Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
by
BRIAN J. L. BERRY*
Chicago, U.S.A.
and so on. Four common factors were found stage or character of regional development.
to account for the correlations among the Urban structure may be defined in terms of
primary variables by use of principal compo- a set of independent dimensions covering
at least (a) size of population, (b) quality of
nents analysis: social class; growth 1931-1951 ; physical development, (c) age-structure of
growth 1951-1958; and overcrowding. The population, (d) education level of population,
essence (of the analysis was) to investigate how (e) economic base, (f) ethnic and/or religious
much of the total variability of towns exhibited orientation, (g) welfare and (h) geographical
situation.
in the primary variables (could) be accounted for (3a) Economic base of urban centers tends to
and expressed in a smaller number of new act independently of other urban struc-
independent variates, the principal components. tural features.
Since the common factors summarized the essen- As Table 1 shows, there is clear agreement. in a
tial differences among towns contained in the variety of independently conceived and executed
entire set of original primary variables, the studies of the United States, that there are
classification problem originally posed by Moser several quite fundamental dimensions of varia-
and Scott could then be simplified. Each town tion according to which urban centers are
was given a score on each common factor, and systematically differentiated :
towns were then allocated to groups on the (1) Size, rather than comprising simple popula-
tion-size, this dimension represents total
basis of relative scores on the four factors. functional size of centers in an urban
Fourteen groups of towns were identified, hierarchy, or aggregate economic power.
falling into three major categories: (2) Socio-economic status of the urban residents.
I. Resorts, administrative and commercial centers (3) Age composition and family structure of these
(i) seaside resorts residents.
(ii) spas, professional and administrative centers (4) Population mobility and new growth patterns.
(iii) commercial centers (5) and (6) Ethnic heterogeneity of the population:
11. Industrial towns (a) Nonwhite residents
(i) railway centers (b) Residents who are foreign born or of
(ii) ports foreign parentage
(iii) textile centers of Yorkshire and Lancashire (7) Location within the national space-economy,
(iv) industrial centers of the Northeast and Welsh including such additional variables as overall
mining towns urban densities, use of public transport, etc.
(v) metal manufacturing centers In addition, there are other more specific
111. Suburbs and suburban-type towns patterns related to :
(i) exclusive residential suburbs (8) Female participation in the labor force.
(ii) older mixed residential suburbs (9) Participation of elderly males in the labor
(iii) newer mixed residential suburbs force.
(iv) light industrial suburbs, national defense
centers and towns within the influence of Further, consistent with Hodge, a variety of
large metropolitan conurbations elements of the economic base of towns do
(v) older working class industrial suburbs (on the basis of measures related to percentages
(vi) newer industrial suburbs of the labor force in different industries) act
In the grouping the general aim (was) to independently of the general dimensions identi-
minimize within-group (differences) and to fied above, giving rise to the traditional functional
maximize those between groups.7 town-types:lo
(10) Manufacturing towns
Comparative Evidence -. The important feature (11) Mining towns
of the Moser-Scott study was that it showed: (12) College towns
(1) although many primary variables can be
selected to study cities, they in fact index a 9 GERALD HODGE, Urban Structure and Regional
much smaller number of presumably more Development, paper presented to the 14th Annual
basic independent dimensions of variation Meeting of the Regional Science Association, Harvard
identifiable by use of appropriate multivariate University 1967.
10 ROBERT H.T. S m ,Method and Purpose in Functional
procedures, and Town Classification, Annals of the Association of
(2) that urban centers fall into clearcut and American Geographers Vol. 56 (1956), pp. 81-92.
Urban Hierarchy
H i j h Srarus
--PO
*.!
:*.* *. -
-_ 10 .*:
;.
