Urbanization, Technology, and the Division of Labor: International Patterns Author(s): Jack P. Gibbs and Walter T.

Martin Reviewed work(s): Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, No. 5 (Oct., 1962), pp. 667-677 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089624 . Accessed: 21/03/2012 15:04
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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

URBANIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND DIVISION OF LABOR international relations and read C. Wright Mills' The Causes of World War III. The results were even more striking than in the first pilot study. The students acquired a more informed image of war, and a greater concern with it as a problem. Moreover, some 85% showed an increase in scores on the nuclear knowledge scale, and over 90% showed an increase in scores on the pacifism scale. Clearly, under the circumstances of the pilot studies, knowledge and sophistication were associated with rejection of war rather than acceptance of it.28
28An interestingdifferencewas noted in the effects of the stimuli used in the two pilot studies. "Communityof Fear" resulted in marked changes in attitudes on those items of the pacifism scale evaluating the threat of war (for example, the percentagewho agreed that "the real enemy today is no longer Communismbut rather war itself" increasedfrom 55 to 90 per cent). Agreementwith nonmilitary solutions to international problems (items 2, 3, and 7) did not increase,but tended to

667

These pilot studies are necessarily inconclusive, although the results are consistent with the interpretation that it is not knowledge, interest, and sophistication per se that are associated with acceptance of war, but rather the nature of the information which is readily available. Information garnered from the mass media seems to contribute to acceptance of war, but when the subjects are presented with data and viewpoints ordinarily neglected by the mass media, increased information may have the opposite effect.
decrease, presumably because of a general despair over any solution to the problem of war (a sentiment which many subjects expressed). The Millslecture stimulus resulted in comparable changes in the items evaluating the threat of war, and also in a marked increase in the acceptance of nonmilitary solutions to international problems. For example, the percentage agreeing with item 2the U. S. should take unilateral initiatives in disarmament-increased from 13 to 78 per cent.

URBANIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR: INTERNATIONAL PATTERNS *

JACK

P.

GIBBS

WALTER

T.

MARTIN

University of Texas

University of Oregon

The present paper reports tests of several propositions linking the degree of urbanization, the division of labor, the dispersion of objects of consumption, and the level of technological development. The propositions provide a basis for deducing a direct relationship between urbanization and dispersion of objects of consumption. The propositions were tested with data for 45 countries. The percentage of' the population residing in metropolitan areas was used as a measure of urbanization, an original measure of the diversification of industry was used as a gauge of division of labor, the per capital consumption of energy was taken as a measure of technological development, and an original measure of the dispersion of external resources was utilized. The degree of relationship was measured by the coefficient of rankdifference correlation. Positive results were obtained for all tests of the propositions.

IN

a previous paper1 the authors ad- nation. A series of tests based on pre-World vanced a theory which links the degree War II data yielded strong supporting eviof urbanizationin a society to the spatial dence.2 dispersion of objects consumed by the popu* Revision of a paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D. C., 1962. Certain portions of the research reported here were made possible by support from the Office of Scientific and Scholarly Research, University of Oregon, and the Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas. 1Jack P. Gibbs and Walter T. Martin, "Ur-

banization and Natural Resources: A Study in Organizational Ecology," American Sociological Review, 23 (June, 1958), pp. 266-277. 2 Additional tests for a larger number of countries and with improved measures of urbanization and dispersion of resources also provided strong support. See Walter T. Martin, "Urbanization and National Power to Requisition External Resources." (Scheduled for publication in Pacific Sociological Review, 5 [Fall, 1962]).

668

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW colloquially, one does not take coal to Newcastle. It is this exchange among different geographical areas of a society that forms one dimension of the division of labor. The very fact of exchange means that different objects are being produced. This is a basic factor in occupational differentiation. Further division of labor is suggested by the fact that movement of materials necessitates the development of specialized occupations related to transportation and communication. The movement of materials also requires the establishment of commercial institutions and related occupations to facilitate the exchange. In addition, the flow of raw materials often calls for processing to reduce their bulk or to preserve them. This activity forms the basis for numerous occupations and industries. In each of these instances, the development of specialized occupations and industries goes hand in hand with technological advances. The development of specialized occupations and industries, for whatever reason, leads to the use of greater varieties and amounts of raw materials. On a probabilistic basis, this makes for a greater dispersion of objects of consumption. Moreover, occupational specialization plays a major role in the creation of new objects of consumption. For example, unlike certain food items, rubber in its raw state is relatively useless. However, given occupational specialization and a certain type of technological system, raw rubber can be processed and put to many uses, and it is sought over the world as a consequence. Still another considerationis the fact that differentkinds of raw materials may be combined in a way that increases the demand for each. Thus, the automobile has increased the demand for both rubber and steel. As a consequence, these materials travel great distances between their raw material states and points of acceptance as parts on an automobile. Such combinations, needless to say, are not possible without an elaborate division of labor and an advanced technology. Most of what has been said about the relationship of internal dispersion to technology and occupational specialization applies equally well to external dispersion. The establishment of trade with countries

