THE COMING OF URBAN PRIMACY IN LATIN AMERICA*
Department of Sociology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
*Thanks to Carin Celebuski for help with the analysis and interpretation. This is a version of a longer paper, "Latin American Cities in the World-system," originally prepared for the Seminar on "Structural development and social problems of the Latin American city" of the Working Group on Latin American Urbanization, Tepotzlan, August 22-24, 1982. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (SES 7825071). Published in Comparative Urban Research XI, 1-2:14-31, 1985 and as "El fenomeno de primacia de una ciudad an los sistemas urbanos latinoamericanos: su surgimiento," Pp. 27-46 in J. E. Hardoy and A. Portes (eds.) Ciudades y Sistemas Urbanos: Economia Informal y Desorden Espacial. Buenos Aires: CLACSO 1985.
Scholars of Latin American urbanization have long noted the high degree
of concentration in national city systems. Explanations of this
characteristic of Latin American societies are many and various, and the
comparative studies which have been made do not allow for firm conclusions
as to the causes of urban primacy in Latin America. This study assembles
new data to investigate Latin American urban primacy over the period from
1800 to 1975. It is the first such study to systematically compare long run
patterns of urbanization in Latin America with the urban histories of more
"developed" national societies, those which can be said to constitute the
core areas of the modern world-system in the twentieth century.
The empirical distribution of city populations in a territory is a
characteristic of any human society which contains cities, towns and villages.
The causality of the spatial distribution of population is highly complex
and the logic of spatial arrangements differs across different kinds of
social systems. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of population is
itself only a formal and superficial characteristic which does not
systematically reflect determinant social relations (Smith, 1982). The
same may be said, however, for many other surface-level phenomena which
social scientists study in order to infer the logic of social systems. This
realization encourages us to search for better measures of the social
relations which we think are more fundamentally involved in system dynamics.
That search, however, should not preclude us from analyzing those less-than-
ideal types of data which are available, as long as these investigations pay
adequate attention to the problems in inference involved.
Ideally a city-size distribution should always be studied together
with data on the economic transactions and political dominance relations
among cities. In practice we can obtain population data much more readily
than we can find data on commodity flows or power relations. The choice is
whether or not to present an analysis which infers structural relations
from an admittedly problematic indicator. The report below is such an
analysis and it should only be presented as preliminary. Further data-
gathering and analysis are a prerequisite to firm conclusions. 1
Theories of urban primacy
General theories which seek to explain variation in the steepness or
flatness of city size hierarchies can be categorized as economic and
political. Following Christaller (1967), social geographers have argued
that an integrated space economy will produce a locational distribution of
activities such that those which can be efficiently produced in a centralized
way (because storage and transport costs are cheap) will be located together
in a central city, whereas those which have high transport and storage costs
will be more dispersed over territory. This theory ignores purely
geographic factors which alter the spatial plane such as rivers, mountain
ranges, bodies of water, (which alter transport costs) and resources whose
locations are determined by “nature” such as mineral deposits and land
suitable for agriculture. Ignoring natural inputs and geographical
irregularities, an integrated space economy will produce a distribution of
population similar to the lognormal rank-size rule. In a lognormal rank-
size distribution the largest city is twice as large as the second largest,
three times larger than the third largest, and so on. Some geographers
argue that such a space economy only operates in a competitive market
system in which the priceSof commodities reflect their costs of production,
but archaeological evidence shows that city systems vary around the log-
normal rule even in societies in which price-setting markets do not playa
dominant role in social exchange (Kowalewski, 1982). Transport costs and
storage costs affect the economy of non-market systems, although through
different means, and less directly than in market systems.
Another theory of variation in the steepness of city-size hierarchies
emphasizes the distribution of political-military power in space. Centrally
organized political empires are thought to create more hierarchical city
systems than networks of independent city-states or nation-states because
concentrated political-military power allows for the concentration of wealth,
and therefore of population. Of course the distribution of power is not
always organized territorially, so there is considerable looseness of fit
between power concentration and spatial hierarchies. Nevertheless,
variation in ancient city-size distributions does correspond with the rise J
and fall of political empires.