Mining
1960 aty 1960
.dJ: . : Ism
4- .=
---2O
a%
t ao
low Sraius a m
---30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 AGRICULTURE 1.000
2 MINING -0.485 1.000
3 MANUFACTURE 0.098 0.264 1.000
4 CONSTRUCTION 0.096 0.363 0.794 ' 1.000
5 UTILITIES 0.093 0.363 0.709 0.807 1.000
6 COMMERCE 0.035 0.405 0.907 0.859 0.791 1.000
7 TRANSPORT -0.141 0.432 0.848 0.826 0.746 0.921 1.000
8 SERVICES 0.060 0.323 0.883 0.898 0.811 0.943 0.912 1.000
9 OTHER INDUSTRY 0.028 0.221 0.660 0.606 0.633 0.673 0.621 0.694 1.000
10 SELF-PIPLOYED 0.294 0.048 0.733 0.701 0.602 0.752 0.702 0.820 0.641 1.000
TABLE 3:
CORRELATION MATRIX, 1 9 6 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 AGRICULTURE 1.000
2 MINING -0.528 1.000
3 MANUFACTURE -0.007 0.353 1.000
4 CONSTRUCTION -0.015 0.429 0.849 1.000
5 UTILITIES ,-0.043 0.485 0.766 0.846 1.000
6 COMMERCE -0.050 0.479 0.928 0.887 0.842 1.000
7 TRANSPORT -0.201 0.473 0.871 0.859 0.802 0.923 1.000
8 SERVICES 0.039 0.383 0.880 0.887 0.848 0.957 0.896 1.000
9 OTHER INDUSTRY -0.064 0.524 0.881 0.853 0.792 0.926 0.863 0.888 1.000
10 SELF-EMPMYED 0.187 0.237 0.798 0.753 0.643 0.799 0.737 0.829 0.835 i.nnn
_____
TABLE 4:
-
W L O Y N E N T BY INOUSTRY, 1952:
I TABLE 5 :
MpLoyHEM' BY INDUSTRY. 1960:
--
FACTOR FACTOR
1 2 1 2
Eigenvalue 6.481 1.641 Eigenvalue 6.959 1.696
Per cent v d i i a n e e 64.9 81.3 per cent variance 69.6 86.6
Traditionalism thus remains strong in the communist voting patterns (-0.71 5, -0.689), high
agricultural provinces of central Chile. death rates (-0.73), few conservative inclina-
Factor four identifies the mineral-exploiting tions (0.488), and much social unrest.
towns (0.502), where most of the population As for the remaining dimensions, factor five
has at least primary schooling (0.719), where identifies manufacturing towns (-0.802, -0.8 l),
there is but little older-age population (-0.427), with more home ownership than elsewhere
relatively few privately-owned homes (-0.43 1) (-0.405) and low female-to-male sex ratios
but also much less substandard construction (-0.484). Factor six (radical) and nine (conserva-
than elsewhere (-0.610). Such areas have little tive) focus upon particular voting patterns.
agricultural or fishing employment (0.448). Although there are no clearly evident correlates
Factor three restates the presence of an urban with other variables, the spatial pattern indicates
hierarchy in terms of size of city (0.816; 0.805). radical voting at the northern (Arica to Ovalle)
A housing shortage in the largest cities (0.702) is and southern (Puerto Montt to Magallanes)
also noted. extremes of the country. Factor seven reveals
certain areas of older population (-0.473) in
Factor two, by contrast, identifies the rapidly which unemployment is high (-0.479). Finally,
growing areas (-0.775, -0.671) of mineral factor eight picks out zones with higher than
exploitation (-0.413), with heavy socialist- average birth rates.
60 - TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR ECON. EN SOC. GEOGRAFIE - SEPT./OKT. 1969 295
r
c
w
TABLE 7:
CoBBEULTlckl IUTBIX,
SHIPT-SBhBB
,-C 1952-1960
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1 nk:@icultura 1.wo
2 nix:wLning -0.031 1.000
3 nix:nan"f BCtUre -0.002. -0.037 1
..000
~.~
4 niX:constructio* 0;030 -0.068 0.153 1.000
. ...