The theory does not assume a simple cause and effect relationship; on the contrary, it recognizes that a high degree of urbanization depends on widely scattered materials and represents the type of spatial organization necessary for acquiring them. The present paper seeks to identify those factors which underlie both urbanization and the dispersionof objects of consumption. It is helpful to begin by recognizing that a city, as a large population settled in a small area, cannot possibly develop, within its own limits, the materials necessary for its inhabitants to survive. Stated otherwise, a city depends on the acquisition of objects of consumption originating outside of its boundaries. However, as we shall see, it is only through the division of labor and an advanced technology that a population is able to bring material from great distances. It is in this particular connection that the relationship between urbanization and the spatial dispersion of objects of consumption can best be understood. For if large-scale urbanization requires that materials be brought from great distances, and if a high degree of division of labor and technological development are necessary for this, then the level of urbanization is contingent, at least in part, on the division of labor and technology.
DISPERSION OF OBJECTS OF CONSUMPTION, OF LABOR, AND

DIVISION

LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY

For purposes of discussion two types of dispersion of objects of consumption are distinguished. The degree of "internal dispersion" in a society refers to the average distance between the points of origin of raw materials and the points at which the materials are consumed, with both points being within the society's boundaries. The degree of "external dispersion," on the other hand, is the average distance between the points when the origin is outside the society. A high degree of internal dispersion immediately suggests that the society is characterized by territorial specialization and a certain minimal level of technology. As a rule, objects are not imported unless they are derived from raw materials that are not a natural resource of the area. Speaking

URBANIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND DIVISION OF LABOR throughout the world requires, as a rule, the production and processing of a variety of different objects for exchange. Even if a country can establish extensive trade relations on the basis of one natural resource, it is still necessary to have transportation, communication, and commercial industries to process the export and handle the flow of imports. The line of reasoning pursued in the earlier paper led to the following proposition: The degree of urbanizationin a society varies directly with the dispersion of objects of consumption.3 This generalization, even when strongly supported by empirical data, does not explain the relationship. However, the additional observations expressed above generate four propositions which link urbanization to dispersion. In propositions IA and IB the division of labor serves as the connecting link: IA. The degree of urbanization in a society varies directly with the division of labor; IB. The division of labor in a society varies directly with the dispersion of objects of consumption. In propositions IIA and IIB the connecting link is the level of technological development: IIA. The degree of urbanization in a society varies directly with technological development; IIB. Technological development in a society varies directly with the dispersion of objects of consumption. Note that if these statements are treated as postulates, the proposition advanced in the earlier paper can then be stated as a derived theorem. In addition, there is an important corollary proposition: III. The degree of the division of labor in a society varies directly with technological development. Thus, it can be seen that all of the propositions are logically interrelated in such a way that evidence supporting any one of the propositions can be regarded as lending credence to all of them. Specifically, propositions IA, IB, and IIA, IIB, if supported by the data, will show that the direct
3 Gibbs and Martin, op. cit., p. 270; Martin, op.

669

relationship between urbanization and dispersion of objects of consumption is neither fortuitous nor inexplicable.
THE DIVISION MENT OF LABOR AND ITS MEASUREAT THE SOCIETAL LEVEL

The concept of division of labor has had a somewhat strange career in the history of sociology. On the one hand, the concept has achieved wide acceptance, particularly since Durkheim's classic treatment.4 On the other hand, it is rarely employed in the generation of testable hypotheses. This is even true for the field of human ecology where, like competitions the concept is often invoked in pure theory but remains in the background as far as research is concerned. The empirical referents of the division of labor have yet to be specified in any rigorous fashion, but there are two general ideas associated with the concept. First, there is the suggestion of occupational differentiation. However, more is involved than individuals "doing different things." In addition to differentiation there is functional interdependence. Occupational groups do something more than produce different goods and services. They also exchange goods and services and it is this exchange which underlies occupational differentiation. A second idea associated with the concept is often confused with the first. In the process of differentiation a person's occupational status may be determined, more or less, by biological characteristics, ethniccaste status, or territorial location. These distinctions may be called the bases of the division of labor, but they are not to be confused with the degree of the division of labor. Occupations in a society may be closely correlated with non-occupational distinctions, but, at the same time, the number of different occupations may be small. This means a low degree of division of labor. If one is concerned, as we are here, with the degree and not the basis of the division
4 Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, translated by George Simpson, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1949. Durkheim suggests a direct relationship between division of labor and urbanization in this work (pp. 256-260). 5 Amos H. Hawley, "Ecology and Human Ecology," Social Forces, 22 (May, 1944), p. 401.

cit.