The literature on Latin American city systems combines these two
general theoretical approaches with more historically specific interpretations
of the development of Latin American societies. Some variations of
dependency theory, especially that explicated by Frank (1969) can be read to
suggest that peripheral areas in the world-economy will develop primate
city systems because the largest cities will act as funnels which channel
peripheral raw materials produced in the hinterland to core nations.
Middle-size cities producing manufactured goods will not emerge because
they will be unable to compete with the cheaper manufactured goods from the
More particular elaborations of this proposition are many and varied.
It has been claimed that urban primacy in Latin America developed from the
political power which Spanish colonial municipalities exercised over their
hinterlands (Cardoso, 1975; Portes and Walton, 1976). It has also been
claimed that the development of large scale export agriculture explains the
rise of Latin American urban primacy (McGreevey, 1972; Roberts, 1979).
Carol Smith (1980) has argued that the development of a free labor market in
the largest cities, in combination with “mercantile capitalist” class power
in secondary cities (which restricts access to employment), results in primacy
because migrants from rural areas concentrate in the largest cities.
Hardoy and Langdon (1978) interpret their findings as indicating that
primacy results from international immigration into the largest cities in
combination with a socially produced scarcity of available rural land for
settlement. Immigrants are then forced to congregate in the largest cities.
Before discussing the merits of these explanations let us consider the
methods and evidence to be examined in this research report.
My research project has gathered data on the population sizes of the
ten largest cities in each of 131 countries at decennial time points between
1800 and 1975. Most earlier cross-national studies of urban primacy have
studied much shorter and more recent time periods. The slow rate of change
of urban systems means that variation over short time periods reflects
mostly measurement error.
Two studies of Latin American cities have analyzed data in both the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The pioneering study by McGreevey
(1971) focussed on eight Latin American countries over the period from 1750
to 1960. A more recent study by Hardoy and Langdon (1978) examines twenty
Latin American countries between 1850 and 1930. The data analyzed here is
more complete in the sense that it contains more cities at more points in
time than the previous studies, and it compares Latin American cities to
those in the "developed” countries of the world-system. The Latin American
countries studied here are: Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia,
Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba and the Dominican
Sources of the city populations of the ten largest cities in each of
these nineteen Latin American countries are chiefly the population censuses
of each country, but additional sources of population estimates such as
gazetteers were used when census data were not available. Thus we have enough
data to calculate a primacy index (at least four cities) for thirteen of the
countries by 1820. By 1900 we have data for all countries except Panama,
which enters our data set in 1910. Our raw data on individual cities is
interpolated to decennial time points by a computer program which uses
three or four data points, and which adjusts for a change from municipal
boundary to urban agglomeration figures. Table 1 shows the interpolated data
for Argentina in the years 1800, 1810 and 1820. Notice that a population
for Cordoba cannot be estimated for 1800, and since it is probably the
second or third largest city this could have a major affect on the calculated
measures of urban primacy. Missing data is less of a problem as we move
forward in time. The city populations marked by an asterisk have been
estimated by the interpolation program.
Methods and measurements
The larger project, from which this paper is a preliminary report, seeks
to test propositions about the causes of national urban primacy by
comparing changes in countries over time (see Chase-Dunn, 1981). A multivariate
model of the causes of national urban primacy will eventually be
tested employing economic, political-military and demographic variable
characteristics of nations, international transactions, and changing
features of the world-system as a whole. At this point however, only the
data on the populations of cities is ready to be explored, and thus the
following will report patterns observed in variation on the main dependent
variable, national urban primacy. I shall attempt to interpret these
patterns in the light of theoretical arguments and historical studies of
Latin American urbanization in the existing social science literature.
