Employment data suggest issues with urban definitions in some African countries

What is it about?

This paper analyses the most recent census data from Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Rwanda, Ghana and Botswana. It shows that some of the oft-cited and published analyses or statements about urbanization in the first four countries can be misleading if these are presumed to correlate closely with economic change. This can happen when urban settlements are defined in ways which take no account of what their residents do for a living. In Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Rwanda and Ghana, employment data suggest that the structure of their economies at the time of the last censuses was more ‘rural’ and ‘agricultural’ than indicated by their reported levels of urbanization. Similar levels of urbanization in non-African countries in the Global South are associated with deeper structural change in the national economies. For Rwanda there also appears to be a tendency to exaggerate its rate and level of urbanization beyond that which its own national statistical office reports. The case of Botswana is included as a contrast. In Botswana, careful official thinking and reporting about urban definitions makes it easier to understand its urban change. Here rapid structural changes in livelihoods have accompanied a real shift to a significantly more urban society.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Levels of urbanization published in large datasets like the World Urbanization Prospects are often used to make cross-national comparisons or as proxies for structural economic change. This paper shows that different definitions of what is 'urban' in some African countries can make such analyses misleading. It is important to take into consideration what definitions are being used. Where analyses relate to economic change, it is also shown that it is important to cross-check with employment data to see the extent to which the data fit with cases from, for example, Asia.

Perspectives