Peri-urban and rural resources have been exploited for urban use throughout urban history.

However, the rate and scale of resource depletion and degradation have recently become problematic as the scale of urbanism has grown and as resource scarcity has increased. The most basic such resource is water, abstracted through reservoirs, treatment plants, and a piped reticulation system. However, the spread of boreholes and shallow wells in suburban and peri-urban areas to support growing numbers of people (including a proportion utilizing many waterintensive modern appliances living where there is no piped supply often lowers the water table below the level of tree roots, causing shade and fruit trees to die. !echarge during the rainy season is commonly inade"uate to sustain such long-term pressure on the resource. #rban and peri-urban construction re"uires ever larger "uantities of sand, gravel and roc$s, commonly extracted from modest borrow pits or "uarries of varying size in the P#%. &ompensation to local landowners varies but rehabilitation of exhausted sites remains rare. 'part from visual disamenity (a low priority to poor residents , surrounding areas can suffer damage from the actual "uarrying and as a result of heavy dust deposition. %f clays and other soils are suitable for bric$ or cement ma$ing, the scale of operations will increase, and the problems be exacerbated. (ater may be abstracted for use in "uarrying) the re"uirements for cement or bric$ ma$ing are heavy. Pools of water in abandoned wor$ings provide ready breeding grounds for disease vectors. *ometimes such wor$ings are used as landfill sites for urban refuse (see below , which may fill the holes but can cause other problems unless the site is appropriately prepared and maintained (+,, -., /,, /0 .(ood, reeds, and grasses are widely used construction, fencing, and roofing materials.#nsustainable harvesting practices damage the environment, and loss of ground cover pro-motes soil erosion. 1verexploitation of particular species contributes to the decline of birds,mammals, and insects dependent on them and contributes to biodiversity loss.(aste 2isposal and &ontaminationThe widespread location of polluting infras-tructure, such as refuse dumps and sewagetreatment plans, in the P#% imposes negativeexternalities on local residents. These com-prise disturbance from large numbers of dumptruc$s, sewage tan$ers, and livestoc$ trans-porters traversing $ey roads) smell and potentially disease-carrying vectors such as flies,mos"uitoes, and rodents) and contamination of soil and groundwater by leachate because few such facilities are ade"uately designed and maintained. The associated ine"uity and distributional issues are underscored by the general absence or gross inade"uacy of sanitary facilities and other services for peri-urban residents, who are mostly reliant on pit latrines (the inappropriate siting of which also often contributes to groundwater contamination , use of nearby streams or bushland, and unmaintained communal refuse dumps. 'll of these have negativeenvironmental implications.!ivers flowing through ma3or urban areas commonly emerge with a heavy pollution load,ranging from raw sewage to household refuse and a coc$tail of industrial and chemical effluent, much of it hazardous to health. The lac$ of on-site industrial waste capture and treatment facilities, and4or the inade"uacy of regulations and enforcement to avoid such contamination, arises through na$ed corporate selfinterest, inade"uate municipal or government capacity and often corruption of enforcement officials. Peri-urban residents downstream of cities are thus forced to drin$ and utilize contaminated water, to eat and catch fish that may have unsafe levels of heavy metals and other toxins in their body tissue, and so forth. &ontamination levels are often many times higher than the respective (orld Health 1rganization limits. %n extreme cases, people are forced to see$ alternative, inevitably more costly water and protein sources or to suffer the health conse"uences (+,, /,, /5 .#sually, the poorest households and members of the community, who are least able to resist the changes or to access alternative resources or livelihood activities, are the most vulnerable. The evidence from a wide variety of situations also points to increasing wealth disparities and social differentiation among both indigenous residents and immigrants as periurbanization proceeds. P#%s become increasingly closely integrated with urban economies and resource flows, albeit in changing ways and affecting different sets of people at different stages. This underscores the urban footprint concept, namely the extent of the wider area re"uired to support a city and its people.

&16&7#*%16* This review has bro$en with convention by see$ing to explore environmental issues and problems at the P#% or urban fringe in diverse contexts worldwide rather than 3ust in a particular category of countries or geographical region. 6evertheless, in order to illustrate some of the differences and similarities between groups of countries defined in terms of historical political economies, they have been assessed separately. However, this should not be ta$en as implying that they constitute somehow internally coherent or homogeneous groupings. 1n the contrary, their diversity is profound, and the connections across groups are increasing. 8oreover, despite that, the evidence surveyed shows that many processes, concerns, and problems are similar, perhaps varying in extent, severity, and li$ely impact, if only because of the differing resource bases, median living standards, and institutional capacities. %n the future, such categorizations may be superfluous. 6ew technologies, e.g., aircraft re"uiring longer runways and larger terminals, increase the land and infrastructural re"uirements everywhere) the same applies to the spread of mobile telephone transmitters and elite and middle-class recreational land uses,such as golf courses in the urban fringe4edge city and P#%. 7and-use conflicts and changes to traditional livelihoods are almost inevitable in such www.annualreviews.org 9 Peri-#rban :nvironmental %ssues ,/; situations of flux and dynamic activity changes. &oncerns about the loss of often high-potential agricultural land are universal, although the significance for local or national self-reliance and for households affected may be very different. ' smallholder or farmer selling his land to a housing developer in :urope or 6orth 'merica is in a very different position to a subsistence peri-urban household in 'frica or 'sia having its family plot in communal lands sold from under it by the chief or village elders. 7andfill sites and sewage treatment wor$s occur everywhere) however, construction standards and maintenance levels vary considerably, with the greatest redress available to citizens with the greatest means and in countries where the standards are, ironically, highest. &apitalist globalization is weaving the world ever more tightly into an integrated system driven by profit see$ing. (ithin this context,mar$ets, commodity flows, and human migration operate and articulate at various scales and through diverse spaces. Previously separate areas with distinct identities and activit ymixes are becoming lin$ed through ongoing< and, as in &hina<dramatic urbanization and infrastructural corridors. This applies also to rural, peri-urban, and urban zones of individual countries and which are increasingly forming in :8!s across national borders too, whether along the #.*.-8exican border, within the :uropean #nion, the *ingapore :8! (which embraces ad3acent parts of 8alaysia and %ndonesia , or the increasingly integrated networ$ of mushrooming cities spanning the #nited 'rab :mirates. The ways in which these spaces are organized, and how they are lived and experienced by different groups of people, are also evolving. ' common feature of P#%s in poor countries is the diversity of livelihood activities re"uired by individuals and households in order to spread ris$ and gain ade"uate in comes. This is far less true in richer contexts, where most people have considerable disposable leisure time. %ronically, perhaps, almost all categoriesof urban(izing place are becoming less selfreliant, more dependent on intensive resource ,=>*imon use and modern technologies, and often less sustainable, 3ust as sustainability and the li$ely impact of global environmental change (?:& are beginning to feature more prominently on public agendas. ?iven the dynamic but urbanizing land-use mix and population structure in P#%s, these interface zones will contribute increasingly to ?:& over time, as well as experience its impacts. #rban footprints of all but the smallest, most local service centers are actually increasing as resources are ac"uired from ever-larger areas, even globally. (aste disposal also covers greater distances as it is differentiated and dumped or recycled. 'lthough unrecyclable and organic waste may go no further than a peri-urban municipal landfill site or incinerator, scrap metal and old computers may cross the world for smelting and reclamation of valuable metals. %n view of the diversity of conditions prevailing within and between countries, strategies to

improve conditions will necessarily have to be designed for local appropriateness. &ertainly, no blueprint or off-the-shelf solutions will be wor$able. However, a few broad policy implications can be derived from the available evidence and on the basis of the above review. @irst, each cityAs P#% needs to be included within the urban planning system because it forms part of the functional urban area and the urban ecological footprint. 8any large cities and conurbations are hamstrung by the lac$ ofa strategic or integrated planning mechanism that transcends their constituent local authority boundaries. 8oreover, the fact that P#%s commonly straddle a substantial number of urban and surrounding rural local authorities underscores the necessity of establishing such a integrated metropolitan planning system. This would also facilitate the urgent challenge of addressing ?:& at the scale of functional urban areas rather than 3ust the contiguous built-up zones. *econd, effective planning for such an extended geographical area will re"uire ade"uate and appropriate levels of local authority and metropolitan capacity and resources. %n many poorer countries, governance capacity is totally inade"uate. Third, and lin$ed to the second point, is that the P#%As dynamic nature demands a flexibility of planning mechanisms and institutions that is seldom evident even for the fully built-up urban area under any system of governance. %n particular, a rather different balance between permissive and restrictive planning and development control is needed. @ourth, fast-growing urban areas in many poor countries are characterized by conflicts between (estern-derived and individualized land tenure systems and those of indigenous origin, which have traditionally been based on communal principles. %nclusion of the P#% within the planning system may increase this complexity by including more communal land albeit areas where individualization of tenure is occurring rapidly. @ifth, many urban mayors or governors and their administrations have little if any commitment to the P#% or concern for issues there. This reflects their urban orientation plus the lower concentrations of infrastructure, buildings, and voters in the P#% relative to core urban zones. &hanging such attitudes is essential and might most effectively be achieved by means of practical and financial demonstration of the interrelationships between urban and P#%s. @ollowing directly from this is the sixth and final implication, namely the imperative of formulating and implementing sustainable strategies to address the often conflicting resource and service demands of rich and poor people, who are commonly concentrated in separate and highly segregated neighborhoods. 'lthough historically, P#% residents have been relatively and4or absolutely poor, outmigration of wealthier people to construct large houses on cheaper land in the P#% often changes the socioeconomic profile of residents, perhaps thereby adding BvoiceC to P#% constituencies. *#88'!D P1%6T* ,. #rban fringe4peri-urban interface (P#% issues are widespread nowadays but have differing significance and importance according to various factors, including land tenure systems, rate and scale of urbanization, availability of employment, standards of living and median incomes, resources, and the capacity of local governance institutions. 0. 'lthough generally considered a present-day phenomenon, new archaeological evidence suggests strongly that important P#%s4zones may have characterized ma3or (pre industrial cities in different world regions. 5. %n western :urope and 6orth 'merica, counterurbanization during the late ,;->s and ,;/>s focused attention on the urban fringe and beyond) more recent beltway4edge city developments have changed the nature of pressures there and focused attention anew on land-use zoning and planning. :nvironmental concerns are less prominent in @rance than the #nited Eingdom and 6orth 'merica. .. &hinese urbanization and peri-urbanization has been unprecedented in rate, scale, and distribution, combining mass migration with in situ rural urbanization and industrialization. The huge environmental costs of unbridled economic modernization are now belatedly receiving urgent official attention.

