being replaced by diversified and intensive landuses. On the fringes of these two regions, the districts of group II extend into areas that were colonized by farmers from the Central Valley during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: the upper San Carlos valley to the north of the Central Valley, the upper valley of the Rio General to the south, the western slopes of the Cordillera de Guanacaste, and the western section of the Nicoya Peninsula. During the past two or three decades, the districts in group II received substantial investment of government funds in basic economic infrastructure and social services.

Group III emerged only in the district analysis. The category comprises rural areas and ports in the humid tropical lowlands on the Caribbean coast and the southern Pacific slope, which with one exception were initially colonized as plantation enclaves for the cultivation of bananas. The districts in this group cover approximately 10 percent of the area of the country and account for 7 percent of its population. The districts in the hinterland of Limon on the Caribbean slope were opened by the construction of the Atlantic Railway during the 1870s and 1880s. This hinterland was the principal region of banana production in Costa Rica for a half century until ecological and economic problems led to abandonment of the plantations. After a period of severe economic depression, cultivation of bananas was reestablished on a large scale during the 1950s, and the Caribbean lowlands are once again an important region of production. When the production of bananas declined in the Caribbean hinterland, new enclaves of production were opened on the southern Pacific slope in the hinterlands of Quepos and Golfito. These areas are climatically marginal for bananas, and they have been gradually replaced by other plantation crops, particularly African oil palms, destined for the domestic market. Monteverde, located in the Cor- dillera de Tilaran, is the only district in group III outside the plantation enclaves. Monteverde was settled by North American Quakers during the 1950s; the principal economic activity is production of cheese. All districts in this group are areas of intensive commercial farming. Wages on the

58



banana and oil-palm plantations are among the highest in the agricultural sector and contribute to relatively high scores for F1. The provision of services and amenities in these enclaves was done by the foreign companies that controlled banana production, and investment by the government in social well-being lagged behind the districts in groups I and II.

The districts in group IV occupy more than 70 percent of the area of Costa Rica but have only 16 percent of its population. They are located in the humid tropical lowlands in the north of the country, the rugged Cor- dillera de Talamanca in the southeast, and three small areas on the Pacific slope. These sparsely populated, peripheral regions still retain extensive tracts of natural forest. The surviving Indian population, estimated to number between 15,000 and 20,000, inhabits the lower slopes and valleys of the Cordillera de Talamanca and the plains in the northern part of the country. Colonization by migrants from the center of the country has accelerated in recent decades, but landuse is dominated by extensive cattle ranching and subsistence cultivation. These districts have few roads and no urban centers, so the majority of the population lives in poverty and isolation with no regular access to social services.

Individual locational decisions, taken in the framework of the capitalist market economy, produced a pronounced spatial concentration of affluence as expressed in terms of high incomes and privately purchased goods, services, and amenities. State investment is gradually spreading basic social services and amenities from urban to rural areas and from the center to the peripheries of the country. High levels of social well-being, however, are still confined largely to the old regions of settlement where population den- sities are sufficient for the installation of domestic amenities to be econom- ically viable, and where the network of central places and all-weather roads are adequate to ensure access to basic services. Only 36 percent of the population lives in districts of groups I and III, which have high scores for F1, whereas 77 percent is found in the districts of groups I and II, which have high scores for F2. The districts in groups III and IV with low scores for F2 contain less than one-quarter of the population and more than four-fifths of the territory of Costa Rica.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING

The spatial distributions of affluence and social well-being that were revealed in these factor analyses have important implications for planning. They indicate that sustained investment in economic infrastructure and social services by reformist governments since the late 1940s has significantly countered the trend toward the spatial concentration of affluence. Though not conceived in the framework of comprehensive planning regions, governmental expenditure in education, health, social security, electricity, water supply, and roads improved the social well-being of more than three-quar- ters of the population. The factor analyses also revealed the persistence of

59



pronounced inequalities in socioeconomic development among sectors, regions, and urban and rural areas. Future planning should seek to reduce these inequalities.

The allocation of variables between the two principal factors indicates several important fields of social development that are still correlated with wealth and affluence. Literacy and primary education are widely dispersed, but opportunities for secondary and higher education are concentrated in urban areas in the center of the country. Piped water and electricity are available to the majority of the population, but hygienic sewage disposal is limited. Importantly, the housing variables do not figure in either of the two principal factors. Structurally deficient and overcrowded housing constitutes a major social problem throughout the country. The social variables absent in F2 represent sectors that should receive priority in future governmental expenditures.

The factor analyses confirm the contrast between a relatively developed center and less developed periphery in Costa Rica. The main objective of the incipient regional planning undertaken by the central government since 1975 is to curb growth in the center of the country, particularly in the metropolitan area of San Jose, and to promote development in the peripheral regions. The principal change in the schema of planning regions adopted in 1978 was the elimination of the Central Pacific Region and the extension of the Central Region to include the Pacific lowlands in the hinterland of Puntarenas as well as the Central Valley and adjacent mountain slopes. My investigation suggests that the patterns of spatial inequalities are much more complex than implied by a schema of five or six planning regions. High scores for the variables reflecting affluence, grouped in F1, occurred in frag- mented, predominantly urban areas that together cover less than 2 percent of the Central planning region. On the other hand, most of the Central and Chorotega regions and small parts of the Huetar (North) and Brunca regions registered high scores for the variables reflecting social well-being grouped in F2. There are thus pronounced spatial inequalities not only between but also within the planning regions.