5 Mixutilities 0.196 -0.063 -0.025 0.201 1.000
6 IiS:C-erCa 0.022 -0.087 0.126 0.072 -0.035 1.000
7 nk:Trsnaport -0.060 -0.013 -0.006 -0.035 -0.082 0.053 1.000
8 nix :services 0.010 -0.026 0.048 0.021 -0.001 0.008 -0.032 1.000
9 Uix:Other -0.045 -0.087 -0.098 -0.218 -0.165 -0.066 0.033 0.048 .1.000
10 Mk:Self-Employed 0.085 -0.056 0.037 -0.052 0.007 0.003 -0.046 -0.184 0.063 1.wHI
11 Shift:Agrieulture 0.124 0.039 0.095 -0.031 0.209 0.004 -0.134 0.021 -0.095 0.055 1.000
12 Shift:lining -0.026 0.202 0.218 -0.173 -0.124 -0.013 -0.060 0.009 -0.019 0.011 -0.035 1.000
13 Shift:Mnufacture -0.121 0.002 0.197 -0.226 0.072 -0.003 0.044 -0.016 -0.722 -0.018 0.114 -0.042 1.000
14 Shift:Constructioo -0.016 -0.164 0.048 -0.036 -0.438 0.008 0.020 -0.021 -0.047 0.105 0.072 -0.117 0.046 1.000
15 Shift:Utilities 0.059 -0.090 0.072 0.340 0.099 0.225 -0.025 0.030 -0.010 -0.006 0.153 -0.086 -0.102 0.077 1.000
16 Shift:C-ree 0.011 0.029 -0.007 0.044 0.027 -0.045 -0.723 0.013 0.042 -0.023 0.167 0.004 0.009 -0.022 -0.007 1.000
17 Shift:Transport 0.021 -0.003 0.219 -0.028 -0.171 -0.207 -0.219 0.119 0.139 0.016 -0.039 0.029 0.013 0.052 0.004 -0,056 1.000
18 Shift:Services 0.044 -0.077 -0.078 -0.195 -0.152 -0.020 0.071 0.089 0.847 -0.190 -0.067 0.006 -0.674 -0.076 0.002 0.023 0.091 1.000
19 Shift:Other -0.064 0.002 0.008 0.064 -0.275 0.064 0.027 -0.220 0.224 -0.047 -0.099 -0.138 -0.229 0.105 0.075 -0.044 0.174 0.079 1.000
20 Shift:Self-Employed 0.034 -0.022 0.043 0.020 0.023 0.455 -0.073 -0.066 0.002 -0.001 0.165 -0.023 0.004 0.011 0.267 -0.016 -0.023' -0.020 0.162 1.000
100,000
6;
cy
10,000
I
1,000
100
t
z
g B I' C to B
5
10
100,000
m v
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
r
w INDUSTRIES
1 Agriculture
2 Mining
10,000
I3
4
Ma nu fa cture
Construction
5 Utilities
6 Commerce
1,000 7 Transport
8 Services
9 Other Industry
-
10 Self-Employed
100
-- 1952
...... 1960
10
C to D
r l l g l r l c I I I I I I I I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
INDUSTRIES
TABLE 8:
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY,
FACTOR STRUCTURE SHIFT-SHARE CCMPONENTS, 1952-1960
FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eigenvalue 2.607 1.759 1.675 1.522 1.444 1.378 1.376 1.306 1.291
Per cent variance 13.0 21.8 30.2 37.8 45.0 51.9 58.8 65.3 71.8
Variable Comrnunality
1. Mix :Agricilture 0.098 -0.036 -0.018 -0.059 0.637 0.022 0.017 0.023 0.103 0.433
2. Mix :Mining -0.098 0.042 0.016 0.209 -0.118 0.161 -0.638 0.112 0.103 0.526
3. Mix :Manufacture -0.161 -0.040 0.107 -0.214 0.070 0.279 0.102 0.683 -0.098 0.655
4. Mix :Construction -0.074 0.045 -0.001 -0.909 -0.046 0.006 -0.014 -0.010 0.009 0.836
5. Mix :Utilities -0.134 0.015 -0.083 -0.324 0.590 -0.323 -0.373 -0.144 -0.068 0.748
6. Mix :Commerce -0.002 -0.066 0.768 -0.108 -0.094 -0.256 0.095 0.138 -0.011 0.707
7. Mix :Transport 0.042 -0.910 0.013 0.037 -0.099 -0.122 0.021 -0.053 -0.001 0.860
8. Mix :Services 0.065 0.019 -0.071 -0.018 0.060 -0.029 0.133 0.141 -0.785 0.668
9. Mix:Other 0.929 0.016 -0.015 0.143 -0.006 0.107 0.058 -0.024 0.011 0.899
10. Mix :Self-Employed 0.002 0.014 -0.116 0.034 0.286 -0.116 0.321 0.263 0.657 0.713
11. Shift Agriculture -0.149 0.199 0.267 0.173 0.612 0.093 0.037 -0,053 -0.075 0.556
12. Shift:Mining 0.056 0.056 0.006 0.212 -0.135 -0.098 -0.278 0.756 0.051 0.731
13. Shift:Msnufacture 0.879 0.011 0.004 0.247 0.030 0.016 0.050 0.035 -0.115 0.852
14. Shift:Construction -0.106 0.017 0.081 0.135 -0.165 0.200 0.760 0.037 0.092 0.692
15. Shift:Utilities 0.050 0.009 0.436 -0.521 0.170 0.086 0.133 -0.001 -0.066 0.522
16. Shift:Comerce 0.032 0.932 -0.006 -0.013 -0.014 -0.088 -0.005 -0.031 -0.015 0.879
17. Shift:Transport 0.059 0.056 -0.198 -0.002 0.115 0.795 0.053 0.208 -0.142 0.757
18. Shift:Services 0.904 -0.022 0.019 0.148 0.008 0.042 0.004 0.028 -0.201 0.883
19. Shift:Other 0.191 -0.044 0.245 -0.123 -0.291 0.589 0.044 -0.265 0.332 0.727
20. Shift:Self-Employed 0.007 0.031 0.825 0.019 0.127 0.095 -0.054 -0.035 0.053 0.714
Tables 11-13 summarize the factor structure Functional size of centers in an urban
of the transportation and tax data. To ease hierarchy,
Agriculture-related traditionalism in central
interpretation, the loadings have been cascaded Chile.