+. Eey P#% issues in poor and middle-income countries include the rate and scale of landuse and land-cover change, loss of agricultural land but also some new opportunities for commercial mar$et-oriented cultivation of higher-value crops, unsustainable use and depletion of both renewable and nonrenewable resources, and the environmental and health impacts of urban landfills and waterborne wastes. www.annualreviews.org 9 Peri-#rban :nvironmental %ssues ,=, -. %ntensifying globalization is integrating traditionally rural, peri-urban, and urban spaces increasingly closely, both within and also across national boundaries. 'lthough often still sharp, similarities and differences in the nature of peri-urban environmental issues around the world appear to be becoming more comparable as urban footprints extend. The impacts of global environmental change will also be felt increasingly across these transition zones. @#T#!: %**#:* ,. *trategic4integrated urban planning is needed across numerous local authority boundaries (including different categories of local authority . 0. :nsuring that local4metropolitan government has ade"uate capacity and resources. 5. :nsuring that planning systems in contexts of dynamic change remain flexible. .. &onflicts between different land tenure and planning systems need resolution. +. Political commitment to peri-urban4fringe issues is often regarded as marginal by the respective local authorities. -. &onflicting resource demands of rich and poor people need to be addressed with sustainable strategies.

2efining PeriurbanF #nderstanding !ural#rban 7in$ages and Their &onnection to %nstitutional &ontexts 2avid 7. %a"uinta 6ebras$a (esleyan #niversity *ociology4'nthropology4*ocial (or$

+>>> *aint Paul 'venue 7incoln, 6: -=+>.0/;- #.*.'. dliG6ebr(esleyan.edu 'xel (. 2rescher (erderring .) /;>=+ @reiburg #niversity of @reiburg4?ermany *ection on 'pplied ?eography of the Tropics and *ubtropics ('PT 'xel.2rescherGsonne.unifreiburg.de 'pril 0+, 0>>> Portions of this paper were developed with support from the Partnership Programme of the @ood and 'griculture 1rganization of the #nited 6ations (@'1 . The results are part of a spontaneously generated collaborative pro3ect carried out by the authors wor$ing on the sub3ect of urban and periurban agriculture (#P' . 2avid 7. %a"uinta was sponsored by The 7and Tenure *ervice (*2'' in cooperation with 6ebras$a (esleyan #niversity (#*' . 'xel (. 2rescher was sponsored by The !ural %nstitutions and Participation *ervice (*2'! in cooperation with @reiburg #niversity (?ermany . The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not imply any official position on the part of the @ood and 'griculture 1rganization or the #nited 6ations. 6o portions of this wor$ may be reproduced by means electronic or otherwise without the expressed written consent of the authors. Table of &ontents , %6T!12#&T%16 , 0 P:!%#!H'6 '* ' &16&:PT , 5 ' P:!%#!H'6 TDP171?D '62 !:7'T:2 %6*T%T#T%16'7 &16T:IT* 5 5., .

Typology of Periurban . 5.,., + Jillage Periurban or Perirural (K!uralK places with KurbanK consciousness + 5.,.0 + 2iffuse Periurban (%nmigration from various places / 5.,.5 &hain Periurban (%nmigration from a single place 5.,.. %nplace Periurban 5.,.+ 'bsorbed Periurban 5.0 / 7in$s between Periurban types 5.5 = %nstitutional &ontexts ; 5.5., ,> The (6etwor$ %nduced %nstitutional &ontext ,, 5.5.0 ,, 'malgamated %nstitutional &ontext ,0 5.5.5 !econstituted %nstitutional &ontext 5.5.. Traditional %nstitutional &ontext 5.5.+ !esidual %nstitutional &ontext (Traditionalism . ,5

'PP7%&'T%16* '62 %**#:* .., 'n 'pplication of the Typology to 7and Tenure and Population ,5 ..0 %ssues !emaining ,+ H%H7%1?!'PHD ,; :6261T:* 0+ %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 , %ntroduction %ncreasingly, policy ma$ers and researchers are ac$nowledging the potential role urban and periurban environments play in alleviating food insecurity and enhancing the nutritional status of , urban poor and marginalized people (2rescher and %a"uinta ,;;; . 's #P' itself has become more prevalent, so too has our awareness of its potential and limitations. #nfortunately, research and policy discussion surrounding #P' have been hampered byF M a lac$ of participation and support from international organizations, M often negative attitudes by elected policy ma$ers, M inade"uate organizational structures, M oversimplification of issues and relationships, and M the failure to ade"uately define fundamental terminology involved in #P'. There is also an increasing perception that rural, periurban, and urban environments operate as a system rather than independently and that rural development and urban planning are necessarily lin$ed activities. the 'ctivities or interventions in one arena have conse"uences in

other, often negative. 1n the other hand, creative policies can turn liabilities into resources and bridge the ruralurban divide. The term periurban is used fre"uently in the literature and in policy discussions, yet definitions are largely situational and case specific. They provide little basis for a unified

understanding of what constitutes periurban. 1ur goal to provide some theoretical clarity and practical utility to this problem by creating a typology of periurban. 1ur typology

identifies the institutional framewor$ and relevant networ$s in the different BtypesC of periurban. Thus, development wor$ers can use this as a tool to identify the $ey institutions in their area(s of interest. 0 Periurban as a &oncept Today researchers from many disciplinary and paradigmatic perspectives use the term periurban to describe contradictory processes and environments. :xamination of the literature evidences a number of distinct patterns in the way researchers have addressed the it. (*ee

%a"uinta and 2rescher, ,;;; . #nfortunately, a variable that is seen as definitional for some is , %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 seen as an outcome of periurban processes by others. &onse"uently, the concept of periurban has become trivialized and tautological, its analytical and practical utility severely compromised. The concept of periurban emerged due to limitations in the dichotomy between rural and 0 5 urban. 8uch research has identified the inade"uacy of this simplistic dichotomy, some authors . even suggesting its analytical relevance is long past. 1thers have argued more specifically that only the dichotomous construct has outlived its usefulness not the underlying distinction between degrees of ruralness and urbaness (!ambaud ,;/5 . !#P!% (,;;= specifically criticizes the dichotomous basis of KurbanK and KruralK definitions, arguing that many of the characteristics that define rural areas exist along a continuum within which individuals, households, communities and institutions distribute

themselves. ' $ey feature of periurban environments is their dynamic nature, wherein social forms and arrangements are created, modified and discarded. They are areas of social compression or intensification where the density of social forms, types and meanings increases, fomenting conflict and social evolution. (hether we decide to accept a continuum model or a model that employs a Ktypological setK is less important than the recognition that the spectrum of change from rural to urban is discontinuous, KlumpyK, and multidimensional, and that it arises from underlying social processes. + (e begin the search for a comprehensive definition of periurban with the concept of urban. :stablished theoretical definitions of urbanization4urbanism identify the following componentsF M 2emographic component (i.e., increasing population size and density M :conomic sectoral component (i.e., a primarily nonagricultural labor force M *ocialpsychological component (i.e., consciousness of what it means to be urban %n sociology the first two components are usually ta$en as the basis for defining urbanization while the third is the core definition of urbanismthe social psychological reflection or response to urbanization (@ischer ,;=. . those The social psychological component essentially refers to

values, attitudes, tastes and behaviors that are seen to be characteristic of urban as opposed to rural dwellers. :arlier notions of this component tended to be associated with KwesternizationK, reflecting the ethnocentric thin$ing of the time (Holleman ,;-.F50. . 8ore recent writers ta$e a more neutral view of the process ((illiams, et.al. ,;=5 . 0 %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 ?iven that the above three components form the basis of the definition of KurbanK and given

that periurban includes some level of urbaness, then it follows that some variation of these three components should underlie the definition of periurban. directly lin$s periurban to the concept of a Kchange in mental orientation.K %mportantly, what seems to be not essential to the definition of periurban is Kproximity to the cityK. The fact that much periurban KplaceK is proximate to the city is substantively important and instrumental to a comprehensive understanding of periurban, but it is incidental to an elemental understanding of periurban. 's we shall elaborate, Kproximity to cityK represents a further specification, which allows us to distinguish between KtypesK of periurban, not to define periurban in the first place. geographic 'dditionally, concentration on Holleman underscores this when he

location as a basis for defining periurban also undermines a clear understanding of the rural urban spectrum as dynamic, interactive and transformative. The socialpsychological component is the one most often omitted from periurban definitions. Det as some scholars and policy analysts have argued, ignoring this component misses the reality of periurban, underestimates the prevalence of social change and misclassifies / the experiences of numerous people and communities in the real world. Typically, those researchers arguing in support of including this component have also been the most critical of definitions that rely solely on proximity to the city (?roppo and Tosselli ,;;/ . 5 ' Periurban Typology and !elated %nstitutional &ontexts #rbanization is a process of concentration and intensification of human life and activity. %t is an uneven process that ta$es place in a physical environment. possible #rbanization is one

outcome of the three fundamental population processesfertility, mortality, and migration. These processes are in turn the result of individual decisions underta$en in a sociocultural, economic,

political and environmental context.