Several indicators of the concentration of populations in space have
been used by other researchers. Davis (1969) uses a ratio of the population
of the largest city to the sum of the next three cities. Hardoy and Langdon
(1978) use the Davis measure plus the ratio of the largest city to the total
population of the nation. McGreevey (1971) develops an indicator which
measures the degree to which a distribution of city populations differs from
the lognormal rule. The lognormal rule is used here simply as a yardstick
for comparison. A city size distribution is lognormal (a straight line when
plotted on double log paper) when the second largest city is half the size
of the largest, the third largest is one third the size of the largest, and
so on. A primate city system is one in which the secondary cities are
smaller than would be predicted by the lognormal rule, and on the other hand,
a flat or unhierarchical city system is one in which the secondary cities
are larger than expected according to the lognormal rule.
McGreevey's measure has several advantages over earlier ones. It
allows for the comparison of distributions with different numbers of cities
by correcting for the number of cities considered.
Pamela Walters (1985) has developed an indicator of primacy
which is based on McGreevey's, but with some improvements. It is called the
Standardized Primacy Index (SPI). This indicator takes the value of zero (0)
when a distribution is lognormal. It takes on positive values when a
distribution is primate or steeper than lognormal, and negative values when
a distribution is flatter than lognormal. McGreevey's indicator is not
signed, and thus deviations either above or below the lognormal line are
computed implicitly as indicating greater primacy. Walters' measure is
assigned a sign (i.e. positive or negative) based on the sum of the
deviations from the lognormal rule.2 Table 1 shows the observed city
populations, the populations expected by the lognormal rule, and the
deviations for the case of Argentina in 1800, 1810 and 1820. The main
summary statistic analyzed in this research report is shown as the SP12,
which is a Standardized Primacy Index calculated on all the cities for which
data are available at a particular time point.
This research project has plotted the decennial SPIs for the nineteen
Latin American countries under study, and also those of seventeen countries
now considered to be in the core of the modern world-system. First let us
examine the results for the Latin American countries.
Figure 1 shows the SPI of Argentina plotted from 1800 to 1975. When
we focus on a single country, such as earlier studies have done, we can try
to interpret changes in the city-size distribution by noting the causes
of divergent rates of growth of the cities. Vapnarsky's (1975) study of
Argentina concluded that the development of “external orientation,” the
growth of export agriculture, had caused the Argentine city system to
become more primate since the early nineteenth century. Hardoy and Langdon
(1978) pay more attention to the timing of increased primacy, noting that
European immigration concentrating in Buenos Aires accounts for the rise in
primacy in the last half of the nineteenth century.
The focus on single countries and the relative growth of particular
cities is a fascinating undertaking. Attempting an historical account
which explains the varying fortunes of cities involves immersion in the
richness of political and economic history of each country. Brief but
insightful accounts of this kind are given for eight Latin American
countries in the volume edited by Morse (1971). Arregui (1981) has under-
taken an investigation of the linkages between the development of Peru's
city system and its connections with the larger world-system. Now, however,
let us examine the patterns revealed by looking at all nineteen Latin
American countries. We shall use the telescope rather than the magnifying
Table 2 shows how the SPIs of the Latin American countries changed
between 1800 and 1975. Over the whole period for the time points 1800, 1850,
1900, 1950 and 1975 the mean SPI was 3.4, the standard deviation was 8.3
and the SPI varied from a maximum of 16.3 to a minimum of -23.6. Remember
that this SPI is computed on the ten largest cities in each country
(although earlier time points may not have data on all cities --an SPI is
not computed if there are less than four) and a score of zero means that a
city size distribution is lognormal. The mean SPI of 3.4 indicates that
Latin American countries do tend to have primate or steep city size
McGreevey's (1971) earlier study of eight Latin American countries
concluded that, though the time of the shift toward primacy varied, all
Latin American countries, with the exception of Colombia, have become primate
by 1950. Table 2 confirms his finding when additional countries are included.
Four countries (Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador (1820) and Colombia) were primate
already in 1800. While there is some moving down toward lognormality, or
even flatness on the part of some countries, the overall trend is for all
countries to move up, but at different periods. Table 2 shows that the
main period in which the average level of the SPI shifts toward primacy is
between 1900 and 1950. In 1800, 1850 and 1900 the average SPI is very close
to lognormal for the Latin American countries. Between 1900 the mean SPI
jumps from -.2 to 7.7, and in 1975 it goes even higher to 8.9.