in order of size, and the lowest values eliminated Mineral-exploiting towns, particularly the
from the table. copper-mining communities of the north.
In both 1962-3 and 1965, the first dimension Manufacturing towns.
Rapidly-growing towns in areas of mineral
of variation was one of size: tax collections, exploitation at the northern and southern
railroad receipts, volumes of railroad and air extremities of the country, radical in outlook
passenger and cargo activity are all scaled by the - the towns of Chiles resource frontiers.
urban hierarchy.
Special features of the transportation pattern Unlike the US.,then, but consistent with other
of Chile are identified by the remaining dimen- transitional societies, status and population-
sions. Factor two relates ocean general cargo composition are not separate dimensions of
unloads and railroad loading (imports to Chile), variation, but related in a factor that indexes
particularly through Concepci6n and San Anto- the traditional bases of society. Unlike India,
nio, whereas factor four in both cases focusses however, where each regional culture has its
on general cargo loading (exports from Chile), own structure, and the very cultural diversity
especially through Valparaiso. On the third creates multiple factors, Chile is small and
factor, value of general cargo unloads at the relatively homogeneous, enabling the traditional
free ports of Arica and Punta Arenas, combined urban patterns of the central region to be
with the reliance of these extreme northern captured in a single dimension portraying the
and southern cities upon air transportation, is educational and demographic correlates and
noted. Finally, other factors point to the consequences of rural backwardness.
unique transportation patterns associated with
such places as Cerro Sombrero on Tierra del Regional Development Planning in Chile
Fuego. It is this backwardness that Chiles new regional
The change dimensions are very orderly (Table planning mechanisms, with their explicit growth
13). Apparently, in the 1962-3 to 1965 period center and decentralization strategies, have been
each transport sector shifted independently designed to attack. To tie together the several
of the others, but consistently, so that the themes of this paper we now turn to an examina-
structure of Chilean transportation did not tion of these mechanisms, how they relate to
change markedly in the period. regional growth theory, both exploit some and
To summarize, therefore, the principal dimen- attack other dimensions of urban variation, and
sions of variation of the Chilean urban system might in the long-run be expected to transform
appear to be : the dimensionality.
FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eigenvalue . 15.841 4.720 3.633 3.629 3.537 3.302 3.281 2.547 2.521
Per cent variance 36.8 47.8 56.3 64.7 72.9 80.6 88.2 94.1 100.0
Variable Comrnuna l i t y
1 Total Population 1960 0.446 -0.061 0.816 -0.138 -0.088 -0.084 0.141 0 . 068 0.123 0.941
2 Percentage P o p u l a t i o n 0-14 0.911 -0.074 -0.005 0.076 -0.015 -0.219 0.040 0.156 0.119 0.930
3 Percentage Population 15-64 0.936 -0.032 0.034 0.063 0.044 0.178 0.146 -0.071 -0.010 0.943
4 Percentage Population 65+ y r s . 0.024 0.376 -0.059 -0.427 -0.148 0.029 -0.473 -0.150 -0.255 0.661
5 Female t o Male Ratio 0.155 0.220 0.418 -0.257 -0.484 0.046 -0.361 -0.064 -0.133 0.702
6 Dependency Index 1960 -0.931 0.043 -0.026 -0.062 -0.056 -0.195 -0.154 0.070 0.009 0.943
7 Dependency Index 1952 -0.918 0.144 -0.150 -0.177 -0.004 -0.067 -0.024 -0.029 0.081 0.929
8 T o t a l Population 1965 0.448 -0.111 0.805 -0.146 -0.101 -0.075 0.153 0.153 0.052 0.143