670

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
TABLE 1. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE MEASUREMENT OF INDUSTRY DIVERSIFICATION

Industries Agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing Mining and quarrying Manufacturing Construction Electricity, gas, water, and sanitary services Commerce Transport, storage, and communication Services Not classifiable elsewhere 2X
JX2

Hypothetical Society A 500,000 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 500,000 25,000,000,000 .0000

Hypothetical Society B 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

United States 1950 * 7,331,353 968,702 16,113,479 3,743,183 797,528 11,082,470

New Zealand 1951 * 135,889 7,807 177,430 62,314 8,298 121,681

1- [ JX2/(2(X2)]

2,000,000 4,184,123 78,066 2,000,000 14,221,018 143,936 2,000,000 1,595,591 5,075 18,000,000 60,037,447 740,496 3,600,000,000,000 674,090,085,916,761 95,603,959,708 .8889 .8130 .8256

* Source of data: Demographic Yearbook, 1956, Table 12.

of labor, then the most relevant data pertain to occupations and industries. The distinction between occupation and industry in the analysis of the degree of the division of labor has evidently not been determined, conceptually or empirically. For present purposes, however, it makes little difference since the only data available for a large number of countries pertain to the industry composition of the labor force (i.e., the economically active population). The data consist of the number of persons in nine industry categories by countries and territories, as reported by the United Nation's Statistical Office.6 Only autonomous countries have been considered in this study, and many of these could not be included because data on them were either not available or not reported in a way comparable to other countries. The industry categories employed in the Statistical Office'sreport are shown in Table 1, with the United States and New Zealand serving as examples. Regardless of the type of measure considered, there are certain obvious shortcomings in the industry statistics. The categories, for one thing, are far too gross, particularly manufacturing, commerce, and services. In addition, they do not directly
6 United Nations, Demographic Yearbook, 1956, New York: 1956, Table 12, pp. 344-387. Some data on occupations by countries are also reported in this source (Table 13), but they are not nearly as complete and comparable as is the case for industry data.

take occupational differentiation into account. Furthermore, the data at best only indicate differentiation and not the degree of functional interdependence. Certain technical deficiencies are also present in the data. There are reasons to believe that the industry categories are not applied in an absolutely uniform way from one country to the next. This is particularly true for the category "Not classifiable elsewhere." This category was retained only after experimentation revealed that its exclusion had no appreciable effect on the adopted measure. A more detailed discussion of limitations as to reliability and comparability is provided in the Statistical Office's report.7 Measurement of the degree of division of labor. The statistics at hand make possible only a measure of industry diversification, and it is used on the assumption that it would bear a close relationship to a more refined measure of the division of labor. In columns 1 and 2 of Table 1, two hypothetical societies are considered-one (Society A) in which industry diversification is at a minimum and the other (Society B) in which it is at a maximum. To measure the deviation of countries from these polar types a formula has been developed which differentiates between the two. With "X" as the number of persons in each of the nine industry categories, this formula is: 1 [EX2/(YX)2]. Where all of the economi7

Ibid., p. 38.

URBANIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND DIVISION OF LABOR

TABLE 2. PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION IN METROPOLITAN AREAS AND MEASURES OF INDUSTRIAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THE EXTERNAL DISPERSION OF OBJECTS OF CONSUMPTION, FOR

671

45

COUNTRIES,

Circa, 1950 (Col. 3) Measure of Technological Development (MTD) * 0.76 3.12 1.54 0.28 6.47 0.08 0.27 0.24 0.48 2.09 0.09 0.12 0.22 0.09 1.17 2.03 0.22 0.14 0.02 0.15 0.10 1.10 0.80 0.78 0.28 0.60 1.96 2.43 0.09 4.37 0.04 0.30 0.02 0.19 0.09 0.26 0.57 3.22 2.15 0.02 0.26 1.89 4.42 7.74 0.77 (Col. 4) Measure of External Dispersion (MED) **** 604 1457 237 793 1373 197 119 224 248 464 100 81 143 134 509 360 235 82 46 73 34 504 919 164 846 95 655 3310 51 738 42 234 104 58 235 129 41 873 882 35 82 796 1188 381 420