1ne conse"uence of urbanization is the uneven

incorporation of a variety of institutional forms into the larger cultural environments, identified as urban, periurban and rural. arrangements %n particular, we identify five classes of institutional

that arise within the complex continuum from rural to urban and that fall within the range of phenomena that various scholars and practitioners have identified as periurban. :ach of these institutional classes is connected to a specific periurban type and hypothesised to arise from a specific demographic process (in parentheses underlying urbanization. 5 %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 M Jillage P#F 6etwor$ %nduced N (*o3ourning4circulation4migration M 2iffuse P#F 'malgamated N (2iffuse migration M &hain P#F !econstituted N (&hain migration M %nPlace P#F Traditional N (%n situ urbanization M 'bsorbed P#F !esidual N (Traditionalism with *uccession4displacement 5., Typology of Periurban The importance of these classes of institutional arrangements is that they can help us identify useful mesopolicy interventions. This is important in urban and periurban environments where there is an intensification of conflict and a necessity for negotiating and resolving competing claims (e.g., in residential versus agricultural land use debates, or between competing customary institutional forms and values and for implementing development plans. *uch conflicts occur at all levels, including family, neighborhood, organizational, community, regional, and national.

The nature and complexity of this region of society, which combines elements of both KruralK and Kurban,K is well established in the literature under terms li$e periurban, exurban, urban tract, rurban, urban fringe, semiurban, and even suburban. 5.,., JP#F Jillage Periurban or Perirural (K!uralK places with KurbanK consciousness This category refers to areas that are geographically nonproximate to an urban area, yet are experiencing substantial urbanism (i.e., social psychological dimension of urbanization . (hile such influences can accrue solely through mass media and the diffusion of consumerist ideologies, they are more li$ely in developing countries to occur visOvis such processes asF M The inflow of outmigrant remittances, M 1utmigrant infusion of KurbanK ideas and modes of behavior, M 1utmigrant infusion of non income resources, and4or M 1utmigrant participationparticularly strategicin community decisionma$ing. This is the category of place that is most often omitted in the consideration of periurban environments. %n essence its designation as periurban rests on its social psychological This transformation is itself posited to However, rather than to focus on the

transformation rather than its geography or size. result from the demographic process of migration. geographic

movement of the outmigrants, we emphasize the continuing lin$ages by which they effect the . %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 = infusion of things urban into the village culture. %mportantly, these are environments which are li$ely very stable yet capable of absorbing and accommodating Kurban valuesK. The mechanism of accommodation rests on the stability of the community and the structured networ$ of ;

participation by outmigrants. 5.,.0 %P#F %nplace Periurban These areas are proximate to the urban area and result from inplace (insitu urbanization. That is, they are in the process of being absorbed whole, whether by annexation (actual expansion of the city fringe or simple reclassification (reflecting de facto urban expansion . %n some

instances they become more urbanli$e under their own power through natural increase and4or rural inmigration. 8ore commonly, they are formed from periurban villages by a combination ,> of those processes combined with inmigration from the nearby urban area. (hichever is the case, because they are being absorbed KwholeK, such places tend to perpetuate and reinforce the existing power structure and bases of ine"uality. To the degree that sufficiently large numbers of ,, inmigrants arrive from the city, oldtimernewcomer conflict is li$ely to emerge. :xclusive of any new urban inmigrants, the residents of these areas tend to reflect the extremes of the local power spectrumF M those least li$ely to be opportunistic since they chose not to migrate earlier (e.g., poor ) M those most li$ely to benefit from customary or traditional arrangements and who had a vested interest in remaining (e.g., the rich and4or powerful ) M those most embedded in and accepting of customary or traditional arrangements who had little real opportunity to migrate earlier (e.g., women . Hecause of their lac$ of geographic displacement and the potential for increasing oldtimernewcomer polarization, these environments should have the most intact and "uite conservatively held customary and traditional institutions. 5.,.5 &P#F &hain Periurban (%nmigration from a single place *ome areas proximate to the city undergo settlement visOvis a process of chain migration,

i.e., the geographic translocation of a village population to a specific locale in the urban periphery. These migrants tend to be the most opportunistic (i.e., ris$ta$ing oriented members of their original village population, hence most open to change. These areas have a high degree of ethnic homogeneity and numbers sufficient for a critical mass. or + %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 customary beliefs and institutions tend to be carried to and reconstructed in the new environment, ,0 integrating elements of the new surrounding urban institutions. This integration of urban institutions happens to a greater extent for chain periurban than for inplace periurban areas. This type of KcommunityK formation is similar to that described by Herbert ?ans (,;-0 as leading to the creation of Kurban villagesK. %ndeed, chain migration is the master trend underlying much international migration. for :arly migrants or KpioneersK serve as auspices of migration &onse"uently, traditional

later KsettlersK from the homeland. Hy providing temporary housing and information on the ways of the new culture, the pioneers reinforce their status as landsmann. This process also reinforces both the tendency to form enclaves and to reproduce adapted KtraditionalK institutions<along the lines of $inship, landsmannschaften or coethnicity. This type of periurban community is highly stable. are 'reas identified as Ks"uatter settlementsK around the cities of developing countries

mostly this type or diffuse periurban. 5.,.. 2P#F 2iffuse Periurban (%nmigration from various places ' separate category of periurban is comprised of areas proximate to the city, which are settled visOvis inmigration. %n this instance the inmigrants derive from a variety of geographic source points rather than a single one. includes %nmigration to these environments often also

migrants from urban areas. These areas are characterized by greater ethnic heterogeneity and a greater density of varied beliefs about customary institutions and arrangements than chain periurban environments. The institutional patterns here reflect much greater inclusion of KurbanK forms than is the case for either chain or inplace periurban. 2iffuse periurban environments have a greater potential than chain periurban environments for both conflict and for negotiating new institutions that are more KurbanK oriented. *uch areas of settlement may arise from a KstagedK occupation, whereby unoccupied land is settled by the landless acting in a coordinated ta$eover at a time specific (e.g., de *oto ,;=; . These areas may also arise from spontaneous processes of migration over a period of time, whereby people from ,5 diverse origins<mostly the poor and landless<settle together. %mportantly, the heterogeneity of cultures of origin re"uires that any collective organization must be negotiated across<rather ,. than along<customary lines. *imple adherence to tradition is insufficient to settle conflicts, which derive directly from differences between traditions. increasing Therefore, there must be

appeals to modern (i.e., urban or transcultural modes and methods of dispute resolution and %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 community building which transcend particular traditions. The li$elihood of such cross cultural negotiation is increased by the inmigration of KurbanK residents whether they have been long time urbanites or more recent inmigrants from rural areas temporarily ma$ing use of urban ,+ ghettos as auspices of migration.

5.,.+ 'bsorbed Periurban The final category of periurban refers to areas proximate to or within the urban context that have been so for a considerable period of time. The defining characteristic of these locations is the maintenance of customary or traditional institutional arrangements which are derived from the culture of original settlers4residents who have long since ceased to be the numeric ma3ority in the area. These areas derive from either inplace periurban areas or from chain periurban areas. 1ver time either of these periurban types can undergo the compositional processes of succession and displacement while on the macro level being evermore absorbed into the urban environment administratively, politically and socialpsychologically. %n short, the original settler culture group is replaced through either residential succession or through diffusion due to differential migration along ethnic4cultural lines. Det, some important customary arrangements (i.e., institutions of the original group remain in place now supported by KnewcomersK. ritualism, These vestigial arrangements are supported through a combination of

power4dominance relations and reification by arrangements in the formal4modern sector. They have a strong conservative effect in the form of adherence to KtraditionK for traditionPs sa$e rather ,than an adherence to traditional principles because they are functional for the community. 5.0 7in$s between Periurban types %n our pursuit of a definition for periurban we also have had to explore the larger "uestion of the relationship between rural and urban environments. 1ne observation that is well established in the literature is that rural outmigrants generally do not go directly to large cities. !ather, a series of moves are involved, called step migration, wherein rural migrants move first to villages or small towns and successively to more urban environments. ' second observation in the literature is that migration does not sever all<or even most<lin$ages between the migrant and

