Urbanization in New Zealand: A Comparative Analysis

Urbanization in New Zealand: A Comparative AnalysisAuthor(s): Campbell GibsonReviewed work(s):Source: Demography, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 71-84Published by: Springer on behalf of the Population Association of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2060751 .

Accessed: 16/12/2012 11:27

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].

.

Springer and Population Association of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Demography.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:27:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=paa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2060751?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


DEMOGRAPHY? Volume 10, Number 1 February 1973

URBANIZATION IN NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Campbell Gibson Population Division, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. 20233

Abstract-This paper attempts to answer several questions about urbanization in New Zealand: (1) How have the paradoxical phenomena of a high level of urbanization and an agriculturally oriented economy coexisted in New Zealand? (2) How do the levels of urbanization in New Zealand and in the other "new countries" of British origin (Australia, Canada, and the United States) compare? (3) Why has New Zealand never had a single dominant metropolis as is commonly found in other countries of its size? (4) How have the sources or urbanization-reclassification, differential natural increase, and migration-influenced the process of urbanization in New Zealand? (5) How has New Zealand's small population affected its urban proportion? (6) What factors underlie the phenomenal rate of urbanization of New Zealand's Maori population during the past generation? The analvsis covers the period from 1861 to 1971.

In the introductory paragraph of The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Cen- tury (1899), Adna Weber noted the striking difference between the levels of urbanization (urban proportions) in Australasia in 1891 (33 percent) and in the United States a century earlier (3 percent). The differential appeared sig- nificant to Weber given their similarities.

The Australia [seven colonies including New Zealand] of to-day has the population of the America [United States] of 1790; it is peopled by men of the same race; it is liberal and progressive and practical; it is a virgin country with un- developed resources; it is to an equal extent, politically and socially independent of European influence (Weber, 1899, p. 1).

In addition Weber compiled data on the level of urbanization around 1890 in a large number of countries, the most highly urbanized of which are included in Table 1. New Zealand is among these countries, even though its "European" (non-Maori) population in 1890 was

small (about 600,000) and sparse (about 6 per square mile) after only a half century of European settlement, and even though the structure of its economy stressed primary production. New Zea- land has remained among the world's most highly urbanized countries up to the present time.

Several questions are investigated in this paper, including the following: (1) How have the paradoxical phenomena of a comparatively high level of urbanization and an agriculturally oriented economy coexisted in New Zea- land? (For example, in 1966, 35 percent of the value of material production by industrial origin was in agriculture in New Zealand compared to 9 percent in the United States [Gibson, 1971, p. 58].) (2) How do the levels of urbanization in New Zealand and in the other "new countries" of British origin (Australia, Canada, and the United States) compare? (3) Why has New Zealand never had a single dominant metropolis as is commonly found in other countries of its

71



72 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 10, number 1, February 1973

TABLE 1.-Urbanization in Selected Countries around 1890

Percentage of Population in Cities Country Year 100o000+ 20, 000+ 10,000+

England and Wales 1891 31.8 53.6 61.7 Scotland 1891 29.8 42.4 49.9 Australiaa 1891 34.8 40.9 44.0 Belgium 1890 17.4 26.1 34.8 Netherlands 1889 16.6 29.3 33.5 Uruguay 1890 30.4 30.4 30.4 Germany 1890 12.1 21.9 28.5 New Zealanda 1891 -- 28.4 28.4 Argentina 1890 16.2 22.8 27.8 United States 1890 15.5 23.8 27.6 France 1891 12.0 21.1 25.9 Denmark 1890 17.3 20.2 23.6 Canada 1891 8.2 14.2 17.1 a - The data for Australia and New Zealand refer to cities and

their suburbs. The comparison in the introductory paragraph refers only to cities. Data for New Zealand exclude Maoris.

b - Estimated from data for cities 5,000-20,000 using the rank-size rule and assuming the product to be constant.

Source: Weber, 1899, pp. 90, 138-146.

size? (4) How have the sources of urbanization-reclassification, differential natural increase, and migration-influenced the process of urbanization in New Zea- land? (5) How has New Zealand's small population affected its urban proportion? (6) What factors underlie the phenomenal rate of urbanization of New Zea- land's Maori population during the past generation?

As these questions imply, the term urbanization is used to refer both to the urban proportion and to an increase in this proportion (Davis, 1965, pp. 40-53). Before the questions posed are consid- ered, basic data are presented on urbanization in New Zealand.