Let us look more closely at the period between 1900 and 1970. Table 3
shows the decennial means and standard deviations of the SPIs for the nine-
teen Latin American countries, and it also shows the ten year differences
in the means, as well as indicating the statistical significance of the ten
year differences from zero. Table 3 shows that the mean SPI has risen in
every decade of the twentieth century, and the standard deviations have
decreased, indicating a convergence. The biggest shifts occurred in the
decades of the twenties, the thirties and the forties, with the change
occurring during the forties attaining statistical significance in its
differing from zero.3
The city systems of core countries
The specification and testing of a causal model of urban primacy is
beyond the scope of this present exercise. This would require the measurement
of variables thought to account for primacy over the period being studied.
Such model testing is the long run goal of our research project, but for now
we may simply compare Latin American city systems with those found in
countries now occupying core positions in the larger world-economy.
Table 4 shows the distribution of SPIs for seventeen countries which
were in the core by 1930.4 As with Table 2 (Latin American countries) the
times covered are 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950 and 1975. The first striking thing
to note in comparing Tables 2 and 4 is that the core countries do not
shift toward primacy over time. The mean SPI is generally close to log-
normal. only for 1950 does it climb higher than 2, and by 1975 five of the
seventeen core countries have very flat city size distributions. Recall
that none of the Latin American countries are flat, and only Colombia is
near lognormal in 1975.
Table 5 shows the periods in which change occurred within the city
systems of the core. The right side of the table shows those countries who
shift SPI categories between the years designated. It can be seen that the
biggest concentrations of changes are of two kinds. In the period between
1850 and 1900 six countries shifted toward steeper city size distributions,
and of these all but France had yet to enter the core of the world-system.
From 1900 to 1950 five countries moved toward less hierarchical city
systems: the USA, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium.
The U.K., Netherlands and Belgium are old core countries. The U.S. entered
the core in the 1870s or 1880s and began the rapid flattening of its city
system in 1930, while Canada (which entered the core in the 1920s) moved
toward a flatter distribution after 1910, and again after 1940.
As with the Latin American countries, the core countries deserve
individual attention to the timing and extent of changes in their city
systems, but here we want to focus on the broad outlines of core patterns
in order to compare them with Latin America.
Comparing core and Latin American city systems
When we compare Tables 2 and 4 we can observe that the core mean SPI
for all time points is .7 while the Latin American mean for all time points
is more primate, 3.4. A test for the statistical significance of the
difference between these two means is significant at the .04 level. This
may be interpreted as weak evidence in support of the hypothesis that
position in the world-economy is related to urban primacy.
However, when we look at the patterns over time and compare core and
Latin American means at different time points a more refined picture emerges.
Between 1900 and 1950 both core and Latin American SPI means rise, but the
increase is very small for the core and very large for Latin America. And
between 1950 and 1975 the mean SPI for core countries decreases, indicating
the flattening of city size distributions, while the mean for Latin American
countries continues to rise substantially. Statistical tests for the
difference between core and Latin American SPI means do not reach
significance for 1800, 1850 or 1900. But for 1950 the difference is
significant at the .003 level and for 1975 at the .0002 level.
Thus these comparisons show that the divergence in urban primacy
between the core and periphery emerges in the twentieth century, between
1900 and 1950, and continues to increase until 1975. Since the overall
core distribution does not change much, except for a small trend toward
flattening in the 1950-75 period, we may conclude that most of the change
is due to the growth of primacy in the 1920s, 30s and especially the 1940s
in Latin America.
From comparing Tables 2 and 4 it may be suggested that SPls are more
stable in core countries than in Latin America. When we compare changes
over time in Latin America and the core, and test the hypothesis that there
is no difference between these changes, no significant differences are found
for the 1800-1850, and the 1850-1900 periods. However, for the 1900 to 1950
period, the core SPI changes .9 while the Latin American SPI changes 7.9
points, and this difference is statistically significant at the .01 level.
