The term “environment” can be ambiguous when used in this sense, as it can refer to the physical setting in which the deviant resides, and the institutions which form part of the society in that setting. This article will examine this perspective in a general manner, and will focus on two particular ideas: the Chicago School of urban sociology, which was one of the first to evaluate in-depth the city as an institution of society (Deutschmann, 2007, p. 238) and the broken-windows theory of crime, which is one of the more direct examples of the environmental perspective, and was applied with varying degrees of success in the past few decades.

The Chicago School of sociology was significant in that the University of Chicago had an independent sociology department, which was different from most other schools of the day in which sociology was considered a branch of several related fields, such as economics and political science, and not its own discipline (Deutschmann, p. 234, 237, Berg and Stewart, 2009). It pioneered the concept of human ecology, which is essentially the relationship between humans and society as ecology in the conventional sense is to the relationship between animals and their natural habitats. The School emphasizes the role of the city in the socialization, and uses common characteristics of major urban areas to explain delinquency.

Human ecology proposes nine major concepts, borrowed from natural ecology (Deutschmann, pp. 240-241): invasion (introduction of a new social group), segregation (of groups), natural areas (enclaves of neighborhoods with distinct cultures), conflict (between groups), dominance (of one group over another), accommodation (tolerance between groups), assimilation (of one group into another), succession (by a new group) and symbiosis (interdependence among social groups). The Chicago School argues that in order for a city to survive and thrive, accommodation and assimilation, as well as symbiosis must occur. Otherwise, conflict occurs, and “criminal areas” are formed (Berg and Stewart).

One of the early correlations drawn in the 1920’s and 30’s between environment and crime rate was that juvenile delinquency tended to increase as one got closer to the center of a city (Berg and Stewart). This was later expanded to a general pattern, known as the Burgess zonal hypothesis, after Park, Burgess and McKenzie who developed this approach to studying cities. Using Chicago as an example, it divided the city into five zones: the Loop (downtown, probably taken from the elevated subway track loop), zone in transition (low-income residential and industrial areas), zone of workingmen’s houses, residential zone and commuter zone (Deutschmann, p. 243). As one can predict, the zone in transition, or zone two, generally has the worst problems in crime within the city. One significant reason for this development in Chicago, as well as many other major American and European cities (Deutschmann, p. 245), is that high property values of the inner city attract mass development of rental property, which are not maintained and results in urban decay. The fact that these areas tend to have higher crime rates is often attributed to the lack of solidarity among their residents, hence giving them less incentive to make collective attempts to improve conditions, and that they actually attract criminals and potential criminals because they would attract less attention there (Deutschmann, p. 245, Anselin, Griffiths and Tita, 2009).

One important theory of environmental sociology that came into widespread popularity in the United States, introduced by Wilson and Kelling in 1982, is the broken-window theory, which essentially states that potential deviants associate run-down areas with indifference about crime, thus are more inclined to commit a crime themselves (Ferrell, 2009). As a result, the broken-window policing strategy means to target and crack down on petty street crimes, in hopes that it will deter people from more serious crimes (Ferrell).

One famous example of a widespread implementation of broken-window policing is in New York City. Well known as being a dangerous hotbed of crime in decades past, it has since become one of the safest major cities in the United States, according to a 2010 report by Bloomberg L.P. which cited crime statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the late 1980’s, the city started a large-scale campaign to reduce crime by increasing police visibility on the streets of the worst neighborhoods, and targeting minor street crimes to enforce their presence. Another area that was slated for improvement was the subway system, where a campaign was launched to eliminate all graffiti from cars (Kelling, 2009).

As we can see now, the campaign turned out to be a huge success, with New York’s crime rates declining at a far greater rate than the national average. Then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani and police commissioner William Bratton were quick to attribute the success to the broken-windows policing methods.