(Col. 1) Percentage of Population in Metropolitan Areas* 44.6 55.4 37.7 41.4 42.7 9.5 19.3 19.9 26.1 37.3 11.2 14.9 19.6 11.9 17.0 34.7 22.0 10.5 6.0 7.3 7.8 27.5 55.8 36.6 12.7 20.6 45.5 43.6 13.3 21.8 5.1 23.9 15.6 11.0 10.3 19.6 25.5 22.4 28.9 6.8 9.5 29.9 71.5 55.9 25.2

(Col. 2) Measure of Industrial Diversification (MID) ** .8147 .8348 .7911 .7969 .8197 .6723 .6624 .6565 .7420 .8007 .6293 .6793 .6394 .5689 .7193 .8100 .7114 .5086 .3010 .3029 .4788 .7631 .8187 .7055 .5500 .6303 .8132 .8256 .5140 .8098 .4033 .6956 .6549 .5816 .5418 .7073 .7014 .8007 .7762 .2735 .4082 .7059 .7687 .8130 .7597

Country Argentina, 1947 Australia, 1947 Austria, 1951 Belgium, 1947 Canada, 1951 Ceylon, 1946 Colombia, 1951 Costa Rica, 1950 Cuba, 1953 Denmark, 1950 Dominican Republic, 1950 Ecuador, 1950 Egypt, 1947 El Salvador, 1950 Finland, 1950 France, 1954 Greece, 1951 Guatemala, 1950 Haiti, 1950 Honduras, 1950 India, 1951 Ireland, 1951 Israel, 1948-52 Japan, 1950 Malaya, 1947 Mexico, 1950 Netherlands, 1947 New Zealand, 1951 Nicaragua, 1950 Norway, 1950 Pakistan, 1951 Panama, 1950 Paraguay, 1950 Peru, 1940 Philippines, 1948 Portugal, 1950 Spain, 1950 Sweden, 1950 Switzerland, 1950 Thailand, 1947 Turkey, 1950 Union of So. Africa, 1951 United Kingdom, 1951 United States, 1950 Venezuela, 1950

* Source: Data prepared by International Urban Research. These percentages supersede earlier provisional figures reported by Gibbs and Davis in the American Sociological Review, 23 (October, 1958), pp. 504-514. **Source: Demographic Yearbook. See text for a description of the measure. *** Source: Statistical Yearbook. Commercial consumption of energy expressed in metric tons of coal per capita. **** Source: United Nations, Statistical Papers, Series T, Vol. 6, No. 10. See text for a description of the measure.

672

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW of technology.10 In some cases there is an emphasis on technology as material culture, a conception which is rejected by those who stress the ideational content, i.e., the application of knowledge and beliefs.11 Despite the differing emphases, however, there is general recognition that technology involves the application of knowledge and beliefs in carrying out tasks and includes the artifacts developed to reduce the amount of labor or to accomplish what cannot be achieved by manpower alone. In societies where technical knowledge is primitive, the utilitarian artifacts are simple and operate with little or no use of inorganic energy; where technical knowledge is highly advanced there is a great complex of utilitarian artifacts that operate largely through inorganic energy. Stated otherwise, societies with primitive technologies are low-energy societies, those with advanced technologies are high-energy societies.12 Thus, the best indicator of the level of technological development would appear to be the per capita consumption of energy.13 In this study the data used are for the estimated consumption of commercial sources of energy expressed in metric tons of coal per capita reported These data are in the Statistical Yearbook.14 shown in column 3 of Table 2 for 45 countries.
MEASURES OF THE DEGREE OF URBANIZATION

cally active are concentratedin one industry, the measurewould be .0000; and for a population with an even distribution throughout the nine industries the measure would be .8889. Measures of industry diversification for 45 countries are shown in column 2 of Table 2. A problem in measurement is posed with regard to one of the polar types, the society in which industry diversification is at a maximum (.8889). For a population to reach this point the number of economically active in what is usually considered a minor industry (public utilities, for example) would have to equal the number in a major industry (agriculture and manufacturing). This suggests that the polar type is unrealistic in that it is virtually impossible for a society to resemble it. The objection is made less serious by the fact that 14 of the 45 countries are within .1000 of the maximum value, while none of the countries is this close to the lowest possible value. There would appear to be little doubt, however, that numerous historical societies and non-literate peoples closely resembled the polar type in which the measure is at a minimum.
LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE

