An analytical comparison of the Mexican and French national and regional urban planning processes

Material Information

An analytical comparison of the Mexican and French national and regional urban planning processes
Anguiano, Ricardo Bravo
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
iii, 86 leaves : maps ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Master's ( Master of Planning and Community Development)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Planning and Community Development


Subjects / Keywords:
City planning -- Mexico ( lcsh )
City planning -- France ( lcsh )
City planning ( fast )
France ( fast )
Mexico ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaf 86).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ricardo Bravo Anguiano.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
08898967 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1981 .A88 ( lcc )

Full Text
Ricardo Bravo Anguiano
PCD 790 Planning/C.D. Thesis
Division of Planning and Community Development
College of Environmental Design
University of Colorado at Denver
Denver, Colorado July 28, 1981

To my parents: Mr. Agustin Bravo Pimental Mrs. Ma Guadalupe Anguiano Garibay
To my brothers and Sisters: Rodolfo, Roberto, Amalia, Agustin, Raul, Guadalupe, and Miguel Angel
To my aunt: Amalia Anguiano Garibay
To the Mexican people, who through Mexican Govern-
ment are paying my studies in this country To my teachers and friends
To all who helped me to do this thesis

1.1 Description of the Mexican Urban Problem... 1
1.2 Objectives of this Study.................... 5
1.3 Description of the Study Process............. 6
2.1 Introduction Mexico........................ 7
2.2 General Law of Human Settlements............ 9
2.2.1 National Plan of Urban Development.......... 10
2.2.2 Preparation of the National Plan............ 10
2.2.3 State and Municipal Plans for Urban
Development............................... 11
2.2A Conurbanated Zones.......................... 11
2.2.5 Implementation of Plans..................... 12
2.3.1 A.2.1 2.3.1A.2.2 2.3.1A.2.3 2.3.1A.2A
2.3.3 2.3A
National Plan of Urban Development..........
Regulative Level............................
Diagnosis of the Current Problems...........
Forecasting of the Future Problems..........
Objectives of the National Plan of Urban
Policies of the National Plan of Urban
Territorial Planning Policies..............
Policies for the Urban Development of
Population Centers........................
Promotion Policies..........................
Strengthening Policies......................
Planning and Control Policies...............
Specific Policies for Rural Population
Centers Systems...........................
Policies Concerning the Elements, Components and Activities of the Human
Settlement Sector.....................
Priority Zones and Population Centers......
Strategic Level...........................
Concerted Action Programs..............
Support Programs for Sectoral Priorities... Programs for Agreements Between State
and Municipal Governments.................
Five-Year's Program of the Human Settlements Sector for 1978-82....................
Sectoral Co-Responsibility Level............
Goals for 1978-82............................
Legal Instruments Level.....................
18 18
2 5 28 29
33 33


2,k Official Initial Evaluation of the
National Plan of Urban Development........ 33
2.5 Global Plan of Development 1980-82.......... 3*+
2.6 Evaluation of the Mexican National and
Regional Urban Planning Process........... 36
2.6.1 General Law of Human Settlements............. 37
2.6.2 National Plan of Urban Development........... 38
2.6.3 Global Plan of Development 1980-82.......... *+l
2.6.^ Recommendations............................ *+3
3.1 Introduction France......................... ^5
3.2 The French National and Regional Urban
Policies.................................. *+6
3.2.1 The Reasons for Planning.................... *+6
3.2.2 The French Plans of Urban Development....... by
3.3 The New Towns Development in the Paris
Region...........;........................ 51
3.^- Implementation of the Urban Planning
Policies.................................. 5b
3*+. 1 Land Purchase and Price Controls............ 5*+
3.^.2 Land Development Technique................... 56
3.*+.3 Industrial and Commercial Controls, and
Incentives............................... 56
3.5 Evaluation of the Urban Policies to
Regional and National Levels............... 58
^.1 Similarities.................................. 60
**.1.1 The Reasons for Planning: Concentration
of Economic Activities and Population.... 60
*+.1.2 Government Centralization.................... 61
*+1.3 National Urban Development Techniques....... 62
*+.l.*+ Lack of Citizen Participation in Urban
Planning Matters..0.00.............0..... 63
*f.l.5 Metropolitan Governments.................... 6b
*+.2 Differences............................. 65
*+.2ol New Towns Development...................... 65
*+.2.2 Private and Public Sectors Cooperation..... 65 *f.2.3 Policies to Achieve Goals and Objectives... 66
5.1 Conclusions.................................. 6 7
5.2 Recommendations............................. 70
-i i-