However, the broken-window theory was not without its share of critics. Evidence that badly-scarred environments in New York were actually a direct cause to crime was anecdotal at best, and that other American cities had also recorded significant drops in crime rate through less aggressive, alternative policing methods. One good example of this is San Francisco, which saw its crime rate in the 1990’s drop at rates comparable to that of New York, and is featured in a 1999 report by the Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice highlighting the successes of its alternative approaches to the crime problem. It had adopted a policy of reducing arrests and incarceration rates, and being less stringent on juvenile offenses. However, the report does not state exactly what actions were being taken to reduce crime, other than “alternative sentences and community involvement”.

In 2009, Kelling wrote an article in New York’s City Journal, addressing critics of the broken-windows policy. He cites a study by Dutch researcher Kess Keizer in the Netherlands which found that people were more likely to steal an envelope containing five euros if it was in a graffiti-covered mailbox than if it were in a clean one. He also referred to a Harvard University study in a Massachusetts town, where crime decreased in one neighborhood that was patrolled broken-windows style, and did not simply move to another area in which police presence was less apparent. These experiments do appear to suggest that environment is a direct factor of crime rate.

While environment is clearly not the only factory attributed to crime rate, it certainly seems to be a major one. This paper only uses one example of controlling environmental characteristics to combat crime, and intentionally generalizes the term “crime” for the purpose of keeping within its prescribed goals of length and scope, and there are many other examples both supporting and refuting the statement that environment causes crime, especially those concerning non-violent crime (including “white-collar crime”). However, the significance of the Chicago School of urban sociology and human ecology, and related policing policies such as broken-windows, should not be ignored as it has been shown to be effective in reducing crime rates, whether directly or indirectly.

Works Cited

Anselin, Luc, Elizabeth Griffiths and George Tina. “Crime mapping and hot spot analysis.” in Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis, edited by Richard Wortley and Lorraine Mazerolle, 97-116. Portland: Willan, 2008.

Berg, Mark T. and Eric A. Stewart. “Cultural Transmission Theory.” in 21st Century Criminology: a Reference Handbook, edited by J. Mitchell Miller, 228-235. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009.

Deutschmann, Linda B. Deviance and Social Control Fourth Edition. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education Ltd, 2007.

Kelling, George L. “How New York Became Safe: The Full Story.” City Journal: New York’s Tomorrow, Special Issue 2009. Accessed November 26, 2011. http://www.city-journal.org/2009/issue_nytom.html.

“Shattering ‘Broken Windows’: An Analysis of San Francisco’s Alternative Crime Policies.” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 1999, accessed November 27, 2011. http://198.170.117.218/pubs/windows/windows.html.

            Poverty in rural areas pushed people into the cities due to the fact that they were searching for better education for their children, a better living situation, and also decent paying jobs in order to be able to support their families. People who struggled found that they would no longer have to go through such hardships as long as they migrated to the urban areas

One of India’s biggest strengths is its economy. India though, is still a highly agrarian society where agriculture is the main occupation of the people. However, the Indian economy is big. With a population of 1.2 billion people, India has a huge market. With the coming of the IT revolution, more and more Indians have more money to buy goods and services and therefore becomes a very good market for various firms all over the world.

For any country to succeed, it needs to invest in its human resources and its people. Japan is a great example. Japan does not have a lot of natural resources, but it invests heavily in its people and as a result, its economy is the third-largest in the world, only recently surpassed by China.

The problem in India however, is that India does not invest a lot in human resources, especially in women. It is more of a societal issue in India than an economic one. Parents in India give priority to their sons over their daughters. This is a prevailing trend generally in Indian society. Of course, there are exceptions.

This is because in India, parents believe that the daughter at some point of time will be wedded off to another family and it is customary for the bride’s family to provide the groom with some amount of wealth. When the daughter is to be married off anyway, why invest in skills and training? This is also another reason why parents don’t encourage their daughters to study further. Even after marriage, the husband does not invest in their wives. They don’t encourage their wives to work, they expect the wife to take care of the house, bear children and continue to play the role of homemaker. And on that account, men usually don’t bear any household responsibilities as they believe that it is the job of the wife to do so. Such an attitude not only reinforces chauvinistic thoughts in men, it also passes down to the next generation which usually practises the same habits.