STATISTICS OF URBANIZATION

The urbanization of New Zealand's population from 1861 to 1971 is summarized in Table 2 in which the population is divided into the categories of metropolitan, other urban, and rural. From the 1870's to the present time, the "met-

ropolitan" population of New Zealand has been comprised of the same four cities (and their suburbs) -Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin -even though none attained a population of 100,000, a widely used criterion of metropolitan status, until 1911.

During the past century urbanization has proceeded quite steadily in New Zealand. The process has been broadly based as the number of places with populations of 1,000 and over, referred to here nominally as urban places, has increased substantially, despite the expan- sion of metropolitan areas to include places originally counted separately.

As in other advanced countries, urbanization in New Zealand has been slowest in times of economic depression, most notably during the late 1880's and early 1890's and again during the late 1920's and early 1930's. The rapid urbanization in the 1961-1971 decade is particularly striking, with the 8-percentage point increase in the urban proportion being



Urbanization in New Zealand 73

r-. N cn 0%Lr%Cv % H- H- CO 0ri .HOH U) M a% 04HN- .0

II~~~~JNH0% ~~~~~Or-.H O~~~~~~~r- OOO In-- U)ir- H HH-iN MO0 0% H OH0%C ~~O ~ ~ ~~ H H

HNOO~~~~~~~~~Ln ONO0% 0

0 0% N.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.tNHHN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c; C C ~ c H NHH LrIr-.OOL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ n :r IHON H

m cn r- D N cn % 00 IT I m r.-. N %o N-'Ln OO U

H4 HHir N 00 0 -T -T r'-.

%O r-c')r- %O r%0ONc' 00 00 r-.. P-.a066

Ho 0

HO% L. 0r-4 H

00'4 ; 'O4

4 o 4

1- a.0 0%C')C4 'f'4O00..0C00 40Hr- H 0% U) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~O~~NHHC') ~~~~~0 H

M ~ ~ ~ . ~1uuH-. CUL w CU nco0cr l 0o

H N .0% c.t-.tLf

CU00N~00%~ 0r--CI%0u 0 -tm.0~. H004

H 0o Cn 0-Lt00f".00 H00n - 00i Fn H .000L C -C

0 H A H 0n ntN00Nr' -41

H- .00-t0 0C)% .

'0 O U u *K CU H 0 c n - 0n C4 000I H 0 4 r-I f%'I tf0 NH .0

Z U) 0%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n(Y oV L 0 1 ~~F'~~.C~~~e.4H H'.t 0%.00%I~~~~~~~~~. ~~~ H H

H~~ 0% n 'tNH H%

CUi r- 0 CU 0 c 0o 0% 00' 0 O t .1 '7I- ' 0i' 'rq 00 %~~~~~~~~~~NHH HC~~~~~~~~~~~~) ..tN H HU~~~~~~~~~~~~r 0 C4C4 CU)"4 4

P4 9-4 %0 Ln r-I I r--I--t cn4I . . -IC . . 4 Hi

0' CU 0U0 f%IU0 HJ H 00 0%0N00 10000 C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C~~~IC~~~') Lf~~~~~O ~~~ooo ~~0 .0 C

