What are the problems in the process of industrialization and urbanization in China?

In the history of industrialization and urbanization, the 20th century is undoubtedly a very important period. Industrialized and urbanized countries have achieved certain economic growth at the same time, but also sacrificed certain social development, such as environmental deterioration, excessive greenhouse gas emissions, and widening gap between the rich and the poor, which makes those gorgeous growth figures look bleak. In particular, the word "slum", which is called "scenery" by tourists who have just arrived in some countries that have just explored industrialization and urbanization, is so dazzling in the eyes of scholars engaged in social and economic research. Because there are profound contradictions hidden behind it, conflicts that are incompatible with economic growth have been formed. This paper attempts to explain the urbanization problems of Latin American countries revealed by "farmers' cities" from the perspective of rural labor mobility, thus alluding to the shortcomings of Chinese mainland's current industrialization and urbanization.

First, the phenomenon: urbanization and anti-urbanization

People can see that after the Second World War, with Latin American countries generally embarking on the road of industrialization and agricultural modernization, the urbanization of Latin America has also entered a climax. 1950, the urban population in Latin America (more than 20,000 urban residents belong to the urban population) accounted for 4 1.6% of the total population, and reached 65.6% in 1980, which was close to the level of urbanization in Europe. (Su Zhenxing: Development Model and Social Conflict: A Perspective of Social Problems in Latin American Countries, Contemporary World Press, 200 1 Edition, p. 127) According to the latest data in the Statistical Yearbook of Latin America and the Caribbean in 2002, the proportion of urban population in Argentina to the total population in 2000 was 89.6%, while that in Brazil was 79.9%. By 20 10, it is estimated that the urban population ratio of the above four countries will be: Argentina 9 1.4%, Brazil 83. 1%, Mexico 78.8% and Uruguay 93.7%. In fact, so far, Mexico City (654.38+064 million), Buenos Aires, Argentina (654.38+038.7 million), Sao Paulo, Brazil (654.38+030 million) and Rio de Janeiro (654.38+000 million) are among the largest cities in the world. Generally speaking, urbanization is a historical process characterized by the migration and concentration of rural population to cities, which is not only manifested in the changes of people's geographical position and occupation, but also in the evolution of lifestyle and consumption behavior, and this process is accompanied by intangible changes in spirit, culture and concept. In a sense, the history of human civilization is also a history of urban development and urbanization. However, while urbanization allows human beings to enjoy industrial civilization, it also suffers from "urban disease". Poverty, housing shortage, insufficient water supply, traffic congestion and environmental pollution are threatening the normal life and health of urban residents. Especially in developing countries, the demonstration effect of global rapid urbanization has accelerated the prevalence of this "urban disease". In fact, reverse urbanization still exists in Latin American countries, that is to say, it is an out-of-control urbanization process. Many scholars who study urbanization in Latin America point out that the spatial expansion of cities is faster than the population expansion. The main reason is that due to the increase in the number of immigrants and the rise in urban land prices and living costs, more and more low-income classes (absolute. Most of them are composed of surplus labor transferred from rural areas) began to migrate, from humble residences relatively close to the city center to the surrounding areas of the city, and gradually formed large slums around the city. This is very different from the anti-urbanization of western developed countries that pay attention to ecological model in recent years. In developed countries, some middle-and high-income classes gradually give up the city center and move to the suburbs with low population density. For example, in Japan, with the improvement of the national economic level, the difference between urban and rural areas has almost been eliminated, the living conditions in rural areas are not worse than those in cities, and rural areas have more advantages in housing area and air quality, so there are "long-distance office workers" who go to work in Tokyo during the day and return to Chiba, Saitama and Kanagawa at night. Therefore, these are two kinds of reverse urbanization with completely different meanings. In developed countries, the pursuit of quality of life is a choice, while in Latin American countries, the marginalization of low-income groups is a helplessness.

Second, the reason: a model and a resultant force.

It is impossible to avoid Arthur Lewis's "dual economic model" when studying the economic development theory of developing countries. In the book "The Theory of Dual Economy", he first assumed the dual economy prevalent in developing countries, namely, the traditional subsistence agriculture sector and the modern capitalist sector. Because the capitalist sector reinvests the surplus in the formation of new capital, it expands and absorbs more people to work in the capitalist sector from subsistence agriculture. Surplus is increasing, so is capital formation, and this process will continue until the surplus labor force disappears. Although the main task of Lewis model is to explain the economic development process of developing countries, he provides two ideas for the transfer of rural labor force. The first is the industrial transfer of labor. Lewis believes that in the dual economic model, the key to economic development is that capitalists reinvest surplus value in the production process, not consumption. Only the industrialist class can do this faithfully. In this way, with the continuous progress of economic development, most of the whole social labor force flows from the traditional and self-sufficient agricultural sector to the modern industrial sector. In this sense, the Lewis model attributes the economic development process of developing countries to industrialization. The second is the regional transfer of labor force. According to Lewis's understanding, the traditional and self-sufficient agricultural sectors are all distributed in rural areas, while the advanced and modern capitalist sectors are all established in cities. With the continuous expansion of capital formation, the surplus agricultural labor force has been transferred to modern industrial sectors, and at the same time, the migration of rural population to cities has been realized. In this sense, Lewis regards solving the problem of economic development in developing countries as a problem of urbanization of rural population. When the surplus labor force in the rural sector is absorbed by the urban sector, the wages in the agricultural sector rise, the unlimited supply of labor disappears, and the labor force is rationally allocated in agriculture and industry, rural areas and cities. On the basis that industrialization and urbanization have reached a reasonably high level, the economic development of the whole country has started a new historical development stage with the level of modernization.