This is one of the main reasons why India is not in league with countries like China and Korea which have high rates of growth and development.

In countries like China, you see women working alongside men and earning incomes. Of course, this is not to say that in China women are treated just as equal as men. Such problems are there even in the most advanced countries, but if you compare China and India, you do see that women in China are more independent.

When we visualize a chinese factory, the first thing we see is a big factory with a lot of women stitching garments or putting parts together or assembling something. Women work just as hard as men do. However when we see an Indian factory, we see a lot of men doing the jobs and very few women present.

So this means, in a family in China, if the husband loses his job, they are not completely ruined because the wife has an income as well. That ensures that they survive till the husband gets another job. However, should a husband in India lose employment, then they are in big trouble because there is no alternative income.

Women in India should work as well. Women are known to be hard workers, they do their jobs much better than men and are more organized. This has a great economic impact as it means a rise in productivity and also a rise in incomes. Socially, this also creates a safety net and the family is secured financially. Besides, women usually use their incomes wisely. Women like to invest more in her family and her children so that they are able to secure a brighter future. This empowers the institution of the family and also brings in prosperity. Not to mention, women will make a great market for more goods and services. Jobs will give them purchasing power and the economy will grow faster.

The trends in India are slowly changing. Through education and adult training, women are entering the fray and are earning for themselves. In fact, we now see a trend where women also become successful entrepreneurs. They may not necessarily be from the urban areas, but they are doing well for themselves with whatever little skills and training they have. They understand the value of independence. They are also contributing to the nation’s economy and are securing their futures. However, the gap is still too wide and it needs to be closed. Women need to be empowered further in order to contribute more. With increased urbanization and education, this gap is slowly being filled.

Copyright © 2011 Ashwath Komath

In contrast, cities are seen as places of wealth. Firms that create jobs are usually located in the cities even where the raw materials come from the rural areas. Health facilities are also nearer to the population in the cities. The population is always on the increase because many villagers migrate to the cities seeking employment. Villages offer limited opportunities to get employed due lack of industries. Villagers also search higher standards of living and better living conditions in the cities. The cities are glamorous and provide different entertainment through clubs, cinema halls, satellite television and hotel facilities not found in the villages.

On the other hand due to over population, the urban centers become centers of crimes and other vices. 

Therefore many social problems are created in the cities due to urbanization.

Urbanization causes the serious problem of housing. The authorities are unable to meet the housing demands of the people. These leads to over crowding, unhygienic conditions leading to development of slums. Over population of cities leads to transport problems such as traffic jams and road accidents. The inhabitants of urban centers are self-seeking and also self-centered.

Over population in the cities also cause water shortages and electricity breakdowns. There is also water rationing and at times water gets contaminated. Maintenance of infrastructure such as roads becomes a big problem to the authorities.

Urbanization however has its’ merits;

Urbanization can help the earth by providing more housing in smaller areas to the increasing population. These are many benefits for urbanization, for example;

There is efficient use of land per person and housing can be made to accommodate more people. In the urban centers more people also come up with more ideas and are readily available. Most resources are concentrated in the urban areas. The use of public transportation in the urban centers means less need for private transportation and hence, fewer vehicles used which in turn reduces pollution. Jobs are also readily available in the towns than in the rural areas hence better economy.

There are various disadvantages associated with urbanization which include; where the population is extremely poor, such areas are characterized with- poor living conditions, high rates of unemployment which directly or indirectly leads to high rates of crime, there is high population growth due to lack of education and knowledge of family planning options. There are high levels of air pollution due to heavy traffic and old vehicles, water pollution, and continuous natural habitats destruction.