From 1950 to 1975 the core declines -1.9 points while the Latin American
countries increase 1.2 points, and this difference is significant at the
-.01 level. Note that from 1900 to 1950 the core changes much less than
Latin America, supporting the hypothesis of core stability. But from 1950
to 1975 the core changes more than Latin America and the changes occur in
opposite directions. Latin American countries continue to become more
primate, while the core countries are, on the average, moving toward less
hierarchical city systems.
Discussion and conclusions
We have found patterns in the above one-variable analysis which indicate
that indeed there are differences between Latin American and core country
city-size distributions. In both the core and in Latin America we can find
primate and flat city-size distributions, and in both zones of the world-
economy we can find instances where a country moves toward greater primacy
or greater flatness. Statistically significant differences in the city-size
distributions do not emerge until the twentieth century, and are largely due
to the major shift toward primacy which occurs in Latin America in the
1920s, 1930s and 1940s.
The relationship between position in the world economy and urban primacy
is not a simple one. While all Latin American countries except Colombia
are primate by 1950, all core countries are not lognormal or flat. Indeed,
in 1975 ten of the seventeen core countries may be described as primate.
two as lognormal, and five as flat. Trends, however, show that while Latin
American city systems continue to increase their levels of primacy, all of
the core countries, with the exception of Belgium, are either stable or
becoming increasingly less hierarchical in the 1950-1975 period.
How ought different theories of the causes of urban primacy account
for the patterns found? Generally we may classify theoretical approaches
to city-size distributions as those which focus on the distribution of
institutionalized power over space, and those which focus on the economically
efficient location of production and services in space. Some have claimed
that Latin American countries exhibit greater degrees of primacy because of
the heritage of colonial institutions which located political power in the
administrative cities which functioned as extractors of surplus from the
countryside. Cardoso (1975) makes an argument of this sort in his
discussion of Latin American urban politics.
While such arguments may be useful in explaining other institutional
differences between core and Latin American societies, they do not help
explain the city-size patterns we find. Latin American city systems only
became significantly more primate than those in the core in the twentieth
century. It is possible, however, that another version of the political
power approach is more compatible with the results. Frank (1979) has argued
that peripheral countries engage in more autocentric development during
periods when core-periphery trade is reduced or when core countries are
fighting among themselves. More autonomous state formation in the periphery
is often accompanied by import-substitution which locates new industries in
urban areas. When this is further encouraged by national states much of
the new investment is located in the already largest and most politically
central cities, thus increasing urban primacy, although other authors
(Arregui, 1981) have argued just the opposite: that such periods will see
a trend toward the growth of middle-size cities specialized in manufacturing.
The 1930s and 1940s saw the biggest increases in Latin American primacy.
In the 1930s core-periphery trade was reduced as the world-economy stagnated.
Prices of traditional peripheral exports plumetted, and Latin American
countries were not able to buy manufactured goods from core countries. The
rise of populist governments in several Latin American countries encouraged
a more self-reliant approach to development in this period and import
substitution was encouraged by state policies (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979).
In the 1940s the demand for peripheral raw materials returned as a result of
the war needs of core states, but manufactured goods from the core were still
in short supply due to the war. Further investment in manufacturing and
heavy industry occurred in many countries, and this tended to be located in
the already large cities.
Industrialization and the growth of more capital intensive production
does not necessarily cause urban primacy. In Britain the industrial
revolution and attendant production for the world market led to a reduction
in the level of British primacy between 1801 and 1851 as Liverpool,
Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow grew more rapidly than London. The
industrialization which occurred in the United States in the nineteenth
century did not much flatten the already lognormal city-size distribution,
but neither did it cause primacy.