HILfN0C C% 01%~ %D rH4-4

~~~ 0 %.0%.00%I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~.H o-~~~~~~~~.o 0%HHH~~~~ rI - Hr- . CU 0

co N

HN F

r.-'. '.tN

%H 00 C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NH H%.0 CU U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 %.OO 0; %DoH0% M 0% -.t M Ltn00 -*0 0 -*C

H 0 c~N * M% I I- -: 0P - I?I'rIr-

- n c -I0 0

M cn 04 %D 0 0 0 t0% 0%%

w

00 ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~N - %0 C4 U H0c 4 Dc

r.0 04 H CU 0% 0% 0% 0%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cd 0 0c

0 CUCU 0% CUCU 0% CU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4Ct 04 CCt I%H O CUH0

0% H. 0% H0 0% H0

0% o .04-0Z H H~~~~~~I

Hk Cd I

a H I

HC I '0 0

44 0 . 0 0 0. 00o 0 4 0 0 $4 0 0 HjU4)

O CU~~~~~~0 .~~~~rH CU 4 . 0 rI CU 4 4C0r- .H CU0 ..HC

OX W P

0

0 CU.004-JH S-I .00~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~4j-JH .004-JH 54 01 .0 4.JH 5-4 4 5-4 ad 'J s4o CU 54 0 5-0o C 4-JI-4 0 CU III CU:

E4 E-4J -CCU.0 cl)




greater than at any other time in the preceding century. The rural population, which had declined as a proportion of the total population but had increased numerically up to the census of 1961, declined by 13 percent between 1961 and 1971.

Recent levels of urbanization, given by size of place and type of place, in New Zealand and the other new countries are shown in. Table 3. In compari-

son with New Zealand, Australia is more urbanized on any size criterion. Canada and the United States, though they have higher proportions of their populations living in metropolitan areas than does New Zealand, are less urbanized than New Zealand if the division between urban and rural places is drawn in the 1,000 to 25,000 range. Other highly urbanized countries are not included in Table 3 due to the difficulty of assem-

TABLE 3.-Urbanization in the New Countries around 1970 (Percentage of Population)

United Size and Type New Zealand Australia Canada States

of Place 1966 1971 1966 1966 1970

Size of Placea 1,000,000+ -- 39.4 23.0 34.9

500,000+ 20.5 22.7 52.0 30.0 42.0 250,000+ 31.0 43.1 56.3 40.4 48.1 100,000+ 44.3 47.0 61.7 50.3 55.5 50,000+ 46.7 51.4 63.4 53.0 57.3 25,000+ 58.7 64.0 66.4 56.8 61.2 10,000+ 63.4 67.5 72.2 62.2 66.1 5,000 68.4 72.6 76.2 65.6 70.0 2,500+ 72.8 76.5 79.2 69.9 73.2 1,000 75.1 78.8 82.4 74.3 76.5

Type of Placea Urban 75.1 78.8 82.4 74.3 76.5 Metropolitan 44.3 47.0 61.7 50.3 55.5 Other Urban 30.8 31.8 20.7 24.0 21.1 10,000+ 19.1 20.5 10.5 12.0 10.6 1,000-9,999 11.7 11.3 10.2 12.1 10.4

Rural 24.9 21.2 17.6 25.7 23.5 a - To the extent possible, the data for the other new

countries are comparable to those given for New Zea- land in Table 2. Metropolitan areas of less than 100,000 population have been disaggregated into their component places and remaining population. Data for the United States refer to Urbanized Areas.

Sources: New Zealand. Department of Statistics, 1862-1971; Australia, Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, 1967-1969; Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1967-1969; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972.




bling data in strictly comparable form; however, several of these are as urbanized as, or more urbanized than, New Zealand, including England and Wales, Scotland, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Argentina, and Uruguay. In each of these countries, one-half or more of the population lives in metropolitan areas of 100,000 or more population (Rand McNally, 1972, pp. 598-606).

It is unnecessary here to delve in de- tail into the urban geography of indi-

vidual towns in New Zealand, however, some basic information is presented to round out the statistical coverage of urbanization. The populations from 1861 to 1971 of the four metropolitan areas and of the towns with populations of 25,000 or more at any time during this period are presented in Table 4.

Referring first to the metropolitan areas, their increases between 1881 and 1971, as measured in both absolute and percentage terms, are directly correlated with their locations on a north-south

TABLE 4.-Population of Metropolitan Areas and Large Towns of New Zealand, by Island: 1861-1971 (In Thousands)

Metropolitan Area or Towna 1861b 1881b 1901b 1921b 1951 1971

North Island AucklandC 11 31 67 158 329 649 WellingtonC 4 21 49 107 208 307 Hamilton 1 1 11 30 75 Palmerston North 1 7 16 31 52 Napier 6 9 14 20 40 Wanganui - 5 7 16 27 36 New Plymouth 2 3 4 11 22 34 Rotorua - 4 11 31 Whangerei - 1 4 12 31 Hastings 4 9 17 30 Tauranga - 1 1 2 8 28 Gisborne - 2 3 11 17 27

South Island ChristchurchC 3 31 57 106 174 275 DunedinC 7 43 52 72 95 111 Invercargill 5 6 15 27 47 Nelson 4 7 7 9 17 29 Timaru 4 6 14 21 28

Represents zero or rounds to zero. a - The four metropolitan areas (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch,

and Dunedin) and all towns with populations of 25,000 or more at any census are included.

b - Excludes Maoris. c - Metropolitan populations are those shown in census reports,

-except -that Auckland includes Parnell and Newton electoral dis- tricts in 1861. The Hutt Metropolitan Area, which has been given separately in the census since 1951, is included with Wellington.

Source: New Zealand. Department of Statistics, 1862-1971.