Steward Brand states that the effects experienced from urbanization are good for the environment. He advances the argument that the city dwellers have a lower birth rate; this in essence prevents future over population. This also minimizes the rate of land use by individuals (Stewart, 2009).

Even though rural migrants move to the cities due to attractive possibilities, they end up settling in slums and live in extreme poverty. Michael Lipton writes that the most important class conflict in the poor countries of the world today is not between labour and capital, nor is it between foreign and national interests. It is between rural classes and urban classes. The rural sector contains most of the poverty and of the low-cost sources of potential advances but the urban sector contains of the articulateness, organization and power so the urban classes have been able to with most   of the rounds of the struggle with countryside (Varshney, 1993)

Urbanization has also had a lot of impact on the global change; the process of urbanization refers to much more than just a population escalation; it involves changes in the social, economic and political structures of a country.  Fast urban population increase is largely liable for many ecological and social changes in the urban surroundings and its effects are strongly connected to global change issues.  The rapid growth of urban areas stretches the capacities of the said cities to provide services such as transportation, energy, education, sanitation, health care and security.  Because governments have less revenue to spend on the basic upkeep of urban centers and services delivery, urban centers have become areas of huge sprawl, adverse environmental problems, and extensive poverty.

Although the concentration in urban areas can be used as indicators of industrialization, it does not inform us on how the city dwellers earn their living. As people stream into urban centers, problems are created such as pollution, crime, housing issues and overcrowding. This affects the political stability and social order of a society.

Most rural population that move into cities end up being surplus population whereby, they are absorbed into the informal sector such as, shoe repair, street vendors, shoe shiners and even prostitutes (Hess, 1988). The increased state of poverty in cities is in sharp contrast with the ever growing wealth in the suburbs. Sociologists have all along been disturbed by their harmful effects of life in cities.

Louis Wirth in a classic essay on urbanism proposed that the density end the variety of large cities have negative psychological and social consequences. This is because urban life exposes people to a lot of stimulation (Wirth, 1938). This view has of recent been supported by Milgram who claims that the urban environment produces a psychic overload that is difficult for most people to handle (Milgram, 1965)

Urbanism in essence causes a decrease in per capita income and promotes crime and violence. There is a break in traditional structure of the family; therefore, urbanization has extensively weakened the kinship bond. High in divorce rates has also given rise to delinquency.

Segregation in urban centers has created prejudice and tension between social groups. The government has responsibility of providing education, transportation, employment and housing to the urban population. Since the effort does not in any way meet the need, the problem remains.

Urbanization is a social problem that has negative effects to our society. It can be referred to as a necessary evil that cannot be stopped. Densely populated and heterogeneous communities in urban centers have accentuated characteristics that can rightly be associated with urbanization. Urbanization is a big problem that cannot be handled with short term solutions. The authorities should endeavor to contain them and make sure no other bigger problem arises from existing ones.

References

Brand, Stewart (2009) whole earth discipline-annotated extract

Hess, Beth…et al, (1988) Sociology, New York; Macmillan

Milgram, Stanley (1965) Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority; Humans Relations 18

Srither, K. (2007) Density Gradients and their Determinants; Evidence from India Regional Science and Urban Economics.

United Nations World Urbanization Prospects: (2009 revision), United Nations Population Division

Varshney, A ed. (1993). Beyond Urban Bias. London: Frank Cass.

Wirth, Lous. (1938) Urbanism as a way of life: America Journal of Sociology 44.

Development in terms of economic prosperity might mean doom to the tribal identity.The first and major impact which tribal population faces is in the shape of loss of tribal identity through the establishment of industries.With major tribal tracts being depopulated and herded to new settlements to give space for establishment of factories,tribals are ill-ease in the new environments.Their customs and traditions come under pressure.Due to contact with the town- culture that industrialization brings,and consequent urbanization a revolutionary change in the attitude of tribals can be seen.

Tribal religion is mocked at in the light of more organized religions like Chrisitianity and Hinduism.Magical cures which tribals practicsed have become out of date and look down upon.