,/ her4his community of origin and family. Ta$en together these two points underscore the importance of conceptualizing the periurban environment as a dynamic, transformative, and reciprocal arena lin$ed at the macro level not only / %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 by economic activities and geography but also significantly by the social fabric of individual and ,= family networ$s. Thus, the periurban environment is dynamic exactly because of the flow of migrants and the density and heterogeneity of activities present. %t is transformative because it changes the migrants and the migrants change it. individual %t is reciprocal not only because

migrants and the social environment influence each other, but also because the individual lin$s between donor areas and the receiving areas continue to induce change in both directions at the ,; aggregate and institutional levels. These comments suggest a further elaboration of the five periurban types discussed above. There are two K$indsK of lin$s that we identify at the macro levelF lin$s that persist across space in the face of geographic displacement) and lin$s that persist across time. @%?#!: , captures the dynamics of both types of lin$s. The lin$s can be conceptualized in terms of the periurban types themselves or in terms of the institutional contexts that they imply. (e include both conceptual schemes in @%?#!: ,, and elaborate the institutional contexts in the following section. %n the diagram horizontal arrows represent lin$s across space. These lin$ages are the direct result of migrationeither chain or diffusewhich operates so as to create individualized exchange networ$s across space. The accumulation of this individual social capital lin$s

geographically distinct areas into a larger exchange networ$. 'lternatively, vertical arrows represent lin$s across time. area, 0> allowing for the accumulation of demographic, social and institutional change. The upper portion of @%?#!: , is shaded to isolate that portion of the model that is primarily concerned with the transformative effects of migration from that portion primarily concerned 0, with changes over time. Thus, the five periurban types are embedded within the broader rural urban dynamic. that @rom this vantagepoint two interacting subsystems are identified. 6ote These lin$ages result from the passage of time in a given

@%?#!: , depicts only the principle flows and mechanisms of change. 5.5 %nstitutional &ontexts Having created a typology of periurban, we must now translate this into a tool with social and analytical relevance. These institutional contexts, identified at the start of section 5, appear in parentheses in @%?#!: , for each periurban type. Hy institutional we mean the broad range of cultural meaning and social organization that encompasses customary and informal relations. Hy context we mean the essential institutional features and structural constraints implicit in each = %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 element. %n Table , we summarize the institutional contexts and characteristics associated with each element in the periurban typology. (e also include a general assessment of the relationship between each institutional context and existing stratification systems. This is important since as *on3e and *tulhofer (,;;+ point out horizontal institutions encourage cooperation among social actors, while vertical ones erode

cooperation. Thus, institutions embodying stratification will tend to erode cooperation. However, since most institutions include elements of both a horizontal and a vertical nature. (e suggest extending the distinction between horizontal and vertical institutions to include horizontal and vertical elements within an institution. %n this way institutions are not seen as entirely

KbeneficialK nor KdetrimentalK but rather KbeneficialK for some subgroups (hence engendering their cooperation and support for institutional maintenance and KdetrimentalK for other subgroups (hence undermining cooperation and the overall solidarity of support for a given institution . 5.5., The (6etwor$ %nduced %nstitutional &ontext 'ssociated with village periurban environments is the networ$ induced institutional context. :nvironments of this type are tradition oriented and in most respects loo$ li$e rural villages. Population size and density are relatively low and many residents are involved with agricultural production. The $ey differentiating factor is the socialpsychological orientation of the population. 2ue to the outmigration of some residents, urban attitudes and values are introduced to the community. This process of diffusion or induction is driven by circulation and so3ourning of the outmigrants and in general by their maintenance of individual exchange networ$s with their village. 2espite the introduction of urban attitudes and tastes via the outmigrants, the institutions of the village remain traditional in orientation and stable. 6ew ideas, induced by outmigrant

influence, are absorbed slowly into the traditional context, often through a process of redefinition. !edefinition of the situation allows for the perpetuation of Bideal cultureC in the face of adaptation to the needs of the situation. Thus, for example, village tradition may call for land to be owned, controlled, and wor$ed by men. However, a shortage of young males due to migration selectivity may lead to a redefinition whereby land is still nominally owned by men but is now in fact controlled and wor$ed by women. *uch a situation may involve the shift from real decision 00

ma$ing by men to mere symbolic male approval of decision ma$ing by women. ; %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 :ven though change is effected, the traditional institutional structures remain largely intact. Hecause the BurbanC ideas are brought in from outside the village and because it is not geographically close to the urban area, the demand for change is relatively low. Hecause of the long term stability of the traditional system it has a high resistance to change and thus incorporates change slowly into itself. *on3e and *tulhofer (,;;+ attribute this stability to

deeply internalized and shared informal norms that they call Ksociocultural capital.K They argue that institutions built on deeply internalized, proven norms will be stable, change in small evolutionary ways, and resist violent, exogenous change. &hange increases the opportunities for egalitarianism and the erosion of the gender and age stratification systems, albeit incrementally. 5.5.0 'malgamated %nstitutional &ontext 2iffuse periurban environments are formed by the influx of migrants from a variety of geographic and cultural sources. as These environments lie nearby urban areas and also serve

migration endpoints for urban outmigrants. 6ew migrants to these areas are generally concerned with survival needs. Their compositional heterogeneity necessitates the formation of a collective identity if they are to obtain needed services from formal urban institutions. Their heterogeneity also re"uires them to negotiate solutions to survival and collective identity because they cannot rely on simple tradition. %n fact, conflicting cultural traditionsinternally and externallymay be a chief obstacle to functioning with the nearby urban environment. These are environments that have a high need for change due to their proximity to the city. The influx of new migrants, the demands of coping with the nearby urban sector, and the need to overcome cultural barriers re"uire that resistance to change will be low. The very selectivity of

migration, whereby the BinnovatorsC are most li$ely to have migrated, supports this low resistance to change. consensus These environments are most li$ely to spawn democratic or

based change and institutions. Therefore, they are environments, which have the greatest opportunity for egalitarianism and erosion of traditional stratification systems. *olutions

generated in this environment have to meet the needs of the modern sector and often incorporate wage labor as a significant economic component. institutions Det, the relative lac$ of formal

initially means the solutions tend to be novel. *uch emergent institutional forms are an amalgam of the various customary traditions and modern sector forms. these The chief re"uirement for

new systems is that they achieve some negotiated legitimacy from the participants4residents. Qust ,> %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 how they will negotiate it is itself a re"uired first step in the process of creating the new institutions. 5.5.5 !econstituted %nstitutional &ontext This institutional context exists when an area proximate to the city becomes an endpoint of chain migration. %n these environments the dense concentration of migrants with similar cultural origins leads to the recreation of the institutional forms that existed in the village. This recreation is never exact) therefore, we use the term reconstituted. This reconstruction of collective cultural identity is defensive in posture as the new migrants attempt to reestablish the familiar amidst the alien. %t is exacerbated by the challenge of dealing with urban formal institutions. 's with amalgamated institutional contexts, the need for change is high due to proximity to the urban environment. 1n the other hand, resistance to change is higher in this case because of the defensive nature of the reconstituted institutions, which have been organized along traditional or customary lines. (e classify the resistance to change as medium here to reflect the tradeoff

between the conservative force of the reconstituted institutional form and the liberalizing force of migration, which selects for innovators in the population. Thus, change will reflect the old but include some urban4modern components, particularly those which ma$e efficient use of the formal sector or allow for effective lin$ages to the modern sector. stratification %n terms of

systems this institutional context reinforces those types that existed in the traditional system. However, the exact form of the stratification system may change. 2ue to the way these environments are formed, individuals in them tend to remain lin$ed to their places of origin. these &irculation and remittance flows are li$ely to remain high. Thus,

environments will have a continuing impact on the Kmore ruralK components of the exchange networ$, fostering further migration, introducing urban attitudes and values and possibly initiating commercially valuable economic exchanges between locally produced goods and urban mar$ets and products. 5.5.. Traditional %nstitutional &ontext The processes of growth and annexation, combined with inmigration, create inplace periurban environments. #nli$e chain periurban environments, which have benefited from ris$ ta$ing immigrants, these environments are populated by the converse of migration selectivity, namely those least li$ely to have migrated out of the traditional environment. These ,, %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 environments generate traditional institutional contexts. (hile proximate to the city, they have longterm stable institutions that respond to the inmigration of KothersK<particularly urbanites<through defensive insulation. (*ee @ischer ,;=.. %n this traditional context the need for change is medium because of the relatively stable

institutional environment. Det, this same environment creates a high resistance to change. Thus, institutional adaptation is slow and there is great potential for conflict that becomes increasingly polarized in the form of oldtimernewcomer conflict. 's the existing sta$eholders attempt to protect KtraditionK visOvis defensive insulation, the $inds of adaptations that emerge are li$ely to be inefficient in terms of facilitating access to the modern urban sector. to This process leads

heightened conflict over control of the institutional system and is met with increasing oppression along traditional stratification lines. !emittance flows and circulation are of reduced importance in this context since the environment itself is mostly intact. Thus, the impact of this environment on more rural areas is more limited than for other periurban types. There are more formal institutions in this environment but not necessarily of an KurbanK type. 5.5.+ !esidual %nstitutional &ontext (Traditionalism !esidual institutional contexts are created when others have replaced the original culture group though a process of residential succession and displacement yet left in place a set of arrangements whose roots lie in the culture of the original residents. The institutional context is upheld through ritualism or traditionalism (i.e., rigid adherence to custom simply for traditionPs sa$e even when the basis for the tradition no longer holds or because members of the original culture group still control the local power structure, precluding access by newcomers and rewarding compliance. These environments are actually a part of the city) that is, they have been physically absorbed by the city. However, we classify them as periurban to emphasize that the roots of the institutional arrangements lie very much in the periurban rather than the urban environment. 8uch li$e village periurban environments loo$ rural, so too do absorbed

periurban environments loo$ urban. 'nd 3ust as it is primarily the social psychological dimension, which differentiates village periurban environments from rural ones, so too does it