al distribution of economic and social development of Mexico has been very imbalanced. In Mexico exists the two sides of the same urban phenomenon: concentration and dispersion of population.
On one side, there are three large cities Mexico City, Gudalajara and Monterrey, which hold large concentration of population, services, capital, etc. The concentration of people in these cities (25$ of the 1978 population), especially in Mexico City which is becoming the largest city in the world with over 15 million people in 1980 in an area of 290 square miles have created several problems such as, transportation, pollution of air and land, noise population, health care, housing, education, water supply and speculation in land sales.
On the contrary, there are more than 90,000 small communities of less than 2,500 people dispersed throughout the entire country (35$ of the 1978 population, see Figure 1).
The problem in rural Mexico is that those communities do not have even the elementary social services to live, such as water, sewer, transportation, electricity. Furthermore, due to these communities being located far away from the main population centers, it is very difficult and expensive to provide them the public services they need.
In the case of Mexico City, one of the main reasons for its concentrated growth is that the main governmental functions are performed by the federal government; and the federal government resides in Mexico City. Mexico City attracts a lot of people because of the government capacity to create jobs. The economic multiplier effect of this situation stimulates other economic activities, especially

in the service sector. And later, the agglomeration effect attracts other enterprises to locate there.
Another reason for the concentration of people in the three large cities of Mexico especially in Mexico City is a more complicated one. The urban growth of these cities has been created by high volumes of migration of people from the countryside. People have been leaving the poor agricultural activities and fleeing from rural poverty and going to large cities searching for jobs and better social and economical conditions. However, due to the fact that the large cities do not have the sufficient capacity to create employment for all of the immigrants, some of them are forced to engage in very low productive personal service activities, such as, selling gum and cookies, or shinning shoes.
The current problems in rural and urban Mexico started after 19^0 when the public policy was oriented toward industrial development disregarding the rural people and their needs; and, on the contrary, providing economic incentives and subsidies to industries developing primarily in the three metropolises of Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterey.
After 19^0 the industrial process created jobs which did not require highly skilled workers, only a few months of special training was necessary in order to work in the factories. Therefore, rural people who had moved from the countryside found jobs easily in the industrial cities.

The rural and urban problems started when the industrial process reached a technical point where it was not possible to create the same amount of jobs over a long period of time. At this point, the industrial process began to use more capital than labor in its operation and it became more technically oriented, requiring only a few highly skilled workers. At the same time, rural Mexico was almost forgotten, and the rural social and economic conditions grew worse especially because of the decrease in agricultural employment. Peasants and rural people in general, however, continued to move to the big cities. The new migrants after 1965 however, did not find industrial jobs available; rather they had to work in service activities sector which could not absorb the labor surplus from the agricultural activities.
The result in the large cities was that urban sprawl began to occur everywhere legally and illegably (squattering) creating new problems for local governments because the cities had not been planned to accommodate large population increases. Under these circumstances, people began to live at the edges of the city forming large slums (called "lost cities") of rural poverty in very rich cities (1)
(l)Bravo Anguiano Ricardo. El erapleo y las migraciones campesinas a las ciudades en Mexico. (Employment and rural migrations to cities in Mexico). Professional thesis. National University of Mexico, 1978.