9 I n f a n t Death r a t e 1965 -0.590 0.180 -0.029 -0.008 0.277 0.202 0.135 0.075 -0.086 0.530
1 0 Population v a r i a t i o n 1940-52 0.355 -0.231 0.143 0.242 -0.370 -0.112 0.292 0.085 -0.044 0.502
11 Population v a r i a t i o n 1952-60 0.365 -0.775 0.138 -0.155 -0.031 -0.099 0.205 0.035 0.269 0.903
12 Population v a r i a t i o n 1940-60 0.293 -0,671 0.262 -0.123 -0.440 -0.105 0.055 0.058 0.007 0.831
13 Death r a t e 1960 0.396 -0.730 0.177 -0.102 -0.022 -0.103 0.265 0.049 0.298 0.905
14 B i r t h r a t e 196a -0.045 -0.038 0.117 -0.081 -0.034 0.051 -0.143 0.776 -0.034 0.652
15 B i r t h r a t e 1965 0.048 -0.044 -0.029 -0.100 -0.226 -0.110 -0.209 0.720 0.013 0.640
16 Percentage Homes with water '& I
0.672 -0.134 0.129 -0.033 -0.022 0.055 -0.253 0.335 0.251 0.730
1 7 Percentage Homes w i t h b a t h '60 0.787 -0.255 0.166 0.096 -0.064 -0.189 -0.204 0.261 0. 140 0.890
18 Percentage Homes with gas
and e l e c t r i c i t y - 1960 0.796 -0.355 0.106 0.152 -0.033 -0.248 -0.078 0.054 0.146 0.886
19 Percentage Homes with
e l e c t r i c i t y -1960 0.665 -0.373 0.106 0.257 -0.072 -0.242 -0.199 0.293 0.213 0 . e94
20 Percentage Homes with water
and sewage 0.710 -0.267 0.261 0.037 0.023 0.009 -0.274 0.298 0.161 0.835
21 Percentage Homes owner oceup. -0.162 0.231 0.049 -0.431 -0.405 0.253 -0.017 -0.328 -0.065 0.608
22 Percentage Public Homes
b u i l t i n 1965 0.188 0.039 -0.035 0.056 0.091 0.202 0.052 -0.143 0.006 0.114
23 Percentage P r i v a t e Homes
b u i l t i n 1965 -0.047 0.139 0.140 -0.069 0.144 0.034 -0.045 -0.309 -0. 356 0.291
24 Percentage Substandard Homes -0.330 -0.016 0.325 -0.610 -0.112 -0.061 -0.043 0.064 -0.024 0.609
25 No of Persons per Home -0.604 0.009 -0.004 -0.205 0.114 -0.360 0.168 0.241 0.010 0.636
26 Shortage of Homes 0.324 -0.271 0.702 -0.123 -0.207 -0.036 0.149 0.100 0.255 0.827
27 Male Unemployment 12-14 '60 0.441 -0.061 0.197 0.436 -0.248 0.059 -0.203 -0.187 0.177 0.600
28 Male Unemployment 65-84 '60 0.322 -0.314 0.148 -0.055 -0.181 -0.141 -0.479 0.393 0.195 0. 702
29 Percentage of Females i n
Agriculture-1960 -0.709 -0.194 0.330 -0.135 -0.352 -0.057 -0.135 0.242 -0.013 0.873
30 Percentage of P o w l a t i o n a c t i v e
i n manufacturing i n d u s t r y '60 0.318 -0.063 0.150 -0.010 -0.802 -0.179 0.044 0.255 0.101 0.880
31 Percentage of Persons a c t i v e
in a g r i c u l t u r e and f i s h i n g -0.662 0.277 -0.287 -0.448 0.009' -0.153 -0.029 -0.016 -0.321 0.925
32 Percentage of P e r ~ o n sa c t i v e
i n exploitation of minerals 0.137 -0.413 0.014 0.502 0.279 0.192 -0.130 -0.035 0.419 0. 751
33 Pereentaee bf persons i n
p a r t manufacturing 1960 0.334 -0.071 0.142 -0.017 -0.810 -0.187 0.044 0.239 0.096 0.896
34 percentage of persans a c t i v e
i n c o n s t r u c t i o n 1960 0.257 -0.299 0.393 -0.096 -0.313 0.253 -0.040 -0.064 -0.060 0.490
35 percentage of Persons a c t i v e
i n Public services 0.363 -0.197 0.387 0.049 -0.132 0.152 -0.031 -0.042 -0.114 0.379
36 Percentage of Persons i n
COlILUeXe 0.692 -0.129 0.249 -0.259 -0.359 0.061 -0.156 0.112 0.143 0.814
37 Percentage of Persons i n
Transportation-Coilrmun. 0.551 -0.193 0.031 0.136 -0.368 0.251 -0.050 0.049 0.120 0.578
38 percentage of Persons in
p a r t S e r v i c e s 1960 0.709 -0.013 0.249 -0.301 -0.343 0.170 -0.014 0.154 -0.118 0.840
39 Percentage of Persons i n
o t h e r s e r v i c e s 1960 0.248 -0.039 0.271 0.099 -0.318 -0.176 -0.223 0.065 0.422 0.510
40 Vehicles p e r Persons 0.744 -0.151 0.099 -0.125 -0.100 -0.246 -0.003 0.168 0.019 0.701
41 Percentage of Democrats '65 -0.126 0.114 0.112 -0.091 -0.135 -0.494 0.004 0.001 0.085 0.320