Does industrialization result in primacy in Latin American but not in
core countries, and if this is so what accounts for it? First let us look
at Latin American countries to see if the early industrializers increase
primacy before the later industrializers. A more sophisticated test of this
hypothesis will be possible when we have time series on the economic
development and international trade of Latin American countries, but for now
let us make a rough overview. In Brazil , Mexico, Argentina and Chile, import
substitution industrialization begins earlier than in other Latin American
countries. Three of these countries become more primate during the period
of import substitution. Mexico and Chile slowly increase their levels of
primacy from 1900 to 1975. Brazil moves toward two-city primacy in the
1940s but the steepness of its overall city size distribution declines
somewhat after 1950. Argentina does not conform at all to the hypothesis
that import substitution industrialization causes increased primacy.
Argentina is very primate during the whole twentieth century, with primacy
declining slightly between 1910 and 1930 (see Figure 1 above).
The Dominican Republic, Bolivia and Paraguay have sharp increases
toward primacy between 1900 and 1910. Between 1910 and 1920 Honduras,
Panama and again the Dominican Republic increase primacy. In the twenties,
El Salvador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Peru and Panama have sharp increases, and
in the thirties El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Nicaragua
do the same. These shifts do not support the hypothesis that import
substitution industrialization is a major cause of increased primacy. These
countries experienced only minor shifts toward import substitution during
the earlier decades of this century. Neither do these facts support the
hypothesis of El-Shakhs (1972) that primacy increases with middle levels
of economic development.
Again, more rigorous analysis of the city-size data in combination with
measures of other variables is required. But at this point it seems unlikely
that the shift toward import substitution industrialization and later export
industrialization (Gereffi and Evans, 1981) can explain much about increases
in primacy. The striking thing is that almost all Latin American countries
increase their levels of primacy in the twentieth century and so we may
suspect that contextual world-system properties which affect all countries
over this period may be responsible. Secular changes in the core-periphery
division of labor do not affect all countries equally however, and in order
to test this kind of proposition we must be much more specific about the
kinds of institutional change that is meant.
Comparison of Latin America with other peripheral areas will shed more
light on the possible explanations for increasing urban primacy, although
this is beyond the purview of this paper. It may be that certain kinds of
foreign investment increase primacy, or that the emergence of increasing
ties among peripheral countries accounts for the relatively rapid growth
of the largest cities. Students of the system of world cities have noted
that a certain standardization has occurred such that every “international"
city must have certain amenities (an airport, banks, hotels, etc.). Thus
mere participation in the world-economy requires smaller and less developed
countries to have at least one large city. This requirement will have little
effect on the more integrated and elaborated city systems of the core, but
in small peripheral countries it may account for increased primacy.
1. This is a preliminary report from a project which is studying the
evolution of the world city system and national city systems from 1800 to
1980. The major hypothesis being examined is that a nation-states' location
and trajectory in the larger world-system is an important determinant of
features of its city system. In order to complete this project additional
data must be gathered on the location of national societies in the world-
economy and interstate system.
2. A confusing situation may arise with the SPI when both positive and
negative deviations appear in the distribution, that is, when some cities
are smaller and others are larger than expected according to the lognormal
rule. This occurs in the situation of what is called "two-city primacy,"
when a country has two very large cities and no middle-size cities. Thus
the second city is larger than expected and the others are smaller. The
sign of the SPI is determined by the sum of these deviations and thus small
changes in the relative size of cities can cause a large SPI to radically
change its sign if the sum of the positive and negative deviations is around
zero. In situations of this kind (two-city primacy) the SPI is an unreliable
indicator of the overall steepness or flatness of a city size hierarchy (a
situation we call "sign-flip") and thus we calculate other measures. One
is the least squares slope of the overall distribution, which is set equal
to -1 when the distribution is lognormal and thus varies around -1 (see
Table 1). The other we label the SPI 3, an SPI index calculated ignoring
the largest city. In the analysis contained in this paper, situations of
two-city primacy have been handled by utilizing the SPI 3. This tells us
the :steepness or flatness of the overall distribution of city sizes ignoring
the deviation due to the existence of two similarly large cities.
We also calculate a "three city SPI” which is based solely on the three
largest cities. This allows us to focus on the relations among the largest
cities, excluding complications due to the addition of the rest of the
distribution. The combined use of these available indicators is made
necessary by the inability of any single statistic to capture all the
information available in a complex distribution.