differentiate absorbed periurban environments from urban ones. ' ma3or characteristic of this periurban environment is the presence of both traditional and formal institutions. ,0 %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 Hecause absorbed periurban environments lie within the urban environment, there is a high need for change exerted politically by urban formal institutions. The residual institutional structures themselves are maladapted to change and ultimately will lose their legitimacy as they fail to meet the needs of the residents. 6onetheless, there is high resistance to change and slow adaptation until the community reaches a crisis of legitimation. 't this point conflict will be high and li$ely revolutionary (whether generated internally or implemented coercively from outside by the government . #nder residual institutions much change is simple compliance, whereby there is an outward acceptance but a private re3ection of the demands of the formal sector. This compliance leads to a different legitimation crisis < one in which the formal sector authority is undermined within the smaller absorbed periurban environment. Thus, attempts to eliminate or alter the stratification system implicit in the residual institutions will be met with resistance. The result is increased support for the maintenance of the traditional stratification system and heightened re3ection of the modern sector. . 'pplications and %ssues .., 'n 'pplication of the Typology to 7and Tenure and Population 's an illustration of its utility, we apply our typology to the areas of land tenure (more specifically inheritance rules and population dynamics (more specifically population aging . The top panel of Table 0 summarizes the relationship between inheritance rules and the various periurban environments. (hile there are many ways to thin$ about the range of resources

available for inheritance, we consider here only the simple division into land and nonland wealth transmission. 1n this basis inheritance rules in JP# environments are primarily oriented toward issues of land while the rules in 2P# and 'P# environments are more oriented toward issues of nonland wealth transmission. &P# and %P# environments are much more li$ely to involve a blend of the two types of resources but for different reasons. &P# because the chain networ$s which facilitate migration to the area also facilitate the accumulation of land resources. %P# because the persistence of

customary institutions rests upon the ability of elders to control the resources in the community N foremost being land. However, proximity to the urban wage labor mar$et for both &P# and %P# ,5 %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 means that members of the community will increasingly also accumulate nonland wealth 05 resources that may be transmitted to the next generation. The need for clear and specific rules for inheritance is especially high in environments where land is the fundamental basis of wealth. Thus, JP# and %P# environments have a high need for clear rules of transmission. 'P# environments also have a high need for clear rules, but rather than deriving from the centrality of land this need derives from their proximity to the urban context and its prevalence of urban formal institutions. &P# 1n the other hand, in 2P# and

environments the high concentration of poverty, general lac$ of formalized access to land and paucity of formal institutions means the need for inheritance rules is much lower. %nheritance rules are most clear and consistent in those areas where their need is high and the cultural context relatively homogeneous and connected to the past (JP#, %P# and 'P# . %n &P# environments they will be only somewhat clear due to the emergent nature of the cultural norms

in the amalgamated context. They will, however, be clearer in &P# than in 2P# environments where the diversity of residents and cultural forms more li$ely creates a highly idiosyncratic pattern of inheritance rules. 7egitimacy refers to the breadth of acceptance of a phenomenon in the population. !ules

and phenomena rooted in broadly shared internalized norms will have a high degree of 0. legitimacy. %n our example the legitimacy of inheritance rules should be broad and customary derived in JP# and %P# environments. derived %n the &P# case legitimacy is also customary %n 2P# environments the

but less so, owing to the greater cultural heterogeneity present.

legitimacy of inheritance rules is low since it derives from a shifting combination of heterogeneous customs and modern institutional demands. *tructured ine"uality is greatest in those contexts that are most traditional in orientation. This is particularly true along age and gender lines. Thus, structured ine"uality is high for JP#, %P# and 'P# types and low for 2P#. &P# (e classify structured ine"uality as moderate for

due to the blend of traditional and modern culture. &onflict is present in all environments, but it varies in amount and source. (e see conflict emerging along structured ine"uality lines as more li$ely in JP#, 2P# and &P# environments, whereas in %P# and 'P# environments the conflict is more li$ely to emerge surrounding the ,. %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 interface between customary and formal institutions. This latter conflict we see as more normative and broad in its impact, thus, heightened. (e have included a second example of population aging in the bottom panel of T'H7: 0 for

illustrative purposes only and do not elaborate on it here. *imilar analyses can be carried out for any policy area that is distributed across the ruralperiurbanurban spectrum. ..0 %ssues !emaining 8any issues remain concerning the indicators and thresholds differentiating !4P#4# system. M (hat population densityR M (hat population sizeR M (hat percentage of the labor force in nonagricultural activitiesR M (hat measures of urbanism and social psychological transformationR There also remain "uestions as to how to KcodeK the various categories. @or exampleF M %s a parttime periurban farmer with offfarm labor income in the agricultural labor forceR M %n households with multiple wor$ers how is the household coded when one family member wor$s in agriculture and the other(s wor$ in the wage labor sectorR M How is labor for subsistence consumption to be regarded in the schemeR Luestions also remain regarding the institutional contexts related to policy ma$ing. M 're the contexts always lin$ed to the periurban types in an isomorphic fashionR M 2oes change within each context operate as hypothesizedR M 2o all stratification systems (i.e., gender and age within a given institutional context experience the same forces of erosion and support and to the same degreeR M How extensively do we need to elaborate the system of sta$eholders in each environment in order to create a useable tool for policy analysisR These are 3ust some of the difficult operational "uestions, but raising them does not compromise the utility of the theoretical framewor$. 1ur framewor$ < albeit incomplete < is still a useful conceptual tool for as$ing policy "uestions about why interventions wor$ in some areas and not in others. the li$elihood of success. %t provides clues as to how to modify interventions and increase

,+ %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 @%?#!:* '62 T'H7:* @%?#!: ,F Periurban Typology with %nstitutional &ontexts ! ! Jillage Periurban (6etwor$ %nduced &hain Periurban (!econstituted # T % 8 : ! ' 7 # ! H %nPlace # ! ' 7

Periurban (Traditional ' 6 'bsorbed Periurban (!esidual 8%?!'T%16 ,2iffuse Periurban ('malgamated # ! H ' 6

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 T'H7: ,F &haracteristics of %nstitutional &ontexts by Periurban Type P:!%#!H'6 TDP: %6*T%T#T%16'7 &16T:IT &H'!'&T:!%*T%& 7%6E:2 '&!1** *P'&: Jillage P# 2iffuse P# 7%6E:2 '&!1** *P'&: '6241! 1J:! T%8:S

&hain P# 7%6E:2 1J:! T%8: %nPlace P# 'bsorbed P# 6ame of 6etwor$ %nduced 'malgamated !econstituted Traditional !esidual %nstitutional (tradition oriented (Traditionalism &ontext KTypeK &reation Process 1utmigration 2iffuse migration &hain (point 'nnexation) *uccession with networ$ing) source migration %nmigration displacement &irculation Proximity to 6onproximate Proximate Proximate Proximate 'bsorbedSS #rban &enter %ntegrative 2efensive 2efensive 7ow *urvival and High 7ow *low 7ow maintenance of reconstruction of maintenance of collective traditional lin$s cultural identity tradition formation :migrant &ompositional influences heterogeneity) (remittances, %nterface with circulation, urban formal participation structures) 6egotiation among residents) :mergent4novel structures High 1rganizing

Principle Primary stimulus for change Primary mechanism limiting or effecting change 6eed for &hange !esistance to &hange Pace of 'daptation 7i$elihood for 2isruptive &onflict &haracteristics of &hange 8ost 7i$ely Types of 'daptations %mpact on *tratification *ystems Traditional (i.e., existing structures

:xistential and tradition oriented (maintenance of ideal culture via redefinition of adaptation 6ovel solutions which maintain the appearance of tradition and meet modern sector needs ?reater individual access with formal maintenance of system %nterface with urban formal institutions !econstituted structures organized along traditional lines High 8aladaptive adherence to

tradition %nterface with #rban inmigrants) urban formal %nterface with institutions) 7oss urban formal of traditionalist institutions legitimacy Traditional !itualized (i.e., existing structures structures 8oderate High 8oderate High High @ast 8oderate *low Jery slow 8oderate 8oderate High High :xperimental) Tradition oriented Polarized between 't best external democratic or incorporating traditional and compliance only consensus based) some urban modern sectors function oriented components 6ovel solutions *olutions which 8ore opportunity 8aintenance of which meet ma$e inefficient for egalitarianism) system, possibly in modern sector use of the formal :rosion of system new forms needs and create a sector new basis for

legitimacy *olutions which ma$e inefficient use of the formal sector due to slow pace of change in high need situation Heightened conflict over system) %ncreased oppression *olutions imposed from the outside formal sector *trong support for maintenance of system &hain periurban is lin$ed across space as a receiving area for migrants coming from rural and Jillage periurban areas. %t is lin$ed through time to 'bsorbed periurban areas insofar as succession4displacement produces ritualism in institutional maintenance. SS @ormally spea$ing, 'bsorbed periurban types lie within the city. %ts roots lie in the periurban zone with %nplace periurban and Jillage periurban. Thus, we include it as a form of periurban to underscore this temporal lin$age. S ,/

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 T'H7: 0F %mplications of Periurban Types and %nstitutional &ontexts for *elected 7and Tenure, Population and :nvironment %ssues P:!%#!H'6 TDP: (%6*T%T#T%16'7 &16T:IT 7%6E:2 '&!1** *P'&: %**#:4'*P:&T Jillage P# (JP# (6etwor$ %nduced 2iffuse P# (2P# ('malgamated 7%6E:2 '&!1** *P'&: '6241! 1J:! T%8:S &hain P# (&P# (!econstituted 7%6E:2 1J:! T%8: %nPlace P# 'bsorbed P# (%P# ('P# (Traditional (!esidual 7and TenureF %nheritance rules 8ostly 7and 8ostly 6onland 7and T 6onland 7and T 6onland 8ostly 6onland