42 Percentage of Radicals '65 -0.008 0.122 0.030 -0.111 -0.025 0.753 0.036 0.033 0.009 0.599
43 Percentage of Conservative
and L i b e r a l 1965 -0.009 0.488 -0.026 -0.201 -0.105 -0.377 -0.002 0.112 -0.447 0.645
44 Percentage of Communist
and S o c i a l i s t 1965 0.166 -0.715 0.039 0.277 -0.025 0.056 -0.160 0.178 -0.011 0.678
45 Percentage of Democrats
1961 and 1965 -0.071 0.343 0.081 -0.404 -0.072 -0.301 0.056 0.017 0.498 0.641
46 Percentage of Radical S65 0.156 -0.025 0.067 0.053 -0.008 0.646 -0.101 -0.070 0.039 0.467
47 Percentage of L i b e r a l and
Conservative s 65 -0.036 0.127 -0.130 -0.007 0.002 0.023 0.025 0.023 -0.758 0.610
48 Percentage of Communist
and S o c i a l i s t 565 0.211 -0.689 0.061 0.250 -0.037 -0.038 -0.233 0.044 -0.068 0.649
49 Percentage of Absten '65 -0.256 0.245 -0.030 0.308 0.238 0.554 0.503 0.003 -0.178 0.870
50 Percentage of Absten 565 -0.140 0.176 -0.004 0.442 0.105 0.550 0.470 0.042 -0.307 0.876
51 P a r t i c i p a t i o n over 21 '60 0.278 -0.061 -0.101 0.189 -0.004 0.049 -0.779 0.234 0.020 0.791
52 Representative over 2 1 '60 -0.113 0.035 -0.163 -0.010 0.146 0.013 -0.805 0.262 -0.009 0.779
53 Percentage Male 15 y r a or
mare 1960 -0.733 0.086 -0.217 -0.375 0.190 -0.138 -0.097 0.122 0.106 0.823
54 Percentage Female 15 y r s
or more 1960 -0.867 0.209 -0.073 -0.301 0.158 -0.040 0.044 0.080 -0.133 0.944
55 Percentage population with
Primary school 1960 0.007 -0.075 -0.196 0.719 -0.046 0.092 0.004 -0.147 -0.044 0.595
16 Percentage population w i t h
Secondary school 1960 0.868 -0.045 0.191 -0.140 -0.253 -0.093 -0.052 0.069 0.040 0.894
57 Percentage population w i t h
University school 1960 0.807 -0.178 0.387 -0.079 -0.147 -0.101 0.027 0.006 0.020 0.872
58 Percentage population with
S p e c i a l schooling 1960 0.725 -0.212 0.166 0.105 -0.106 0.295 -0.198 0.021 0.175 0.777
59 Percentage population w i t h
No education -0.879 0.153 -0.096 -0.303 0.188 -0.153 0.053 0.092 -0.002 0.966
Variable Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sum of Sq. 4.401 4.237 3.810 3.419 2.381 1.940 1.366 1.342
!a&.i?b Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
24
28 T o t a l Passengers Arrived end L e f t ( A i r ) 0.906
Factor Occupance (Air) 0.878
27
26 T o t a l Seats Offered Arrived and L e f t (Air) 0.837
T o t a l Seats Available (Air) 0.835
29 A i r Cargo Loaded (Air) 0.704 0.598
5 S a l e s Tax Collected 0.679 -0.375
31 A i r H a i l Loaded (Air)
17 T o t a l Amount Received from Passengers (R.R) 0.861
23 Average Trip-KM (R.R.) 0.856
22 T o t a l Passengers-KM Embarked (P.R.) 0.839
20 T o t a l Cargo Unloaded (R.R.) 0.835
21 T o t a l Amount Received Cargo Unloaded (R.R.) 0.803
16 T o t a l Passengers Embarked (R.R.) 0.593
13 Value Total Cargo Unloaded (ocean) 0.956
15 Value General Cargo Unloaded (ocean) 0.955
14 Value General Cargo Unloaded (Ocean) 0.951
12 T o t a l General Cargo Unloaded (Ocean) 0.915
11 Value General Cargo Loaded (Ocean) -0.933
9 Value Total Cargo Loaded (Ocean) -0.875
10 General Cargo Loaded (Ocean) -0.869
8 T o t a l Cargo Loaded (OCea") -0.857
6 Total Amount of S a l a r i e s of Tax Payers Over 5 . B . S . -0.827
7 Income Tax Collected -0.762
1 No. of Taxpayers earning over 5 Basic s a l a r i e s -0.749
4 I n d u s t r i a l Tax Collected 0.324 -0.623
18 Total Cargo Loaded (R.R.) 0.958
19 Total Amt Received Cargo Loaded (R.R.) 0.937
30 A i r Cargo Unloaded (Air) 0.332 0.859
25
3 K.W.H. Sold 0.656
T o t a l Passengers i n T r a n s i t ( A i r ) 0.407 0.456
32 A i r Mail Unloaded
2 Long Distance Telephone C a l l s
Formal Structure of Planning Chilean plan- -. designed to regionalize the national and sectoral