AND ITS MEASUREMENT SOCIETAL LEVEL

Technology, like division of labor, is a Census reports and publications of the concept frequently utilized in sociological United Nation's Statistical Office make posdiscourse, especially in observations on the sible a variety of measures of urbanization location, growth, development, and physical 10 Francis R. Allen, et al., Technology and Social structure of individual cities.8 Less attention to the relationship between Change, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., has been given technological development and the amount 1957, Chapter 1. 11 Kingsley Davis, Human Society, New York: or rate of urbanization,but observationsand Macmillan Company, 1949, pp. 435-436; Robin research findings do suggest that the two M. Williams, Jr., American Society, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960, p. 24. are closely related.9 12 See Fred Cottrell, Energy and Society, New Among sociologists, at least, there appears 1955. Book to be a general consensus as to the meaning York: McGraw-Hill Ogburn Company, Inc., Allen, 13 and Francis R. F.
8 See, e.g., William Fielding Ogburn, "Technology and Cities: The Dilemma of the Modern Metropolis," The Sociological Quarterly, 1 (July, 1960), pp. 139-153. 9 Kingsley Davis, "The Origin and Growth of Urbanization in the World," American Journal of Sociology, 60 (March, 1955), pp. 431-432; and Jack P. Gibbs and Leo F. Schnore, "Metropolitan Growth: An International Study," American Journal of Sociology, 66 (September, 1960), pp. 160170. See William "Technological Development and Per Capita Income," American Journal of Sociology, 65 (September, 1959), pp. 127-131; William F. Ogburn, "Technology and the Standard of Living in the United States," American Journal of Sociology, 60 (January, 1955), pp. 380-386; William F. Ogburn, "Population, Private Ownership, Technology, and the Standard of Living," American Journal of Sociology, 56 (January, 1951), pp. 314-319. 14 United Nations, Statistical Yearbook, 1953, New York: 1953, Table 127, pp. 276-278.

URBANIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND DIVISION OF LABOR at the national level. However, the most reliable and comparablemeasure is the percentage of the total population who reside in the Metropolitan Areas delimited by International Urban Research.15The percentage is shown for 45 countries in column 1 of Table 2.
MEASUREMENT OF EXTERNAL DISPERSION

673

OF OBJECTS

OF CONSUMPTION

The measure of the external dispersion of objects of consumption (MED) used in the present research is considerably improved over the one employed in the earlier study,16 although still necessarily far from precise. It considers the amount of materials (expressed in dollar value) imported by a given country from all other countries and the distance the materials are transported in each instance. For example, in the case of Switzerland, the dollar value of imports in 1951 was obtained for each country exporting to Switzerland. The value of each country's shipments 17 was then multiplied by the distance between the center of that country and the center of Switzerland following usual traffic lanes as closely as possible.18The resulting products were summed and the total divided by the 1950 population of Switzerland to give a per capita figure.19 This per capita figure is thus a
15 See Jack P. Gibbs and Kingsley Davis, "Conventional Versus Metropolitan Data in the International Study of Urbanization," American Sociological Review, 23 (October, 1958), pp. 505-514; and International Urban Research, The World's Metropolitan Areas, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1959. 16 Gibbs and Martin, op. cit. 17 Statistical Office of the United Nations, "Direction of International Trade," in Statistical Papers, Series T, Vol. 6, No. 10. 18 This figure was calculated in most cases by taking sea-lane mileage between major ports and adding the approximate mileage from the two ports to the center of their respective countries. 19 The operations can be summarized as follows: n 2 (XI) (YI)+(XJ) (Yj)?. (X.) (Yn) i X1000 XPa Where: i... n countries from which imports are received. Xi: $ value of imports from country i. Yi: estimated average miles imports from i were transported. Pa: population of the importing country.