The Central Region emerged clearly as the most developed part of Costa Rica, but there is a sharp distinction between the large urban areas with high scores for both affluence and social well-being and rural areas with low scores for affluence. In the Central Region, planners should aim to raise the level of personal income and affluence for rural residents and among the urban poor who inhabit slums and shantytowns. Achievement of this goal requires the creation of regular, remunerative jobs in all sectors of the economy. In addition, development of new economic activities such as agroindustries, forestry, fishing, and mining in the peripheral regions could attract migrants from the densely settled Central Region, could reverse the current process of centripetal migration to urban areas, and could produce a more balanced distribution of population.

60



Each peripheral planning region contains a relatively developed section comprising districts in groups II and III and a less developed section of districts in group IV. Two basic types of planning are required for development in each peripheral region. The first priority is to improve the level of living in the districts in groups II and III that are fairly intensively settled and register medium-to-high scores for either affluence or social well-being. A projected irrigation scheme for the Tempisque Basin, for example, could convert the central part of the Chorotega Region into one of the most pro- ductive farming zones in the country and could generate high incomes in the agricultural sector. The fishing industry could be greatly expanded, particularly along the Pacific coast, to create new employment in the Chorotega and Brunca regions. Governmental investment in basic services and amenities could raise the level of social well-being in the Huetar (North) and Brunca regions.

Development of districts in group IV is a much more intractable problem, because the current per capita costs of extending the economic infrastructure and social services into these sparsely settled areas are prohibi- tively high. Planners confront the task of identifying the areas in which ecological characteristics and natural resources make them suitable for intensive occupation and then the formulation of projects for comprehensive regional development. The northern plains in the Huetar Region, for example, have considerable potential for agriculture and forestry and could probably support an increased number of persons at higher levels of living than at present. Divided between the Huetar and Brunca regions, the Cor- dillera de Talamanca has abundant timber and mineral resources, but ex- ploitation would need to be carefully controlled in order to protect other resources and the ecosystem of the Indian communities.

It is difficult to assess the results of regional planning in Costa Rica during the past nine years. Because of an economic crisis, the 1983 census was postponed. Most of the data used in the factor analyses are more than a decade old. Socioeconomic statistics quickly become obsolete, particularly in a developing country like Costa Rica, where high rates of population growth and migration, continued agricultural colonization, and shifting landuses produce rapid geographical change. Regional planning would ben- efit from the periodic repetition of factor analyses with a large number of socioeconomic variables and from the allocation of central-government funds for the postponed census. Because my study illustrates the importance of spatial disaggregated data in regional planning, it is hoped that future cen- suses will collect more data at the district level.

CONCLUSIONS

Costa Rica shares with many other countries in the third world a regional structure characterized by a developed core and a less developed periphery. This pattern conforms to the hypotheses advanced about the interrelation-

61



ships between socioeconomic progress and regional inequality. Factor analyses of socioeconomic variables that are meaningful in the context of a developing country revealed two basic dimensions in levels of living and a complex pattern of spatial inequalities in affluence and social well-being. Affluence is concentrated in urban centers in the core of Costa Rica. By contrast, social well-being is diffused among a large proportion of the population. These results suggest that sustained investment by the central government in basic services and amenities over several decades can significantly counter the economic trend toward regional inequality. The transfer of resources constitutes an important mechanism to achieve a balanced regional structure.

The two dimensions of well-being produce wide spatial variations in levels of living. At one extreme, the principal urban areas in the core of the country register high scores for both affluence and social well-being; at the other end, sparse population in peripheral regions has a very low level of living. Between the two extremes are regions of intermediate levels of development with medium-to-high scores for either affluence or social well- being. Behind the simple core-periphery dichotomy lies an intricate pattern of spatial inequalities in socioeconomic well-being with important implications for planning.

62


Article Contentsp.[48]p.49p.50p.51p.52p.53p.54p.55p.56p.57p.58p.59p.60p.61p.62

Issue Table of ContentsGeographical Review, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 1-126Front MatterIntraurban Migration in West German Cities [pp.1-23]Political Violence and Urban Geography in Kingston, Jamaica [pp.24-37]The Sight and Soul of Sophiatown [pp.38-47]Regional Inequalities in Well-Being in Costa Rica [pp.48-62]Malaria in Bangladesh [pp.63-75]Cartographic Strategies for Airline Advertising [pp.76-93]Geographical RecordThe National Atlas of India [pp.94-100]Improving Delivery of Health Care in Bangladesh [pp.100-106]Dhofar [pp.106-109]

Geographical Reviewsuntitled [pp.110-112]untitled [pp.112-114]untitled [pp.114-115]untitled [pp.115-117]untitled [pp.117-119]untitled [pp.119-120]untitled [pp.120-121]untitled [pp.121-122]untitled [pp.123-124]

Abstracts of Articles [pp.125-126]Back Matter

IN COSTA RICA

Documents

Transcript of IN COSTA RICA