High 7ow 7ow High High &lear %diosyncratic *omewhat &lear &lear Hroad customary 7ow customary &ustomary Hroad customary *ome High 7ow 8oderate High High 7ow 7ow 7ow High High %ne"uality %ne"uality %ne"uality Tradition4modern Tradition4modern Proportion !esources %nvolved 6eed &larity 7egitimacy *tructured %ne"uality &onflict 7evel &onflict Hasis High T increasing 7ow %ntermediate *trong by middle aged *trong by elders *trong by elders middle aged Productive roles 8any *ome *ome *tatus of aged Highlegitimate 7ow %ntermediate &ontrol 8oderate 8oderate &onflict 7ow 2iffuse by non 8oderate High elderly @ew (child care T subsistence P#' 7ow 8oderate

PopulationF 'ging @ew (child care T subsistence #' 7ow High *even Premises #nderlying this (or$ ,. !ural, Periurban, and #rban form a lin$ed system (!4P#4# an uneven or lumpy, multidimensional continuum. 0. %n terms of migration and urbanization periurban environments play a mediating role between rural and urban. 5. Periurban environments are places of social compression and dynamic social change. .. The potential for food production and its relationship to food security must be evaluated across the entire !4P#4# system. +. #nderstanding the nature and operation of the system re"uires a focus on the underlying dynamic processes rather than the Kfixed states.K -. :ffective policy interventions rest on interdisciplinary understanding, which incorporates physical, biological and sociocultural paradigms. /. The Bsocial footprintC of urbanization manifests differently in the urban, periurban and rural context but is only understandable when addressed in view of a lin$ed system (!4P#4# . ,= %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 H%H7%1?!'PHD 'nderson, (ilbert 7. (,;,. . The &ountry TownF ' *tudy of !ural :volution. 6ew Dor$F 2oubleday, Page T &ompany.

'refeen, H.E.*. (,;=5 K&hanging 'grarian structure in HangladeshF *himuliaF a study of a periurban villageK, 2issertation 'bstracts %nternational, '. ,;=., ..(,>F5,>., 2issl, *yracuse #niversity, ,;=5, 000 p. 'rrighi, ?. (,;/> . K7abour supplies in historical perspectiveF ' study of he proletarianization of the 'frican peasantry in !hodesiaK, Qournal of 2evelopment *tudies, -(5 F,;/05.. Haud, 8. (,;;. . K@amilies and migrationF Towards an historical analysis of family networ$sK, :conomic and *ocial History in the 6etherlands, -F=5,>=. Hettison, 2.?. (,;+= . KThe social and economic structure of a sample of periurban villages, Hlantyre7imbe, 6yasalandK, !hodes 7ivingston &ommunications, 6o. ,0, 7usa$aF !hodes 7ivingston %nstitute, ;+ p. Higsten, '. (,;;5 . KThe circular migration of smallholders in EenyaK, Qournal of 'frican :conomies, +(, F,0>. Hirley, 8. H. and E. 7oc$ (,;;= ,BHealth and Periurban 6atural !esource ProductionC) in %ntegrated Hio*ystems in Uero :missions 'pplications) Proceedings of the %nternet &onference on %ntegrated Hio*ystems) :ditorsF :ng7eong @oo T Tarcisio 2ella *enta) httpF44www.ias.unu.edu4proceedings4icibs) %nternational Health %mpact 'ssessment ?roup, 7iverpool *chool of Tropical 8edicine, Pembro$e Place, 7iverpool 75 +L'. :mailF 8hbGliv.ac.u$V Hreman, Q. (,;;> . K7abour 8igration and !ural Transformation in &olonial 'siaK, &omparative 'sian *tudies, 6o. +, 'msterdamF @ree #niversity Press. &adene, Philippe (,;;> , K#sing the *pace around #rban 'reasF ' !egional ?eography of &onflictK, Wtude rurales, 6o. ,,=,,;F05+0-/. &hapman, 8. and !.8. Prothero (,;=+ . KThemes on circulation in the Third (orldK, in !.8. Prothero and 8. &hapman, (eds. , &irculation in Third (orld &ountries, 7ondonF !outledge. &lauss, *. (,;;, K2ie o$onomische Hedeutung der @rau im landlichen !aum (estafri$as und ihre *tellung im :ntwichlungsprozess (The economic importance of women in (est 'frican

rural areas and their role in the development process ,K (estafri$a zwischen autochthoner Eultur and 8odernisierung. :in 'fri$a!eader, ed. 2iarra, p. 0.,0-0, 'achener Heitrage zur vergleichenden *oziologie und zur &hina @orschung 6o. /, @ran$furt. ,; %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 &lough P. (,;;- , KPlanning and *ustainable 8anagementF ' !e:xamination of the Peri#rban ProblemK, !eview of 8ar$eting and 'gricultural :conomics, 2ec., -.(5 F0//0=; &1'? (,;;; , K#rban and Periurban 'gricultureK, &ommittee on 'griculture, @ood and 'griculture 1rganization.;;4,>, @ifteenth *ession, Qanuary. &ran$shaw, 1wen (,;;5 , K*"uatting, 'partheid and #rbanisation of the *outhern (itwatersrandK, 'frican 'ffairs, ;0(5-- F5,+,. &ribier, @ranXoise (,;/5 . KThe *econd Homes of #rbanites in the @rench &ountrysideK, pp. ,=,0>. in Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dPhistoire, gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie des campagnes, 6o. .;+>, ParisF 8outon T &o. &rowley, :ve and Eirsten 'ppendini (,;;; , !ural PovertyF Population 2ynamics, 7ocal %nstitutions and 'ccess to !esourcesK, Paper presented at the Thematic (or$shop on Population, Poverty and :nvironment held at @'1, !ome, 1ctober ,;;= and posted Qanuary httpF44www.fao.org4('%&:6T4@'1%6@14*#*T2:J4(pdirect4(pre>>;,.htm 2rescher, '.(. and 2avid 7. %a"uinta (,;;; . K#rban and Periurban @ood ProductionF ' new challenge for the @ood and 'griculture 1rganisation (@'1 of the #nited 6ationsK, %nternal report, !omeF @'1, -/ p. 2ra$a$is*mith, 2. (,;;0 . K@ood production and undernutrition in Third (orld citiesK, Hunger 6otes ,=40F +-. :gziabher, 'xumite ?. (,;;. . K#rban @arming, &ooperatives, and the #rban Poor in 'ddis 'babaK, pp. =+,>. in @eeding PeopleF an :xamination of #rban 'griculture in :ast 'frica,

1ttawaF Pyar 'li 8emon et al. %2!& Hoo$s. @'1 (,;;= . K?uidelines for 6ational @ood %nsecurity 'nd Julnerability %nformation and 8apping *ystems (@%J%8* F Hac$ground and Principles,K &ommittee on (orld @ood *ecurity, Twentyfourth *ession, @ood and 'griculture 1rganization, !ome, 0+ Qune, &@* ;=4+, httpF44www.fao.org4unfao4bodies4cfs4cfs0.4(=+>>e.htm @ischer, &laude (,;=. . The urban experience, *econd edition. *an 2iegoF Harcourt Hrace, 5/, p. @ischer, &laude (,;// . 6etwor$s and placesF social relations in the urban setting, 6ew Dor$F @ree Press 00; p. @orde, 2. (ed. (,;+- . *ocial %mplications of %ndustrialization and #rbanization in 'frica *outh of the *ahara, #6:*&1. @reemann, 2onald H. (,;;, . ' &ity of @armersF %nformal #rban 'griculture in the 1pen *paces of 6airobi, Eenya. 8ontreal and Eingston, &anadaF 8c?illLueenPs #niversity Press. 0> %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 @riedmann, Qohn (,;;- . B8odular &itiesF Heyond the !ural#rban 2ivideC, :nvironment and #rbanisation ;(, F,0;,5,. @riedmann, Qohn and &lyde (eaver (,;=0 . (orld &ity @ormationF 'n 'genda for !esearch and 'ction, 7os 'ngeles, &aliforniaF #niversity of &alifornia Press. ?ans, Herbert Q. (,;-0 . The urban villagers F group and class in the life of %talian 'mericans, 6ew Dor$ F @ree Press, ,;-0, 5-/ p. ?ardner, E. (,;;5 . K2eshbideshF *ylheti images of home and awayK, 8an, 0=(, F,,-. ?raham, 2ouglas H., %rae Haptista 7undin de &oloane, 'ntonio @rancisco, (illiam 6all, 8indy (al$er, Paul Qen$ins (,;;, , KPeriurban Haseline !esearch !esultsF 8aputo, 8ozambi"ueK, @inal !eport to #*'%2 8ission 8aputo, 8ozambi"ue, (ashington, 2.&.F #*'%2, ,/0 p.