gauge of the extent to which the Swiss nation acquired globally dispersed objects. MED's for 45 countries are shown in column 4 of Table 2. There are clearly many deficiencies in this measure, e.g., (1) the weight of goods imported is not considered; (2) the measure assumes that all goods originate at the geographic center of the exporting country and are consumed at the approximate geographic center of the importing country, an assumption that obviously distorts the situation; 20 and (3) the measure necessarily assumes that the movement of all goods between any two countries follows a single route. These deficiencies appear to influence the preciseness of the measure rather than its general ability to rank countries in terms of the external dispersion of their objects of consumption. Thus there appears to be no doubt that objects of consumption in New Zealand and Canada are much more externally dispersed than are those in Thailand, Pakistan, and even the United States. Note, however, that in no instance does MED reveal the "internal dispersion" of objects of consumption, and a truly adequate test of any theory pertaining to dispersion of objects of consumption cannot be conducted without considering both external and internal dispersion. Since international data on internal dispersion are not available, it has been necessary to assume that there is a fairly close relation between the two kinds of dispersion. However, this may not be true for certain countries (particularly the large ones), and therefore some exceptions to the predicted relationship between dispersion and other variables are not unexpected.
TESTS OF THE PROPOSITIONS

According to proposition IA, there is a direct relationship at the societal level between the degree of urbanization and the division of labor. On this basis we should find a high positive correlation between the percentage of the population in Metropolitan
20 In a few extreme cases an adjustment was made to take into account the fact that the heavy concentration of population near the port of entry made it very unlikely that on the average the imported materials were transported as far as the center of the country.

674

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW

Areas and the measures of industrial diversification. A rank-order correlation coefficient of +.91 between the values in columns 1 and 2 of Table 2 provides strong support for the proposition. Proposition IB anticipates a direct relationship between the division of labor and the dispersion of objects of consumption. The two variables used to test the proposition are the measures of industrial diversification and the measures of external dispersion in columns 2 and 4 of Table 2. Rho in this instance is +.83 and, accordingly, consistent with the proposition. On the basis of proposition IIA, a direct relationship should hold between the percentage of the population in Metropolitan Areas and the measures of technological development shown in column 3 of Table 2. A rho value of +.84 indicates that the relationship is substantially as predicted. The prediction in the case of proposition IIB is the existence of a direct relationship between the measures of technological development and the measures of external dispersion of objects of consumption. A rho value of +.79 is thus consistent with the proposition. Finally, proposition III leads to the prediction of a direct relationship between the measures of industrial diversification and the measures of technological development. A rho of +.85 represents supporting evi-

centage of the total population in urban places of 100,000 population or more, and the least relationship to small-scale urbanization, the percentage of the total population in urban places of 5,000-9,999 inhabitants. Similar findings based on more recent data have also been reported elsewhere.24 These differential relationships were anticipated on the grounds that large-scale urbanization makes it necessary for the inhabitants of the large cities to draw their objects of consumption from a great distance. A large proportion of the population in small urban places, however, does not necessitate a high degree of dispersion of objects of consumption, since the inhabitants of such places can live off their immediate environs. In short, the percentage in small urban places varies independently of the dispersion of objects of consumption because a high degree of dispersion is not a necessity for survival. Just as it is necessary for the populations of large cities to draw objects of consumption from great distances so is it equally necessary for them to have a high degree of division of labor and technological development to accomplish the task. Conversely, small urban places can survive with or without a high degree of division of labor and technological development. If this is the case, then MID and MTD should be more closely associated with largescale urbanization than with small-scale urbanization. dence.21 The data in Table 3 provide a basis for a Another aspect of the relationships. If both the division of labor and technological test of the hypothesis stated above. They development are closely linked to the dis- show for each of 41 countries the percentage persion of objects of consumption, then of the population who reside in urban localtheir relationship to urbanization should ities by size range of localities.25 Variation conform to a particular pattern. The earlier in census practices makes it necessary to study 22 revealed that dispersion of objects consider two types of localities. Type A of consumption bears the closest relation- localities are agglomerationsdelimited withship to large-scale urbanization,23the per- out regard to political boundaries. They
21 Rho was used in this series of tests rather than r because of the existence of non-linear relationships in all cases. In each instance, an increase in one variable beyond a certain point is associated with progressively greater or smaller increase in the other variable. Although rho is applicable in such cases, it probably underestimates the degree of association. The relationships should eventually be expressed as a correlation ratio (eta). 22 Gibbs and Martin, op. cit. 23 Referred to in the earlier study as "metropolitanization."

Martin, op. cit. Five of the countries in Table 2 (Austria, Belgium, Egypt, Spain, and Switzerland) are not included in Table 3 because their locality statistics in the Demographic Yearbook are based on minor civil divisions (Type C localities) rather than Type A or Type B localities. Yugoslavia is the only country in Table 3 which is not also in Table 2. It was excluded from Table 2 because data relating to Metropolitan Areas and imports could not be obtained. MID for Yugoslavia is .5250, and its MTD is 0.41.
25

24

URBANIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND DIVISION OF LABOR

TABLE

675

3.