Social problems devastate tribals through urbanization.Urban conditions which the industry ushers into the tribal areas will mean introduction of completely alien way of social contact to the population.

Economically the urban culture is highly materialistic.Tribal economic systems will disintegrate in the industrialised environment.With more and more tribal youth adopting to factory culture and skilled labour espousing new avenues to eke out living, tribal modes of cultivation and crafts are steadily declinning.

The benefits of urbanization and industrialization should also  be taken into account.Tribals who were used to depend upon shifting cultivation and lived liked nomads are now settling down.Their children are exposed to better living conditions including education and health care services.Better sanitation means better health to the community.

Globalization happens to be one of the most interesting phenomenons that shape our lives today. It basically means the crossing of boundaries that were once created to separate. Globalization creates a global village that brings people together, countries together and simply makes the world a boundary free world. However the debate remains whether globalization is indeed a benefit to this world or simply a blanket cover for making the rich richer.

Globalization helps us by bringing the world closer. The gap between cultures and languages is closed and a much more synchronized state of living is organized. However, critics argue that this very synchrony tends to over shadow the weaker cultures or those that are not very proliferated. One culture emerges as the stronger one to over shadow and eventually infiltrates the weaker culture leaving it no longer the same and simply a part of history. Thus we see the polarization of the western culture and an eastern culture with no specificity in between that once littered the world.

Apart from that globalization has succeeded in making trade easier. What was once only available in one part of the world is now a worldwide commodity. There is no longer sovereignty in trade and being the jack of all trades is a much easier option. While this point may prove that globalization has indeed worked some magic, on the other hand this very diminishment of trade barriers had led to first world countries having the upper hand in trade and finance all the time. Smaller nations, who once capitalized on their own special trade items, are now unable to earn their due place in the world market due to homogeneity.

Also while globalization may have brought countries together, it has given the powerful nations a chance to freely infiltrate weaker nations and dictate their policy. Globalization has in a way legitimized the interference of nations amongst each other. This policy is detrimental to smaller nations that need their own space to grow. Instead they are manipulated for the interest of powerful nations.

Conclusively, globalization while removing boundaries has crippled the world of its differences which were once celebrated. 

Urbanization is the process of social change where along with socio-economic development, it brings with it cultural modification, resource deployment due to population saturation in urbanized areas but also brings about, according to many theorists, a lift in poverty levels  for the country.

It is a trend which is has been increasing over the last several years, in which the populations of rural areas migrate to the more urban cities of the country. Reasons for these vary from employment to better education and an overall expectation for a more enriched lifestyle. UN Population Fund:  The level of urbanization in Pakistan is now the highest in South Asia at 36% in 2008 and increasing by 3% annually, which estimates to be about 5 million people.

Pakistan has and continues to urbanize at a faster pace than India. From 1975-1995, Pakistan grew 10% from 25% to 35% urbanized, while India grew 6% from 20% to 26%. From 1995-2025, the UN forecast says Pakistan urbanizing from 35% to 60%, while India’s forecast is 26% to 45%. For this year, a little over 40% of Pakistan’s population lives in the cities. 

Considering the current state of resources which Pakistan holds and the extent to which these are fulfilling the needs of the population, it needs to be taken into consideration that urbanization, with it, will bring along higher consumption levels of the current resources, making it even more difficult for individuals and households with lower income levels to survive.

However, many have suggested that without an increase in overall wages, urbanization will give rural migrates employment opportunities, which should then have a trickledown effect on the social structure as a whole, leading to higher employment level, lower poverty levels, and a more advanced and educated human resource of the country.

In Pakistan, this tread is more frequently visited as a challenge to the governance of the nation, which has proven itself in the past through major economic development in a relatively small time scale in comparison to larger and more structured economies, however, the recent security threats and financial state of the country, topped with population infiltration in major cities, is causing disturbances.