axis. All of the changes in rank among the four metropolitan areas occurred before 1921, reflecting the economic as- cendancy in the 1881-1921 period of the North Island, where the introduction of refrigeration led to the rapid development of the dairy industry and subse- quently of other sectors of the economy (Gibson, 1971, pp. 45-52). The metropolitan hierarchy established by 1921 has undergone little change, with the metropolitan area of Auckland continuing to grow most rapidly and the metropolitan area of Dunedin continuing to grow most slowly. The non-metropolitan cities have exhibited a similar pattern, with those on the North Island typically growing more rapidly than those on the South Island.

PRIMACY AND THE LEVEL OF URBANIZATION

One major distinction between the urban geography of New Zealand and the urban geographies of the twelve other countries mentioned in the preceding section, Israel excepted, is the absence in New Zealand of a megalopolis, defined for present purposes as an urban agglomeration with a population exceed- ing 1,000,000. This is due largely to New Zealand's small total population (about 2.9 million in 1971) since the proportion of New Zealand's population living in its largest metropolitan area (23 percent in 1971) places New Zealand in the modal group of these countries. This percentage is large enough to produce a megalopolis in each of the other countries except Israel and Uruguay, which, like New Zealand, had populations close to three million in 1971.

The fact that Uruguay does have a megalopolis (Montevideo) reflects in large part the geographical differences between Uruguay and New Zealand. Uruguay is two-thirds the size of New Zealand and is roundish in shape-with no point farther than 350 miles from Montevideo. The terrain is largely roll-

ing plains, placing the entire country in Montevideo's hinterland. Montevideo is the focal point of Uruguay's foreign trade, which is similar to New Zea- land's in its heavy reliance upon the export of pastoral products in exchange for manufactured goods. Montevideo is also fairly centrally located along Uruguay's 400-mile coastline, eliminating the need for another major ocean port. In contrast, New Zealand has an inhospitable terrain and a coastline of over 2,500 miles, which has militated against the growth of a single dominant metropolis.

The comparison with Uruguay serves as an introduction to primacy, a topic which concerns the relative sizes of the largest cities of a country rather than its level of urbanization or the proportion of its population living in its largest city, although the phenomena are by no means independent of one another. The factors noted underlying Montevideo's absorption of half of Uruguay's population also help to explain why Uruguay's second largest city is only about one- twentieth the size of Montevideo.

Primacy in New Zealand is perhaps best discussed in comparison with primacy in Australia, given their cultural and technological similarities. Until 1971 the largest metropolitan area in New Zealand had a population less than twice that of the second largest metropolitan area. In 1966, for the first time, the population of New Zealand's largest metropolitan area exceeded that of the second and third combined, a phenomenon which last occurred in Australia in 1871.

While the urban structures of New Zealand and Australia have been characterized by extremely low first-city primacy (Mehta, 1964, p. 141), they were formed under notably different conditions. The calculation of primacy for Australia is of questionable analytic value since the present urban structure was well established by the turn of the century when Australia consisted of seven separate colonies: the five colonies




of the Australian mainland, Tasmania, and New Zealand. In each of the five states of the Australian mainland, the largest metropolitan area has had a population several times larger than the second largest metropolitan area or city throi;ghout the twentieth century. Only Tasmania has been characterized by low first-city primacy among the Australian states.

It could be argued that measures of primacy for New Zealand are equally inadequate since the present metropolitan structure was established during the existence of the provinces (1852-1876) and thus that they are the most relevant areal units in a consideration of primacy; however, the provinces were sub- divisions in a quasi-federal system of government rather than independent political states and, more importantly, were created in response to geographic- ally rooted problems which the sparse population of the 1850's was unable to ameliorate. The proper comparison in a discussion of primacy, then, is among the seven colonies of Australasia (and, if with reference to the twentieth century, then among their political sequels). Several factors pertinent to an analysis of primacy in Australia and New Zea- land have been identified by K. W. Rob- inson (1962, pp. 32-49). The most important of his distinctions underlie the differences noted in the following paragraphs.

In contrast to the mountainous and hilly terrain of New Zealand, Australia is characterized mostly by level terrain that facilitates long distance transport and the creation of extensive hinter- lands, and thus favors the development of a few well-spaced cities.

The leading city in each Australian colony was both capital and chief port and -thus, given the reliance on overseas trade, administrative and financial con- trol were highly concentrated in a situation that tended to be self-perpetuating. In New Zealand, this combination was

never realized as Wellington has a smaller hinterland, particularly as re- gards agriculture.

Railway networks focusing on the capital cities were established early in Australia, due to the level terrain and to the political influence of the cities, thus increasing the ability of these cities to serve the needs of the rural population. In New Zealand, railroad construc- tion was slow, the trunk line from Auckland to Wellington finally being completed in 1908.