3. Another way of studying change in SPIs is to test the hypothesis that
two sample means are really the same. The null hypothesis is that the
means are really drawn from the same population and that sampling error alone
could account for an apparent difference. When we perform such a comparison
of means for the decades between 1900 and 1970, the years when Latin American
SPIs were changing the most, none of the decade means are different from one
another at a statistically significant level (less than .05). Indeed only
two twenty year periods exhibit statistically significant differences between
means (1930-50 and 1940-60) and these both contain the decade of World War
II when SPI change was greatest. When we consider 30 year lags we begin to
more frequently find mean differences which are statistically significant.
Although the sample is small, this confirms earlier concerns that studying
changes in primacy over short periods reveals mainly measurement error, and
thus the slow rate of change of national city systems requires a research
design with longer time lags (Chase-Dunn, 1982).
4. Of these seventeen core countries, five (United Kingdom, France,
Netherlands, Belgium and Austria) were already in the core in 1800. Four
entered the core in the nineteenth century (United States, Italy, Germany, and
Switzerland), and eight entered the core in the twentieth century (Japan,
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Australia, Canada and the Soviet Union).
1981 "Dependence and primacy: trends and fluctuations in Peruvian
urban history,11 Ph.D. prospectus, Department of Social
Relations, Johns Hopkins University.
Cardoso, Fernando H.
1975 “The city and politics," pp. 157-190 in Jorge Hardoy (ed.)
Urbanization in Latin America. Garden City, N.Y. : Anchor
1982 “World division of labor and the development of city-systems:
a longitudinal study,'1 Comparative Research 9,3:3-9 (Winter).
Forthcoming “The system of world cities, 800-1975,” in Michael Timberlake
(ed.) Urbanization in the World-Economy. New York: Academic
1967 (1933) Central Places in Southern Germany. Translated by
C. W. Baskin. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
1969 World Urbanization 1950-1970, Volume 2. Institute of
International Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
1972 “IDevelopment, primacy and systems of cities,” Journal of
Developing Areas 7(October): 11-36.
Frank, Andre Gunder
1969 Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution? New York:
Monthly Review Press.
Gereffi, Gary and Peter Evans
1981 “Transnational corporations, dependent development, and state
policy in the semiperiphery: a comparison of Brazil and
Mexico.” Latin American Research Review 16, 3:31-64.
Hardoy, Jorge and Maria Elena Langdon
1978 “Analisis estadistico preliminar de la Urbanizacion de
America Latina entre 1850 y 1930,” Revista Paraguaya de
Sociologia 42/43: 115-173 (May-December).
1982 “The evolution of primate regional systems,” Comparative Urban
Research 9, 1:60-78.
McGreevey, William P.
1971 “A statistical analysis of primacy and lognormality in the
size distribution of Latin American cities, 1750-1960,” in
Richard M. Morse (ed.) The Urban Development of Latin America
1750-1920. Center for Latin American Studies, Stanford
University, Palo Alto, California.
Morse, Richard M. (ed.) with Michael Conniff and John Wibel
1971 The Urban Development of Latin America 1750-1920. Stanford
University: Center for Latin American Studies.
1976 “The economy and ecology of urban poverty,” Pp. 7-69 in
Alejandro Portes and John Walton, Urban Latin America: The
Political Condition from Above and Below. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
1979 Cities of Peasants. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Smith, Carol A.
1980 “On urban primacy, export dependency and class struggle in
peripheral regions of world capitalism," Typescript,
Department of Anthropology, Duke University.
1982 "Placing formal geographical models into cultural contexts:
the anthropological study of urban systems,” Comparative
Urban Research 9, 1:50-59.
Vapnarsky, Cesar A.
1975 "The Argentine system of cities: primacy and rank-size rule,"
Pp. 369-390 in Jorge Hardoy (ed.) Urbanization in Latin
America. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.
Walters, Pamela B.
1985 “Systems of cities and urban primacy: problems of definition
and measurement,” in Michael Timberlake (ed.) Urbanization in
the World-Economy. New York: Academic Press.