?roppo, Paolo and Paolo Toselli (,;;/ , K2esde la ciudad al territorioF 7a nueva problemZtica periurbanaK, 7and !eformF 7and *ettlement and &ooperatives, ,;;/40F+0>, !omeF @'1. ?ugler, Q. (,;;, . K7ife in a dual system revisitedF urbanrural ties in :nugu, 6igeria, ,;-,=/K, (orld 2evelopment, ,;F5;;.>;. Haan, '. de (,;;. . #nsettled *ettlersF 8igrant (or$ers and %ndustrial &apitalism in &alcutta, HilversumF Jerloren. Hewitt, 8arla (,;=; K2efining K!uralK 'reasF %mpact on Health &are Policy and !esearch.K Health Program, 1ffice of Technology 'ssessment, &ongress of the #nited *tatesF (ashington, 2.&. Quly. Hilal, 8. and H. *chmitt (,;;/ . K!ural areasF a new definition according to towncountry relations (7es spaces rurauxF une nouvelle definition dPapres les relations villescampagnesK, %6!' *ciences *ociales, 6o. +, . p. Holland, 8.2., !.E. Easanga, &.P. 7ewcoc$ and H.Q. (arburton (,;;- , KPeriurban baseline studies, Eumasi, 'shanti !egion, ?hana) Jolume,F :xecutive *ummary and 8ain !eportK, 6atural !esources %nstitute, 1verseas 2evelopment 'dministration. Holleman, Q.@. (,;-. . :xperiment in *wazilandF !eport of the *waziland *ample *urvey ,;-> by the %nstitute for *ocial !esearch #niversity of 6atal @or the *waziland 'dministration, 7ondonF 1xford #niversity Press, 5.= p. Hulshof, 8. (,;;, . Uapotec 8ovesF 6etwor$s and !emittances of #.*.bound 8igrants from 1axaca, 8exico, 'msterdam. %a"uinta, 2avid 7. (,;;;a in submission . KThe %mpact of 'ging Populations on @ood *ecurityF The !ole of %ntergenerational Transfers and 7and Tenure 2ynamicsK. 0, %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 %a"uinta, 2avid 7. (,;;;b in preparation . 8igration and the 7in$age between &ustomary and

@ormal %nstitutions,K @'1, forthcoming. Qulliard (,;/5 . K#rbanization of the &ountrysideK, pp. +; in Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dPhistoire, gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie des campagnes, 6o. .;+>, ParisF 8outon T &o. 7and :n"uiry &ommittee (,;,. . The 7andF The !eport of the 7and :n"uiry &ommittee, Jol. %% #rban, 7ondonF Hodder and *toughton, /0= p. 8andel, !. (,;;> . K*hifting centres and emergent identitiesF Tur$ey and ?ermany in the lives of Tur$ish ?astarbeiterK, in 2. :ic$leman and Q. Piscatori (eds. , 8uslim travellers, 7ondonF !outledge. 8athews, Qames. *. (,;., , The Periurban fringe of '$ron, near &opley, 1hio. 8.'. Thesis, Eent *tate #niversity, ,,0 p. 8athieu, 6icole and Qean&laude Hontron (,;/5 . KThe Transformations of !ural *paceF Problems of 8ethodK, pp. ,5/,+; in Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dPhistoire, gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie des campagnes, 6o. .;+>, ParisF 8outon T &o. 8ayer, P. (,;-, . Townsmen or Tribesmen. 1xford #niversity Press. 8c2owell, &hristopher and 'r3an de Haan (,;;/ . K8igration and *ustainable 7ivelihoodsF ' &ritical !eview of the 7iteratureK, %nstitute of 2evelopment *tudies (or$ing Paper, (P-+, Hrighton #EF #niversity of *ussex, 0= p. 8c?ee, T.? (,;=5 . K7abour mobility in fragmented labour 8ar$etsF The role of circulatory migration in ruralurban relations in 'siaK, pp. ./-- in H.%. *afa (ed. , Towards a Political :conomy of #rbanisation in Third (orld &ountries, 2elhiF 1xford #niversity Press. 8oissidis, 'ntonis and 8arie 6oelle 2u"uenne (,;;/ , KPeri#rban !ural 'reas in ?reeceF The &ase of 'tticaK, *ociologia !uralis, 5/(0 F00=05;. 8ougeot, 7uc '. (,;;. . #rban @ood ProductionF :volution, 1fficial *upport 'nd *ignificance (with special reference to 'frica *ignificance 1f #rban 'griculture, K#rban 'griculture is 6ot for the 6eophyteK, %nternational 2evelopment !esearch &entre (%2!& ,

httpF44www.idrc.ca4cfp4rep>=[html 8oustier, Paule, (,;;; . K2efinitions and boundaries of periurban agriculture in subsaharan 'fricaK, httpF44www.cirad.fr4publications4documents4agricultperi4en4*erveng0>,.htm, &%!'2 @7H1!. 6elson, Q.8. (,;/- . K*o3ourners versus new urbanitesF causes and conse"uences of temporary versus permanent cityward migration in developing countriesK, :conomic 2evelopment and &ultural &hange, 0.F/0,+/. 00 %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 1:&2 (,;/; , 1rganisation for :conomic &ooperation and 2evelopment, B'griculture in the Planning and 8anagement of Periurban 'reas, Jolume ,F *ynthesisK, Paris, ;. p. !ambaud, Placide (,;/5 . KJillage and #rbanizationF *ociological ProblemsK, pp. ,.50 in Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dPhistoire, gYographie, sociologie Yconomie des campagnes, 6o. .;+>, ParisF 8outon T &o. !#P!% (,;;= . K2efining P!uralPF 2efinitions of !ural 'reas in the #.*.K, in !ural Policy &ontext, The !ural Policy !esearch %nstitute, httpF44rupri.org4ruralcontext4defining4urbanareas.html *anyal, H. (,;=- . #rban &ultivation in :ast 'fricaF PeoplePs !esponse to #rban Poverty. @ood :nergy 6exus Programme. To$yoF #nited 6ations #niversity. *awio, &.Q. (,;;5 . K@eeding the urban massesR Towards an understanding of the dynamics of urban agriculture and land use change in 2ar es *alaam, TanzaniaK, ?raduate *chool of ?eography, &lar$ #niversity, (orcester, 8', #*', Ph2 thesis. *chlyter, '. (,;;, . Twenty Dears of 2evelopment in ?eorge, Uambia. *toc$holmF *wedish &ouncil of Huilding !esearch. *?#'4#62P (,;;/ , KThe !oundtable of Top 7ocal ?overnment 1fficials on #rban 'gricultureK organized by the *?#', sponsored by %2!&, and facilitated by T#'6 and #8P

7'& at the *econd %nternational &ollo"uium of 8ayors on ?overnance for *ustainable ?rowth and :"uity, #62P, #nited 6ations, 6ew Dor$ &ity *on3e, Jelimir and 'le$sandar *tulhofer (,;;+ . K6ot *o 2angerous 7iaisans between *ociology and :conomicsF Toward a *ocioeconomic 8odel of %nstitutional &hangeK, !evi3a Ua *ociologi3u, 0-(5. F,=;0>0. *oto, Hernando de, (,;=; . The 1ther PathF the invisible revolution in the Third (orld \translated by Qune 'bbottV, 6ew Dor$F Harper T !ow, 0/, p. *tahl, Henry H. (,;/5 . K#rbanization and !ural 7ife in !omaniaK, pp. 0;-5>5 in Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dPhistoire, gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie des campagnes, 6o. .;+>, ParisF 8outon T &o. *tarosta, Pawel (,;;5 . K%nstitutional &onception of &hanges in !ural 7ocal &ommunitiesK, Przeglad *oc3ologiczny, .>(, F+//,. *tevenson, &hristopher (,;;- , B8ar$et Production of @ruits and Jegetables %n the Peri#rban 'rea of 2ar es *alaam, TanzaniaK, 'ugust, #rban Jegetable Promotion Pro3ect, 8inistry of 'griculture and &ooperative, 2ar es *alaam. \&iting original source as %lbery cited in 8wamfupe, 2.?., (,;;. , &hanges in 'gricultural 7and #se in the Periurban Uone of 2ar es *alaam, Tanzania. Ph2 2issertation, #niversity of ?lasgowV Th]nen, Qohann Heinrich von (,=.= . 2er isolierte *taat in Heziehung auf 7andwirtschaft und 6ational^$onomie, !ostoc$F ?.(. 7eopoldPs #niversitatsbuchhandlung, ,=.0,=-5. 05 %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 Th]nen, Qohann Heinrich von (,;-- . %solated state \an :nglish edition of 2er isolierte *taat, translated by &arla 8. (artenbergV, 1xford, 6ew Dor$F Pergamon Press, 5>. p. Tricaud, P.8. (,;== . #rban 'griculture in %badan and @reetown, @ood:nergy 6exus Programme. To$yoF #nited 6ations #niversity.