Physical conditions in Australia are not conducive to intensive agriculture, and thus rural populations have never been sufficiently large and dense away from the capital cities to support large cities specializing in retail trade and the processing of primary products. In some areas of the North Island of New Zea- land where agriculture is intensive by Australian standards, sizable regional centers are found. Hamilton and Palm- erston North, inland cities in the rich Waikato and Manawatu agricultural regions of the North Island, are the largest cities in New Zealand outside of the four metropolitan areas.

Large scale industry, an important factor in the growth of many metropolises of the Western world, has yet to appear in New Zealand, due partly to its limited mineral endowment. In Aus- tralia, transport facilities and the pres- ence of financial institutions favored the location of industry in the capital cities of the colonies. The major exception to this pattern is Newcastle, Australia's largest non-capital city, where the iron and steel industry is located to take advantage of local coal reserves.

In addition there are a few important factors common to both Australia and New Zealand that have been conducive to high levels of urbanization, irrespec- tive of primacy.

Concentrated settlement, whether in the form of colonies, as advocated by the New Zealand Company (which spon-




sored the first English settlement in New Zealand), or in the form of convict communities, as existed in the early history of Australia, was nearly universal in the early histories of the two countries. Dispersal followed because of im- practical aspects in these schemes and because of the lure of gold deposits and pastoralism; however, the leading towns were able to maintain their importance as the colonies developed, due partly to the urban background of the majority of the British who emigrated to Aus- tralasia in the second half of the nineteenth century.

The economies of Australia and New Zealand have been conducive to high urbanization due to the importance of pastoralism and to the reliance upon overseas trade. Pastoralism, an extensive form of agriculture, has not demanded large amounts of farm labor as land and capital inputs have received greater emphasis than in most other countries. Land has been abundant historically, and Australia and New Zealand have been in the forefront in the mechaniza- tion of agriculture. The high per capita value of foreign trade in the two countries appears to have led to the greater growth of several coastal cities for their port functions than would otherwise have been the case.

Finally, the high levels of urbanization in Australia and New Zealand are attributable in part to the near absence of "rural inertia." There is inevitably a lag or disparity between the actual distribution of population and an optimum distribution indicated by a set of economic factors because the optimum itself is continually changing and because economic factors alone do not determine population distribution. From early in the British histories of Australia and New Zealand, agricultural production was intended mainly for export, not for subsistence, and thus outdated agricultural techniques seldom survived. In New Zealand excess rural population has

been largely eliminated except among the Maoris, and this latter situation is changing rapidly. In Canada and in the United States, areas of "rural inertia" still exist (e.g., Quebec, Appalachia and the Deep South).

SOURCES OF URBANIZATION

In the preceding sections of this paper, a number of geographical, historical, and economic factors pertinent to urbanization in New Zealand were indicated. Another dimension in the analysis of urbanization concerns the sources through which underlying factors, such as those noted above, operate to bring about changes in the level of urbanization.

While there are only three possible sources of urbanization-reclassification, differential natural increase, and migration (which can be subdivided into internal migration and international migration)-they have not all been important in the process of urbanization as it has occurred in Western countries. Kings- ley Davis (1965, pp. 44-45) has noted that reclassification has been of minor importance, that differential natural increase by itself invariably would have resulted in de-urbanization, and that internal migration (in the form of rural- urban migration) has been the dominant source of urbanization. Of these generalizations only the one concerning differential natural increase appears to have been applicable to New Zealand throughout its history, although even here the evidence is not conclusive.

The areal units for which vital statistics were tabulated in New Zealand prior to the 1920's do not permit the calculation of rates of natural increase in the urban and rural populations. In addition the contribution of migration to urbanization in New Zealand prior to the 1920's cannot be quantified because the requisite data are not available. Thus for this period the effect of



Urbanizatlon In Now Zealand 79

reclassification and the combined effect of differential natural increase and migration on urbanization can be deter- mined while the effect of migration alone is a topic for conjecture.