The dual economic characteristics of Latin American countries are also very obvious, not only between rural areas and cities, but also within agriculture. At the same time, due to the high natural growth rate of rural population, there is a large surplus of rural labor force. Therefore, the surplus labor force first flows from the traditional agricultural sector to the commodity agricultural sector in rural areas, and then flows from rural areas to cities, and finally completes the rapid urbanization process that is incompatible with the economic development stage, which we call "farmers' cities". In this process, there is always a joint force to play a role in the rural surplus labor force.

The deviation of agricultural modernization mode forms "centrifugal force". As early as the early postwar period, Latin American countries formed two opinions on the agricultural modernization model. One school thinks that the core problem of agriculture is distribution, and to solve this problem, it is necessary to realize the large-scale transfer of agricultural resources from one social group to another through profound social changes. In other words, this school advocates large-scale land reform. Another school thinks that agricultural modernization can't hurt anyone and should take the road of technological change. (ibid., p. 1 12) The opposition of views reflects the opposition between different class interest groups in Latin American countries. Its profound root is the highly centralized land ownership formed by Latin American countries in history. This unreasonable land ownership structure is manifested in large manors with plantations, manors and pastures, a large number of small manors, and some middle-sized landlords and tenants. As an important part of the ruling class in Latin American countries, large real estate owners' groups have always enjoyed great political power and can exert influence on the government's decision-making. This determines that the agricultural modernization of Latin American countries is biased towards the second mode, that is, while basically maintaining the original land ownership, it is carried out through slow technological changes. Although some Latin American countries carried out land reforms in different degrees in the 1950s and 1970s, except for Cuba's two land reforms in May 1959 and June 1963, which wiped out the rural manor system and the rich peasant economy, the other reforms were partial and the results were limited. In this way, under the impetus of modern market economy, large and medium-sized farming and animal husbandry business units have gradually changed from traditional management mode to modern capitalist management mode. At the same time, in the process of continuing to implement the import substitution industrialization model, the status of exporting raw materials and primary products has been continuously strengthened, which has further stimulated the enthusiasm of enterprises for large-scale operation. Some of these large and medium-sized entrepreneurs are the original big property owners, and the other part are domestic or foreign capitalists who invest in agriculture and animal husbandry. They formed a powerful pressure group in China, and seized a large number of preferential policies in terms of agricultural product prices, agricultural credit and technical assistance. Their rise has accelerated the differentiation of small and medium-sized agricultural enterprises, making the agricultural sector gradually form a long-term coexistence of modern enterprises and traditional farmer enterprises engaged in self-sufficient production. Under this mode of agricultural modernization, the flow of rural labor force presents the following two characteristics: First, a considerable number of landless workers who rely on short-term jobs have formed a reserve force for modern agricultural enterprises to hire labor. However, the modern agricultural enterprises in Latin America did not have the potential of Chinese township enterprises to absorb rural surplus labor in the1980s. Because of its seasonal and temporary employment characteristics, this reserve army moves in rural areas all the year round, even across borders, and they cannot obtain stable work and living security. Second, it triggered a spontaneous migration from rural areas to cities. According to statistics, during the period of 1950- 1960, 42% of the increase in rural population in Latin America flowed into cities; During the period of 1960- 1970, this proportion rose to 58%. In the early 1950s, the rural population flowing into cities was less than 6.5438+0 million per year, and in the 1970s, it exceeded 2 million per year. (quoted from Economic Development in Latin America, edited by Su Zhenxing, Economic Management Press, 2000, p. 88)

The level of urban industrialization forms a "centripetal force". The major cities in Latin America were all formed during the colonial period. Except Mexico City, which was naturally formed on the basis of the development of primitive Indian agricultural society, other cities were "supplied in advance" by the European suzerain, especially Spain, for the purpose of strengthening political rule. Only after the political, military, religious and other ruling institutions and their corresponding ruling groups and ruled groups were concentrated in these cities did the demand for economic functions "follow". Therefore, there is a congenital defect in the layout structure of Latin American cities-unbalanced regional development, which was further confirmed in the late industrialization period. The concentration of urban population in the capital has become a common phenomenon in Latin American countries. According to World Bank statistics, in 1980, 56% of Haiti's urban residents were concentrated in the capital Port-au-Prince; 44% of urban residents in Chile are concentrated in Santiago; The population of the capitals of Argentina and Uruguay accounts for 45% and 52% of their urban population respectively. (ibid., page 89) The explosive growth of urbanized population is mainly due to the following reasons: First, the rapid expansion of early industrialization created the demand for labor. Whether it is the formation of the domestic industrial market and infrastructure construction driven by the primary product production department before 1929, or the import substitution industrialization caused by the decline or insufficient growth of the export department after the great capitalist crisis in the 1930s, the concentration of labor force in cities has played a powerful supporting role. Second, the population is growing too fast. A statistical data shows that the urban population in Europe increased from 40% to 60% of the total population during the period of 1920- 1970, that is, it took 50 years; In Latin America, the urban population increased from 40% to 60% in the 25 years from 1955- 1980. The population growth rate of Latin America in these 25 years is 1 times higher than that of Europe in the above 50 years. (quoted from Su Zhenxing: "Development Model and Social Conflict: A Perspective of Social Problems in Latin American Countries", Contemporary World Press, 200 1, p. 13 1 page) Third, urban employment opportunities, sound infrastructure and sound social services have formed a beautiful "psychological expectation" for rural surplus labor. Because workers are also rational people, as long as the expected income from entering the city is greater than the sum of the income from agricultural production and the migration cost, they will make a decision to flow to the city. They believe that even if they live in urban slums, their living standards and quality are higher than those in rural areas.

To sum up, under the combined effect of centrifugal force and centripetal force, rural surplus labor force will enter cities in disorder on a large scale, and this process is undoubtedly too fast and too fierce in Latin American countries.