ning is centered in the Oficina de Planificacibn plans on an annual basis. Regional planners in
Nacional (ODEPLAN), and is directly attached the central office of ODEPLAN are, for example,
to the office of the President of the Republic. concerned with inter-regional allocations con-
Through a wide system of controls and invest- sistent with these plans, and with the regional
ment activities, ODEPLAN is thus the center of inequities reduced thereby or resulting therefrom.
Chile's 'directed' economy, concerned with In ten regional planning offices (ORPLANS) and
formulating the National Plan for Economic a metropolitan planning office for Greater
and Social Development. ODEPLAN has three Santiago, the regional planners have additional
main divisions, dealing with (1) national plan- responsibilities related to elaboration and execu-
ning, (2) sectoral planning, and (3) regional tion of the regional plans, however: identifying
planning. new investment opportunities, new and/or
The national planning function involves setting underused resources, or local bottlenecks;
goals for the economy and programming the specifying the coordination required between,
materials-, investment-, and output-requirements and location requirements of, intra-regional
for achieving these goals. Sectoral planning sectoral allocations, and exploring the coope-
translates the requirements into consistent ration required between the public and private
activities of the basic sectors of the economy, sectors to achieve both the regional develop-
to each of which is attached a Ministry of ment desired for growth and the spatial patterns
central government : agriculture, industry, trans- essential to regional well-being.40
port, energy, housing, health and education, A third and very fundamental facet of the
labor, and general administration. Each ministry regional planning offices is that they are to be
is concerned with executing its own investment the means whereby administrative decentraliza-
programs and developing attractive investment tion is achieved. Centralization of decision-
opportunities to be included within the national making has been of an extreme kind in Chile.
plan; ODEPLAN seeks to ensure that these Municipal Alcaldes have had only ceremonial
programs are scaled to achieve national goals roles ; provincial Intendentes have simply
and are consistent with each other29 expressed the local presence of the President.
The regional planning arm of ODEPLAN was Decisions of the minutest kind were transferred
39 Presidencia de la Republica, Oficina de Planificacibn 40 Idem. La Planificacibn Regional Una Experienca
Nacional, Que es Odeplan?, 1967. Nueva en la Planificacibn de Chile, 1967.
involves granting special privileges to facilitate accounts and planning models, and to be of
development.45 sufficient internal market size to offer economies
Eachof the ten regions into which thesezones were of scale for regional industries and for the deve-
subdivided was thought to have some consistent lopment of high-level social facilities. This
base in socio-economic homogeneity, some latter consideration is of critical importance
connectivity between areas of growth and more in the overall development plan, one goal of
backward areas, essential accounting parity which is to create regions of self-sustaining
between income generated by production activi- growth and a high degree of regional import
ties and income spent in consumption lines substitution in a framework of national com-
(i.e. each region is a functional economic parative advantage.47 Each, then, was thought
area)46 to facilitate construction of regional
ton Agriculture Economic Handbook No. 127 1966.
