3 ms·

Title is a bit over-exaggerative. World is only 80%+ urbanized based on European Commission definitions of city and urbanization standards. Situations differ ba

Title is a bit over-exaggerative. World is only 80%+ urbanized based on European Commission definitions of city and urbanization standards. Situations differ based really on interpretation, specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure. Certain cities that the European Commission include might not have certain core structures like a police station as the article itself pointed out with Egyptian villages that have grown into cities which in turn means that European Commission standards are not comparable to places outside Europe because the living standards etc aren't comparable.

linuskendall 8y ago
In this way it almost seems appropriate to rely on country statistics - sure there may be political motivations to label certain places a certain way, but they are also more likely to capture local variations as to what is considered urban and not. I live in a place that is semi-rural by Indian standards but which definitely qualify as urban by EU standards.
- itsmenotyou 8y ago
  That really depends on what goal you're trying to achieve. If your goals are efficient distribution of aid, or tracking city sustainability across countries, it probably doesn't matter to you what the local variations in the definition of "urban" are.
paganel 8y ago
As the article mentions, a place inhabited by 100,000 people should not be classified as a village only because the local authorities don't have enough money to built a new courthouse and police station. If anything, this only proves the authors of the study right, as in development aid should be re-prioritized to fulfill urban-like needs (i.e. helping build a courthouse and paying the adjacent salaries) instead of continuing pumping money into things like agriculture, pretending that those 100,000 people are in the majority agricultural workers.
coldtea 8y ago
>Title is a bit over-exaggerative. World is only 80%+ urbanized based on European Commission definitions of city and urbanization standards. Situations differ based really on interpretation, specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure. Well, local "specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure" shouldn't matter. We should pick one definition and stick to it, not just consider an 1M people place a "village" just because some country calls its so. What interests us is how many cities etc there are population wise -- not name-wise. Whether they're called "cities" locally is irrelevant if they still function as such for our criteria.

linuskendall 8y ago

In this way it almost seems appropriate to rely on country statistics - sure there may be political motivations to label certain places a certain way, but they are also more likely to capture local variations as to what is considered urban and not. I live in a place that is semi-rural by Indian standards but which definitely qualify as urban by EU standards.

itsmenotyou 8y ago
That really depends on what goal you're trying to achieve. If your goals are efficient distribution of aid, or tracking city sustainability across countries, it probably doesn't matter to you what the local variations in the definition of "urban" are.

paganel 8y ago

As the article mentions, a place inhabited by 100,000 people should not be classified as a village only because the local authorities don't have enough money to built a new courthouse and police station. If anything, this only proves the authors of the study right, as in development aid should be re-prioritized to fulfill urban-like needs (i.e. helping build a courthouse and paying the adjacent salaries) instead of continuing pumping money into things like agriculture, pretending that those 100,000 people are in the majority agricultural workers.

coldtea 8y ago

>Title is a bit over-exaggerative. World is only 80%+ urbanized based on European Commission definitions of city and urbanization standards. Situations differ based really on interpretation, specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure. Well, local "specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure" shouldn't matter. We should pick one definition and stick to it, not just consider an 1M people place a "village" just because some country calls its so. What interests us is how many cities etc there are population wise -- not name-wise. Whether they're called "cities" locally is irrelevant if they still function as such for our criteria.