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

IN URBAN LOCALITIES FOR

41

COUNTRIES,

Circa, 1950 *

Percentage of Population in Localities by Size Countries by Type of Locality ** Type A Argentina, 1947 Australia, 1947 Cuba, 1953 Denmark, 1950 France, 1954 India, 1951 Ireland, 1951 Israel, 1949 Netherlands, 1947 Norway, 1950 Pakistan, 1951 Portugal, 1950 Sweden, 1950 United States, 1950 Type B Canada, 1951 Ceylon, 1946 Colombia, 1951 CostaRica, 1950 Dominican Republic, 1950 Ecuador, 1950 El Salvador, 1950 Finland, 1950 Greece, 1951 Guatemala, 1950 Haiti, 1950 Honduras, 1950 Japan, 1950 Malaya, 1947 Mexico, 1950 New Zealand, 1951 Nicaragua, 1950 Panama, 1950 Paraguay, 1950 Peru, 1940 Philippines, 1948 Thailand, 1947 Turkey, 1950 Union of So. Africa, 1951 United Kingdom, 1951 Venezuela, 1950 Yugoslavia, 1948 (Col. 1) 2,0004,999 5.6 7.8 5.9 3.1 7.8 16.6 5.0 7.4 9.0 3.8 0.2 6.6 6.5 4.8 5.4 0.4 5.6 4.9 3.0 3.7 5.9 3.5 11.4 7.1 1.8 5.4 1.6 3.1 10.9 5.5 6.3 8.7 7.9 5.1 7.2 0.1 6.3 3.6 2.1 7.3 0.0 (Col. 2) 5,0009,999 4.2 4.8 4.1 4.3 5.6 5.8 3.3 4.3 7.5 1.9 0.9 5.2 5.1 4.1 5.1 0.8 3.6 4.9 2.5 2.7 4.4 3.4 4.4 4.3 1.9 2.0 7.3 2.2 5.7 3.2 2.7 6.0 1.8 2.9 4.9 0.9 3.7 3.0 3.6 5.6 1.0 (Col. 3) 10,00019,999 4.4 4.3 4.4 6.6 7.0 3.3 3.9 10.6 6.3 5.7 1.1 3.0 7.3 4.2 5.1 2.6 3.1 7.9 4.9 3.5 4.4 6.0 7.1 1.3 1.2 3.0 8.6 1.9 4.9 2.8 3.8 5.4 3.2 3.6 2.6 2.2 4.2 2.5 7.1 4.6 3.1 (Col. 4) 20,00049,999 6.2 4.9 8.0 8.1 8.6 3.3 4.6 5.7 8.5 6.7 2.1 3.7 7.5 5.2 7.6 2.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.4 8.0 10.8 1.0 0.8 1.5 8.9 6.9 5.3 12.6 4.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.2 2.2 4.4 2.5 16.1 7.5 4.1 (Col. 5) 50,00099,999 4.9 1.0 6.6 3.2 6.2 2.1 6.1 0.0 8.6 6.2 0.8 0.0 6.1 2.9 4.2 3.3 3.5 10.9 2.6 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 7.6 2.8 3.6 8.8 0.0 6.5 0.0 2.1 0.7 0.0 1.9 4.2 14.7 4.1 1.9 (Col. 6) 100,000+ 37.2 51.4 21.9 33.5 15.0 6.6 17.6 45.6 32.7 19.8 5.1 12.7 19.4 43.9 23.3 5.4 14.7 0.0 8.5 14.6 8.7 14.2 12.7 10.2 4.3 0.0 25.6 7.4 15.1 32.8 10.3 15.9 15.2 8.4 3.4 4.5 8.2 24.0 36.1 20.6 6.3

* Sources: Demographic Yearbook and census reports. ** See text for a description of the two types of localities.

therefore correspond to an urban area as a physical entity, in much the same sense as the Urbanized Areas delimited by the Bureau of the Census. Type B localities, in contrast, have definite administrative limits and thereby correspond to cities as political entities. According to the hypothesis in question,

we should find that the magnitude of the correlation coefficients between MID or MTD and component measures of urbanization increase directly with the size range of the urban localities. Thus, the coefficient of correlation should be at a minimum for urban localities of 2,000-4,999 inhabitants and at a maximum where the size of the

676
TABLE

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
4.
RANK-ORDER COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELA-

OF TION BY COUNTRIES BETWEEN MEASURES AND THE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION URBAN LOCALITIES * IN

Countries Grouped by Type of Locality ** Urban Localities by Size Range 100,000+ 50,000-99,999 20,000-49,999 10,000-19,999 5,000- 9,999 2,000- 4,999 Type B (N=27) .652 .648 .67 .43 .51 .01 Types A and B (N=41) .79 .56 .72 .55 .40 .07

* Sources of data on percentage of population in urban localities: Demographic Yearbook and census reports on individual countries. ** See text for a description of the locality types.