Nevertheless, urbanization has lead to betterment in education standards of the nation, improved healthcare, advancement in technology for agricultural and rural sectors and a larger workforce for the country. It has enabled Pakistan to utilize its people in sectors such as industries and the spread of wealth may decrease the gaps socio-economic segments and eventually lead to lower poverty levels.

Image by mattlemmon via Flickr

Image by Lauren Manning via Flickr

The history of urbanization can be traced back thousands of years ago in the earliest civilizations of Mesopotamia (Iraq), India, China and Egypt. During those times farming was the main source of income. However, as time progressed, population boomed and folks became merchants and traders.

For the last 200 years, industrialization accelerated dramatically. Urban growth was caused by job demand. Rural folks migrated in the city in search for better opportunities. It was said that in the 1950’s, the cities had 1/3 of human population and by 2030- 2/3 of the human population will be concentrated in the center.

Tokyo, one of the biggest cities in the world, surpassed 13 million in numbers of people, its government says.

It increased by 0.5 percent from the same month last year. The latest demographic study contrasts factors of long life spans, low birth rates and a shrinking population. Considering that Tokyo is only 2188 km. or 0.6 % of total area of Japan.

Moreover, migration between Tokyo and other prefectures as of 2008 recorded 768,000 persons in total with 426,000 persons moved into Tokyo while 343,000 persons moved out, for a net population growth of 83,000 persons. The number of foreign residents as of October 1, 2009 hit 417,000 which is 1.5 times more than the last 10 years.

For many reasons, humans choose to live in cities. Services like water, electricity, and transportation are more accessible. Also, government provides faster service and makes more projects as infrastructure for development. Product and personal service and shops are easier to find in cities.

Cities have always been target for advancement and economic growth. The promise of prosperity encourages rural folks giving up a bigger space and cleaner environment in the rural area. Because of these, many of them end up without a job, and settling in slums in the city.

Overcrowding, poverty, violence pollution and health problems are few of urban problems. Perhaps the promise of a good life in the city might be the exact opposite of one’s daydream. 

According to Sorokin and Zimmerman, the characteristics of urban social system are non agricultural occupation, bigger size compared to rural communities a different environment,social differentiation, social mobility, secondary relations, organic solidarity.

Urbanization is a universal process implying economic development and social change.According to one view urbanisation means a breakdown of traditional social institutions and values.However in India urbanisation has not resulted in big transformations. One cannot say that urbanization in India has resulted in the caste system being replaced into class system, the joint family transforming into nuclear family and religion becoming secularised though changes are visible.Urban centres in traditional India were important places of worship, annual congregations and trade and navigation being prominent as K.L Sharma pointed out. They had a stable population.Today cities have come up as places of industry, headquarters of districts and states or as centres of higher education.Some towns have lost their traditional significance whereas some have acquired added importance because of economic and political factors.

MS Rao has classified urban studies into three categories- those concerned with the institutional approaches,those treating cities and their growth in the general context of history of civilizations and those which formulate the cultural role of cities in the context of social organizations of the great tradition.The first category of studies mention economic institutions and religion.For Coulanges an ancient city was a religious community.Max Weber’s emphasis was on social action and autonomous city government.The institutionalists look for specific causes and conditions for the growth of cities in different contexts.Spengler,Ghurye and Wirth look for an explanation for the growth of civilization in general. They consider world history in terms of city history. The city is a mirror of civilization.Robert Redfield has provided a typology of the city in terms of orthogenetic and heterogenetic processes of change in the organization of tradition and culture.Milton Singer observes that the great tradition is basically an urban phenomenon and transformation of the little tradition into the great tradition refers to the process of urbanization.Gideon Sjoberg distinguishes cities into preindustrial and industrial.The preindustrial city was a feudal one.There are certain limitations of this approach.Firstly feudalism was not the only basis of city formation and secondly today the modern city is found in existence due to other factors too in addition to industrialization.