#.*. &ensus Hureau (,;;;a . 'bout 8etropolitan 'reas, #.*. &ensus Hureau, httpF44www.census.gov4population4www4estimates4aboutmetro.html #.*. &ensus Hureau (,;;;b . 'ppendix 'F 'rea &lassifications, httpF44www.census.gov4td4stf54append[a.html_#!H'6 '62 !#!'7 Jele, 8. (,;/= . Krural village and periurban settlementF a casestudy of circulation from the &entral Province,K 1ccassional Paper, %nstitute of 'pplied *ocial and :conomic !esearch, 6o.0, 0+ p. Jennetier, P. (,;-, . K7a vie agricole urbaine O Pointe 6oireK, &ahiers dP1utre 8er, ,.4+5F -> =.. (hisson, 8.?. (,;=. . KTsweletsweleF @rom *ettlement to &ommunity in a Peri#rban 'rea of the &is$eiK, #rban 'nthropology, ,5(05 F05/0+;. (illiams, Qac$ @., *tanley 2. Hrunn and Qoe T. 2arden (,;=5 . K(orld #rban 2evelopmentK, pp. 5.0 in *tanley 2. Hrunn and Qac$ @. (illiams (eds. , &ities of the (orldF (orld !egional #rban 2evelopment, 6ew DourF Harper &ollin Publishers, %nc. (illiams, 7.H. (,;;> . 2evelopment, 2emography, and @amily 2ecision8a$ingF The *tatus of (omen in !ural Qava, HoulderF (estview Press. (inoto, Qoyo and ?erhardus *chultin$ (,;;- . K%mpact of #rbanization on 'gricultural *ustainability and !ural 7ife in (est Qava, %ndonesiaK, 8ichigan 'gricultural :xperiment *tation, 7ansing, 8%, !esearch !eport +.+, 'pril, ++ p. (irth, 7ouis (,;5=a . The ?hetto. &hicagoF #niversity of &hicago Press. (irth, 7ouis (,;5=b . K#rbanism as a way of life,K 'merican Qournal of *ociology, ..F50.. 0. %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 :6261T:* ,

Throughout the paper we use #P' to refer collectively to agricultural productionincluding horticulture, floriculture, animal husbandry, forestry and fisheriesin both urban and periurban environments. 0 @or example, Hewitt argues that rural itself is not a Ksingle category but a complex continuum...from more rural to less ruralK and varying extensively Kbased on (, community size, (5 population proximity to a central place, (0

density, (. total population, and (+ economic4socioeconomic factorsK 5 Qulliard (,;/5 argues that the urbanization of the countryside (i.e., the integration of rural inhabitants into new economic and social relations with towndwellers can be interpreted either as the obliteration of the countryside or as the cooperation of rural and urban inhabitants, resulting in the disappearance of the town4country dichotomy. . *tahl (,;/5 examines !omania and concludes that disparities between towns and villages are disappearing, not because villages are becoming towns but because they no longer suffer from social and economic underdevelopment. These changes are arising from a combination of urbanization, deruralization (i.e., urbanism as we have defined it herein , and modernization (of agricultural techni"ues and formation of farming cooperatives which alter both the composition of the rural population and the structure of the agricultural family. + (e start with KurbanK because it has exercised an intellectual hegemony in the minds of researchers.KThe category `ruralA is a residual category based on whatever population happens to be left over after `urbanA areas have been defined.... %t does not effectively represent the diversity present in nonurban areas.K (!P!% ,;;=

This is not to imply that the Kmental attitudeK of the periurban dweller is identical to that of the urban dweller or that it automatically excludes significant elements of the Krural mental attitude.K own experience from 2rescherPs

7usa$a suggests that periurban is "uite rural but the production is directed to the urban environment. %n fact, it is this very range of KattitudesK which we argue underlies the variation in periurban types we introduce in the next section. / Holleman (,;-.F555 underscores the importance of this socialpsychological component when referring to Bthe very nature of periurban settlement in that to a ruralderived but urban oriented people, it appears to offer the best of two worlds.C (:mphasis added. = 's 8c2owell and de Haan (,;;/F; movement, but also the point outF K8igration studies is not 3ust about 8andel (,;;> "uoted in

interconnectedness of place of origin and place of destination.K ?ardner (,;;5F,, adds that Kmigration is essentially a series of exchanges between places.K ;

!ambaud (,;/5 hints at this process when he defines urbanism as the creation and modeling of a space where a group can express itself. He points out that this process always too$ place at the village level but that the form it previously too$ is being changed or copied and deprived of its functions by urbanization. Thus, village urbanization is to be seen as only part of town development. Presumably, outmigrants are then the agents of this broader form of urbanization which is introduced to the village. ,>

These areas seem closest to those advocated by @riedmann (,;;- as appropriate foci for development. His theoretical model of modular urbanization envisions towncentered, selfgoverning agropolitan districts and calls for the development of highdensity rural or periurban areas to raise living standards and increase employment opportunities. He suggests that agropolitan districts would preserve the integrity of households and village communities, thus reducing the scale of migration to cities and the social costs inherent to urbanbased development. ,, &adene (,;;> examines this conflict process in the rural peripheries of ten large @rench cities. Here urban newcomers construct private houses on formerly agricultural lots, while the agricultural activity of the area generally remains dynamic. He identifies three types of conflictsF communal space, and urbanization of communal space. :arlier wor$ in @rance by territory management, usage of

However, not all such interaction results in conflict.

&ribier (,;/5 showed that relations between the owners of second (i.e., country homes and local residents depends upon the socioeconomic situation of the former and the traditions of hospitality of the latter. ,0 1bservations of *chlyter (,;;, show that this is also reflected in the settlement pattern of illegal s"uatter compounds. This pattern seems to be derived from rural settlement but the scale was enlarged and the social content was different. His interviews communities of origin but clearly indicate that people did not try to reconstruct their

were aiming for what they saw as an urban life style. ,5 @or example &ran$shaw (,;;5 studied the rapid growth in *outh 'frican s"uatter settlements and found that they

had not resulted from the uncontrolled 'frican urbanization that followed the abolition of influx control (pass laws. %nstead the primary impetus came from the displacement of wor$ers from periurban farms. (hen small settlements of displaced farmwor$ers started to grow, news spread, and displaced urbanites began to see$ refuge in these settlements as well. 0+ %'L#%6T'42!:*&H:! ,. 2:@%6%6? P:!%#!H'6 (hisson (,;=. describes one example of this process. settlement in the &is$ei Tsweletswele is an informal

KhomelandK of *outh 'frica. %t is comprised of a large number of rootless people, most of whom are uns$illed and illiterate, who have come from many places for many reasons, who have no legal right to stay, and whose presence is inconsistent with the regional planing of the &is$ei authorities. Det this amorphous settlement was transformed into an ordered community by the development of various social and cultural elements. :conomic activities, $inship lin$s, and rituals have generated relationships and a communal spirit. be ta$en in applying However, care should

these results elsewhere due to the uni"ue conditions in *outh 'frica both under apartheid and after its collapse. ,+ Thus, not only do the institutions and networ$s vary by periurban type but their relative importance to community development varies systematically as well. wor$ers. %t argues for the This is an important point for development

clear a priori identification of institutions that need to be promoted in each type of environment. ,-

There are some lin$s between the notions underlying our conceptualization of 'P# and the depiction by 8ayer (,;-, of the red Ihosa in :ast 7ondon as Bthe `incapsulatedA traditionalist whose entire urban tenure, regardless of length, is devoted to a single aimF to gather the financial means for an ultimate, undisturbed retirement at his rural home in the society whose morals and values he has never forsa$en.C (8ayer as cited in Holleman ,;-.F550 ,/ Holleman (,;-. refers to this as the Bdualistic basis of existence, both `ruralA and `urbanA.C His evidence from *waziland shows Bthat in the urban sector alone nearly half of the adult male population considers it has substantial roots in the rural area....The same tendency is clearly revealed among the periurban males, but in this sector the proportions of those with a dual home basis are very much smaller than in the urban sector.C ,= Jele (,;/= describes an example from the &entral Province of Papua 6ew ?uinea. @ocusing on the role of circulation between the rural village, a periurban settlement (either chain or diffuse periurban in our lexicon , and the city of Port 8oresby, Jele argues that contemporary circulation is not simply an extension of historical movements but has emerged in its present form as a result of the introduced influences of education, wage employment, better communication and urbanization. ,; &onsider the complicated relationships in (est 'frican cultures that lin$ geographic environments through gendered family relationships. left women wholly Here migration of many young men to the cities has often

responsible for all fieldwor$ and family maintenance. Det despite the fact that 'frican women provide =>a of the

(mostly unpaid labor on the land and have traditionally grown the food crops, they have rarely been given ade"uate access to innovations, development and credit (&lauss ,;;, . 0> *ee %a"uinta ,;;;a for a discussion relating migration to population aging and intergenerational transfers. %n post communist Poland *tarosta (,;;+ replacement of traditional asserts that rural transformations are caused by the

informal institutions by new supralocal formalized institutions, conducive to "ualitatively new groups of structures with overlapping spatial coverage. He argues that this concentration of formal institutions on the scale of the local district (commune represents the emergence of a new type of rural territorial aggregation. 0, 1ne such se"uence is the transition of a KplaceK from rural to village periurban to absorbed periurban. 'n example of this process is the village of *himulia near 2ha$ar in Hengladesh described by 'refeen (,;=; . (hile not a perfect example, it manifests some of the essential features of the transition. 00 *ee for example &rowley and 'ppendini (,;;; for a description of the cargo system in 1axaca, 8exico. 05 'dditional support for the differential resource classification of &P# and %P# relative to 'P# on the one hand and JP# on the other hand comes from wor$ by Holleman (,;-. . B&omparatively spea$ing, it appears that periurban dwellers ac"uire their homes sooner than urban dwellers, and on the whole the former group has a slightly higher proportion of houseowners. The evidence with regard to homeownership is, however, far from conclusive....\'V substantial proportion of wageearners have found it necessary to provide some sort of accommodation for

themselves and their dependants, without necessarily committing themselves to a permanent urbanized existence....\TVhe physical development of these urbanized settlements has on the whole been so haphazard that there is in the ma3ority of cases no certainty about the rights pertaining to the individual plots upon which these structures have been built.C (p. 55> BTherefore, whatever value may be attached to urban homeownership as a factor in the process of urbanization in *waziland at the present time, it does not appear to interfere with the retention of strong ties with the rural home area.C (p. 550 0. %t is also possible for a phenomenon to be legitimate if it is endorsed by those in a population charged with ma$ing and enforcing rules, even if the population at large does not endorse it. However, such legitimacy is structural rather than democratic or popular. 0-