45 WALTHERSTOHR, The Delimitation of Regions in ODEPLANS Politica de Desarrollo, 1968, p. 42, contains
Relation to National and Regional Development in a list of the countrys economic growth poles, viz:
Latin America, paper read to First Inter-American Santiago, followed by 1. Concepci6n-Talcahuano ;
Seminar on Definition of Regions for Development 2. Valparaiso-Viiia; 3. Antofagasta; 4. Punta Arenas;
Planning, Pan-American Institute of Geography and 5. Arica; 6. Iquique; 7. Temuco; 8. Valdivia; 9. La
History, Sept. 4-1 1 1967. Serena-Coquimbo; 10. Rancagua; 11. Puerto Montt;
46 BRIANJ. L. BERRY, Strategies, Models and Economic 12. Talca; 13. Osorno.
Theories of Development in Rural Regions, Washmg- 4 1 STOHR, op cit., p. 33.
Relationships to Regional Growth Theory and to Clearly, both economic and social development
Urban Dimensions -. Such a regional planning themes are implicit in these effects; more basic-
format involves a strategy of deliberate urbaniza- ally, the two are mutually reinforcing. But
tion,4* a downward-decentralizing strategy49 social development can be expected to be more
that exploits the structure of urban places in a rapid in areas of new settlement unconstrained
functional hierarchy to break down dualism by by tradition as well as in the largest urban-
increasing growth potentialities in regional industrial complexes where economic growth
centers and strengthening connections between is most rapid (See Figures 9-10). Thus, the role
periphery and center so that the periphery of the urban frontiers is of particular significance
may take advantage of the centers growth in the establishment of new values and the ready
impulses. Friedmann argues that these results acceptance of new socio-economic forms.51 It is
are achieved by six feedback effects of growth therefore at the intersection of the development
center develoDment:50 frontiers and the development poles that old
Dokinance effect: continued weakening of
the periphery by net transfer of natural, values are broken down and new values are
human and capital resources to the core. created, where status based upon heredity is
Information effect: increase in potential replaced by status based upon achievement.
interaction within a region resulting from An index of the extent to which this process
internal growth in population and production.
Psychological effect : creation of conditions has finally born fruit is provided by the replace-
favoring innovation at the center. ment of traditional urban dimensions by
Modernizing effect : the transformation of dimensions based upon socio-economic status
existing social values, behavior and institu-
tions in the direction of greater acceptance and stage in 1ife-cycle.sz However, during the
of and conformity with rapid change through transitional stage, separate dimensions of varia-
innovation. tion can be expected to depict the radicalism
Linkage effects : tendency to breed new of the periphery alongside persistent traditional
rounds of change by creating new demands.
Production effects: creation of an attractive bases of society, and this is certainly true of
reward structure for enterprise, which in Chile today.
48 JOHN FRIEDMANN, The Strategy of Deliberate Urbaniza- centers into social development poles: Concepci6n-
tion, Comite Interdisciplinario de Desarrollo Urbano Talcahuano ; Valparaiso-Vifia; Quilpui; Antofagasta;
Universidad Catolica de Chile 1967. Arica; La Serena; Punta Arenas; Rancagua; Valdivia;
49 JOHNLEWIS,op. cit. Talca; Calama; Quillota; San Antonio; Coquimbo;
$0 JOHNFRIEDMANN, A General Theory of Polarized Chillan; Puente Alto; Tome; Iquique; Temuco;
Development, Ford Foundation Urban and Regional Coronel; Osorno, Curic6; Lota; Ovalle; Linares;
Development Advisory Program in Chile Santiago Los Angeles; Puerto Montt; Melipilla. He argues that
August 1967. any deviation of investment priorities from the econo-
5 1 JOHN FRIEDMANN, The Future of Urbanization in mic hierarchy (see footnote 46) should be based upon
Latin America: Some Observations on the Role of the social development potentials.
Periphery, Paper presented at the Congress of the $2 By implication, whereas Britain achieved economic
Interamerican Planning Society Lima October 1968. development at an early date, it never progressed to
For similar observations in the case of the U.S. see commensurate levels of social development; status
BRIAN J. L. BERRYand ELAINENEILS,Location, Size based upon opportunity is still confounded by status
and Shape of Cities as Influenced by Environmental based upon rigidities of caste-like class, and these social
Factors, in HARVEY PERLOFP,ed., The Quality of the rigidities may in fact be the principal elements inhibiting
Urban Environment, Baltimore John Hopkins Press, further economicgrowth. In thesame way, bi-culturalism
in press. Friedmann uses a variety of social and demo- constrains full Canadian development.
graphic variables to obtain a ranking of Chilean urban