In each of the six decades from 1861 to 1921, the urban proportion of the New Zealand population increased (Ta- ble 2); however, during each of the first four decades of this period, the proportion of the population in places classified as urban at the beginning of the decade remained virtually unchanged or declined. From 1861 to 1901 the number of places with populations of 1,000 or more increased from 8 to 52. Thus, urbanization during these four decades was due entirely to the net reclassification of 44 places as urban. Between 1901 and 1911 the urban proportion increased from 47 percent to 54 percent; however, reclassification accounted for only half of the percentage-point increase. Since 1911 reclassification has been an un- important source of increased urbanization in New Zealand.

Because reclassification accounted for the entire increase in the urban proportion in New Zealand up to 1901, the combined effect of differential natural increase and migration was negligible. Thus, to whatever extent the rate of natural increase may have been greater in the rural population than in the urban population, the effect was counterbalanced by migration. While the fer- tility of women was higher in rural areas than in urban areas, a greater proportion of the urban population than of the rural population was comprised of females in the childbearing ages. This situation and the fact that there is no evidence of a sizable urban-rural differential in mor- tality in New Zealand in the nineteenth century suggest that whatever urban- rural differential in natural increase existed was small (Newman and Frank- land, 1882, pp. 493-510). Thus the counterbalancing effect of migration on the urban proportion during the nine-

teenth century must also have been small.

While reclassification accounted for all of the increase in the level of urbanization in the 1861-1901 period and for half of the increase in the 1901-1911 decade, the extent of reclassification was due in large part to international migration, which was thus an important in- direct source of urbanization during this span. The high rate of immigration to New Zealand during these years was a major factor in New Zealand's rapid rates of population growth and economic development, which in turn led to the rapid increase in the number of urban places. Between 1861 and 191 1, when New Zealand's European (non-Maori) population increased from 99,000 to 1,008,000, net migration to New Zealand was about 383,000 (Gibson, 1971, Ap- pendix B).

Since at least 1921, when vital statistics in New Zealand were first published separately for the urban and rural populations, the rate of natural increase has been higher in rural areas than in urban areas. This situation has been due in part to the greater similarity of urban and rural sex ratios than existed during the late nineteenth century. Since 1911, international migration has contributed much less to New Zealand's rate of population growth than in the preceding half century, and thus in contrast to the earlier period has not contributed measurably to urbanization by reclassification.

It seems likely that since 1921, and possibly since 1911, the effect of differential natural increase on urbanization has been roughly counterbalanced by reclassification and that internal migration has accounted for virtually the entire increase in the urban proportion in New Zealand. Thus the generalizations noted concerning the sources of urbanization in Westem countries, while not applicable to New Zealand during the late nineteenth century, provide an accurate




description of the sources of urbanization in New Zealand during most of the twentieth century.

URBANIZATION AND POPULATION SIZE AND GROWTH

In the preceding sections of this paper, urbanization has been discussed in terms of its underlying factors and sources. A third perspective merits attention, particularly in the case of New Zealand: the relation of population size and the rate of population growth to urbanization.

The level of urbanization is typically defined as the proportion of the population living in places of a certain minimum size. While this definition is useful for certain purposes, it is unsatisfactory to the extent that the level of urbanization is taken as a measure of nucleation or to the extent that an increase in the urban proportion is taken to imply increased nucleation. The discrepancies tend to be greatest in a population that is small and growing rapidly, character- istics which describe New Zealand's population in comparison with the populations of other advanced countries during the past century.

It may be noted, for example, that a substantially larger proportion of Aus- tralia's population (62 percent in 1966) than of New Zealand's population (44 percent in 1966) lives in metropolitan areas (Table 3); however, it could be argued that this is largely a function of population size. New Zealand, with a population roughly one-quarter that of Australia, had 59 percent of its population living in places of 25,000 and over (one-quarter metropolitan size and over). If the population in each place increases at the national rate so that there is no further concentration of population, then a quadrupling of the population will increase the metropolitan population to 59 percent of the total, yielding a total population and degree of metropolitanization nearly identical to those in Australia in 1966.