60 comparisons, but there are in fact only eight. The coefficients of correlation between MID and the component measures of urbanization in Table 5 also conform closely to the predicted pattern. There is no exception in a total of 30 comparisons for Type B countries, and only six exceptions in the 30 comparisons for Types A and B combined. Thus, whereas 30 exceptions in 60 comparisonswould be expected on the basis of chance, there are actually only six. These findings leave little doubt that both the division of labor and technological development are, as anticipated, more closely related to large-scale urbanization than to small-scale urbanization.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

localities is 100,000 or more. Tables 4 and 5 show that the correlationcoefficientsdo vary in substantially the way predicted. Complete conformity to the predicted pattern would prevail if each coefficient were of greater magnitude than all coefficients below it on the urbanization scale and of less magnitude than all coefficients above it on the urbanization scale. Among the Type B countries in Table 4 (which considers the relationship between MTD and component measures of urbanization) there are only six exception to the expected pattern in a total of 30 comparisons, and the corresponding figures for Types A and B combined are two and 30. On the basis of chance we would expect to find 30 exceptions in
TABLE TION COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELARANK-ORDER BY COUNTRIES BETWEEN MEASURES OF INDUSTRIAL DIVERSIFICATION AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION IN URBAN LOCALITIES *

5.

Countries Grouped by Type of Locality Urban Localities by Size Range 100,000+ 50,000-99,999 20,000-49,999 10,000-19,999 5,000- 9,999 2,000- 4,999 Type B (N=27) .77 .58 .537 .536 .43 -.11 Types A and B (N=41) .87 .47 .66 .58 .29 .22

* See footnotes for Table 4.

The findings of this study and those presented in earlier papers demonstrate consistent relationships among urbanization, the division of labor, the level of technological development, and the dispersion of objects of consumption. The relationships are obviously not so close as to preclude exceptions. Exceptions do occur, and some of them are probably "real" exceptions, that is, not subject to explanation in terms of inadequate data or crude measures. We do not deny the possibility of exceptions, but we do maintain that societies can deviate only within certain limits and, in any case, there are certain identifiable consequencesof deviation. For example, some societies may have a much higher degree of urbanization than would be anticipated on the basis of the present propositions. There is, however, a limit as to how high urbanization can go without increases in the division of labor, in technological efficiency, and in the dispersion of objects of consumption. And, with regard to consequences of deviation, one effect of over-urbanization is likely to be a low standard of living. The explanation of deviant cases and the identification of the consequences of deviation must await improvementsin the scope and quality of international statistics, particularly data pertaining to the degree of the internal dispersion of objects of consumption and to the division of labor. Even before this, however, we can anticipate al-

URBANIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND DIVISION OF LABOR ternative explanations of urbanization and the relationships reported here. Of the various alternative explanations, there is a certain type which particularly deserves consideration, because it is traditionally viewed in opposition to the theoretical orientation which characterizes the present paper. One could argue that a high or low degree of urbanization and the relationship of urbanization to other variables is largely a matter of socio-cultural values and ideologies. We reject such an interpretation and emphasize that a high degree of urbanization depends on the division of labor, technology, and organization to requisition dispersed materials. The value systems of some societies may in fact favor a high degree of urbanization, but there is no particular set of values that is a sufficient condition for a high degree of urbanization. It makes no great difference whether the population professes socialism or capitalism, liberalism or conservatism, Buddhism or Free Method-

677

ism; for if a high degree of urbanization is to be maintained, widely dispersed materials must be requisitioned, and this can be accomplished only through the division of labor and technological efficiency. Note, however, that the writers do not deny that values and ideologies may largely determine certain types of behavior. It may even be true that, within certain limits, sociocultural values and ideologies influence urbanization. But we do reject these phenomena as possible explanations of the particular relationships observed in this study. This would be the case even if a spatial association between urbanization and certain types of values could be demonstrated. It is entirely possible that as urbanization occurs certain values will come to prevail. Unfortunately, this opens the door to future confusion by making it possible at some later date for observers to conclude that the presence of these values explains urbanization.