The limitations of urbanization as a measure of nucleation are shown sys- tematically in Table 5, which gives the level of urbanization for various population sizes and definitions of urban, assuming, for purposes of illustration, that the largest city has 10 percent of the population and that the cities are distributed according to the simplest formulation of the rank-size rule where the product of a city's rank and size equals a constant. The assumptions do not fit the urban structure in any country for a prolonged period; however, they are of didactic value, and in fact the model provides an excellent approxi- mation of urban structure in New Zea- land from 1861 to 191 1, as shown in Table 5.

Comparison of the model with data for New Zealand indicates that from 1861 to 1911 increasing urbanization can be accounted for by increasing population size, using the definition of urban of 1 ,000 or more population. This obser- vation provides an illustration of the perspectives provided by two different approaches to urbanization. It was noted earlier that virtually the entire increase in the urban proportion in New Zealand from 1861 to 1911 was due, in terms of the sources of urbanization, to reclassification. Thus, while reclassification pro- duced a substantial increase in the urban proportion (from 34 percent to 54 percent), it did not simultaneously produce any increase in the concentration of the population.

The trend toward concentration in cities of 10,000 or more population, which commenced in the 1881-1911 period, has accelerated since 1911 and has manifested itself at the metropolitan level as well. Until 1911 the number of places of 1,000 or more population increased at the same rate as population in accordance with the assumptions in- corporated into the model; however, since 1911 the rate of increase in the number of urban places has slowed con-




TABLE 5.-Urbanization and Population Size

Minimum Urban Size 100,000+ 10,000+ 1,000+

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage of of of of of of

Total Population Places Population Places Population Places Population

Model 100,000 1 10.0 10 29.3 250,000 2 15.0 25 38.2 500,000 5 22.8 50 45.0

1,000,000 1 10.0 10 29.3 100 51.9 2,500,000 2 15.0 25 38.2 250 61.0 5,000,000 5 22.8 50 45.0 500 67.9

10,000,000 10 29.3 100 51.9 1,000 74.9 25,000,000 25 38.2 250 61.0 2,500 84.0 50,000,000 50 45.0 500 67.9 5,000 90.9

100,000,000 100 51.9 1,000 74.9 10,000 97.9

New Zealand 99,021 (1861)a 1 10.6 8 33.8

256,393 (1871)a 3 19.9 20 37.4 489,933 (1881)a 4 25.5 37 42.0

1,008,468 (1911)a 1 10.2 9 37.1 75 53.8 2,414,984 (1961) 4 42.4 21 59.0 112 71.0

a - Excludes Maoris. Source: Table 2.

siderably as urban population growth has been increasingly concentrated in the larger cities.

Table 5 shows that a ten-fold difference in population between two countries in which the populations are equally concentrated accounts for a substantial proportion, about 20 percentage points in the model given, of the urbanization differential. Thus the high level of urbanization in New Zealand, with its small population, is noteworthy. Con- versely, the increase in urbanization in New Zealand during the past century, using any definition of urban, is not as striking as a similar increase in another advanced country since a smaller increase in concentration of population is implied in New Zealand with its roughly twenty-fold population increase. During the same century the population of the other new countries increased five to ten fold, while populations in the advanced countries of Europe typically doubled or tripled.

MAORI URBANIZATION

The analysis of urbanization in New

Zealand is concluded with a discussion of the Maori population, which consti- tutes about 8 percent of New Zealand's population and which has experienced a phenomenal rate of urbanization during recent decades. In 1936 only 3 percent of the Maori population of 82,000 lived in the four metropolitan areas and only 10 percent lived in places of 1,000 and over. By 1971, when the Maori population had increased to 223,000, these proportions were 29 percent and 65 percent, respectively. Thus, in 35 years the Maori population has moved from a level pf urbanization characteristic of the least developed countries to a level found in a number of economically advanced countries.

The speed of Maori urbanization is perhaps most effectively shown in comparison with the urbanization of another subpopulation constituting a racial minority: the American Negro. The Negro and white populations in the United States were about equally urbanized in 1820. The white population urbanized more rapidly until 1910, as measured by the percentage-point increase, since




which time the Negro population has urbanized more rapidly, surpassing the white population in proportion urban by 1950. Yet despite the speed with which Negro urbanization has occurred, it has not been nearly as rapid as Maori urbanization, as the comparative data in Table 6 illustrate. To this writer's knowledge the urbanization of the Maori population since 1936 has been more rapid than the urbanization of any national population or of any other sizable ethnic subpopulation at any time in history. In this regard it may be noted that the rapid urbanization of a predom- inantly rural ethnic minority is facili- tated by its location in a country that is already highly urbanized.

The Negro population historically has had low social status in American so-

ciety; however, it has been integrated economically in the sense that, both during the time of slavery and subse- quently, the Negro population has been highly dependent upon the white population for employment and the white population frequently has relied on the Negro population for semi-skilled and unskilled labor. Given these ties, it is understandable that the urban-rural distributions of the two populations have not diverged as greatly as the urban- rural distributions of the Maori and European populations in New Zealand.

In contrast, the Maori population never suffered the stigma of legalized slavery. Despite extensive trade with the Europeans during New Zealand's early colonial history, the Maoris retained a strong sense of independence and cul-

TABLE 6.-Urbanization of the Maori and American Negro Populations, 1820-1971 (Percentage of Population)

United States New Zealand Year Totala White Negro Year Maori

Places 10,000+

1820 4.6 4.6 4.3b 1936 4.8 1850 12.1 13.3 5.7b 1880 21.6 23.4 10.4 1951 14.4 1910 37.1 39.2 20.7 1961 25.8

Urban (2,500+)

1910 46.3 48.7 27.4 1951 17.7 1920 51.4 53.4 34.0 1961 35.2 1930 56.2 57.6 43.7 1940 56.5 57.7 48.6 1950 64.0 62.4 64.3 1971 61.0 1960 69.9 69.5 73.2 1970 73.5 72.4 81.3

a - Includes a small proportion of persons neither white nor Negro.

b - All persons other than white, 1820 and 1850. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1821-1972. New Zealand.

Department of Statistics, 1862-1971.



Urbanization In New Zealand 83

tural pride. After the "native wars" of the 1860's, the Maoris did not become a subordinate element in New Zealand's European society, but rather their alien- ation manifested itself in geographic (rural) isolation. An increased rate of population growth, the lack of opportu- nity for advancement in agriculture, and the demand for labor in the cities in the late 1930's initiated a wave of rural- urban migration among the Maori population that has continued at an accelerated pace and which shows no signs of slowing (Metge, 1967, pp. 61-71).

SUMMARY

The answers to the questions posed in the introductory section are summarized below:

(1) Despite the importance of agriculture in its economy, New Zealand has been among the world's most highly urbanized countries during the past century. Pastoralism has required low inputs of labor while New Zealand's de- pendence on agricultural exports has virtually eliminated "rural inertia."

(2) New Zealand is less urbanized than Australia using any criterion of uiban. Canada and the United States, though they have higher proportions of their populations living in metropolitan areas than does New Zealand, are less urbanized than New Zealand if the division between urban and rural places is drawn in the 1,000 to 25,000 range.

(3) New Zealand's urban structure has been characterized by a low level of first-city primacy. This has been due largely to a combination of geographical factors (New Zealand's elongated shape and rough terrain), historical factors (the separation of administrative and financial functions), and economic factors (the lack of heavy industry, such as that which spurred the growth of Australian metropolises) .

(4) The increase in the urban proportion in New Zealand up to 1911 was due almost entirely to reclassification. In

contrast, rural-urban migration has been the leading source of urbanization in most Western countries. Since 1911, migration has been nearly the sole source of urbanization in New Zealand as well.

(5) A model of urbanization and population size indicates that New Zea- land's high urban proportion is particularly noteworthy because of the high degree of nucleation implied given New Zealand's small total population. At the same time the high rate of population growth in New Zealand up to 1911 per- mitted a substantial increase in the urban proportion without any increase in the concentration of the population.

(6) The urbanization of the Maori population was delayed until the late 1930's when demographic and economic factors stimulated rural-urban migration. Since then Maori urbanization has occurred at a rate perhaps more rapid than that of any national population or other sizable ethnic subpopulation in history.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not neces- sarily represent the views of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The comments of the referees and the assistance of Jean Marsh are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES Australia. Commonwealth Bureau of Census

and Statistics. 1967-1969. Census of the Com- monwealth of Australia: 1966. Census Bul- letins 1-9.

Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 1967- 1969. Census of Canada: 1968. Vol. I and Bulletin S-3.

Davis, Kingsley. 1965. The Urbanization of the Human Population. Scientific American 213(3) :41-53.

Gibson, Campbell. 1971. Demographic History of New Zealand. Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, University of California.

Mehta, Surinder K. 1964. Some Demographic and Economic Correlates of Primate Cities: A Case for Revaluation. Demography 1:136- 147.

Metge, Alice Joan. 1967. The Maoris of New Zealand. New York: Humanities Press.

Newman, Alfred K., and F. W. Frankland.




1882. Is New Zealand a Healthy Country? -An Enquiry. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 15:493-510.

New Zealand. Department of Statistics. 1862- 1971. Population Censuses from 1861 to 1971.

Rand McNally. 1972. Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide. New York: Rand Mc- Nally & Co.

Robinson, K. W. 1962. Processes and Patterns of Urbanisation in Australia and New Zea- land. New Zealand Geographer 18:32-49.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1821-1972. Popu- lation Censuses from 1820 to 1970.

Weber, Adna. 1899. The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Mac- millan Co.



Urbanization in New Zealand: A Comparative Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Urbanization in New Zealand: A Comparative Analysis