The influx of rural people in cities increased the demand on the government for public services such as water, electricity, health care, education, transportation, etc.; thus, right now people are still fighting for those services.
At the national scale, with the economic problems resulting from a continuous decrease in agricultural production (even to levels that Mexico had to import cereals), the new government, after 1970, tried to reverse the situation and began to orient public policy back to the countryside. Thus, in 1976 the government adopted a "General Law of Human Settlements" policy which tries to allocate and regulate human settlements rationally in the entire country, according to economic and natural resources locations.
In 1978, this law brought about the creation of the first "National Plan of Urban Development". This plan describes forecasts and sets the national urban planning goals and objectives that all local plans must incorporate. This plan also sets the policies and programs to implement local plans. However, the law and the plan were not enough to regulate people and economic activities in the country, therefore, in 1980 the federal government created the first "Global Plan of Development, 1980-82". This plan sets the national goals and objectives in social, economic and political aspects, and also develops public policy in these issues.
The National Plan of Urban Development became a part of the complete Global Plan of Development for Mexico.

Because these policies are very new and because Mexico has not had prior experience in national and regional planning, Mexico is now testing and evaluating if its policies are right or wrong. Thus, the Mexican urban planning process needs to compare experiences from abroad in order to evaluate, development and recommend new policies, and new guidelines in order to correct the current plans and policies. The French urban planning process was chosen, after a review of planning in several countries, as a base of comparison with that of Mexico because of the similarities in centralization of government and its reasons for planning, concentration of economic activities and population in only one city. However, it does not mean that I will recommend to apply in Mexico the French model of urban development, rather I hope the findings of this study will help me and some Mexican planners to understand better our urban problems in order to find our own solutions.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY. The basic objectives of
this study are:
a) To obtain potential planning guidelines for Mexico based on France's experiences in urban planning techniques.
b) To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Mexican urban planning process in order to develop recommendations for change.
c) This study also intends to give American planning

students of a general view of planning urban and rural environments in other counties.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PROCESS. This study is divid-
ed in four more parts. The next, Chapter 2, contains a description and analysis of the three official documents which form the basic urban planning process of Mexico; the "General Law of Human Settlements", the National Plan of Urban Development", and the "Global Plan of Development, 1980-82". However, the focus of this chapter will be on the "National Plan of Urban Development" because it contains the main urban planning techniques.
Chapter 3 contains a description and analysis of the French national and regional urban planning process. This chapter is divided into five sections which describe and analyzes the national and regional plans of urban development and the development of new towns. This chapter also discusses the planning techniques that France utilizes in order to achieve its planning goals.
A comparison of the Mexican and French urban planning processes is discussed in Chapter *+. This chapter is divided into two sections; similarities and differences of the two processes.
In Chapter 5> I conclude this study and recommend some changes in the national and regional urban planning process utilized by Mexico, which is the central reason for this study.

The population of Mexico is 66.8 million (1978) settled in a territorial area of 761(-,000 square miles. The country is a republic with a Federal type of government (like the United States) with Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches (see Table #1).
Mexico belongs to the underdeveloped nations. However, since the beginning of 1970's with the exploration of petroleum, which is currently its basic export, we can say that it is in a process of social and economic development.
As previously mentioned, the regional social and economic development of Mexico has been occurring in a very unbalanced manner. There are a few very rich cities and a lot of small, dispersed, and extremely poor towns. Hopefully, conditions will improve as a result of the economic resources secured from oil exports. To this end, in 1976 the government began planning the entire social, economic, and political aspects of the public life of its inhabitants.
In the following chapter the first official document enacted in 1976, the General Law of Human Settlements will be analyzed. This law states that, the regulation of human settlements has to be carried out through four basic plans; the National Plan of Urban Development, State

Plans for Urban Development, Municipal Plans for Urban Development, and the Urban Plans for Conurbanated Zones( 2). Furthermore, this law sets the guidelines for the preparation of the all plans; the federal agencies charged with human settlement issues; the legal changes that each state legislature has to enact in order to implement their plans; the coordination among governmental agencies and the methods of financing urban development at any level.
The second document discussed in this chapter is the National Plan of Urban Development. This plan follows the directions of the Human Settlements Law and describes forecasts and sets the national urban planning goals and objectives that all the other plans must incorporate.
The National Plan for Urban Development establishes the policies and programs which become the means to implement the plans. The plans designate the various government agencies which will carry out specific programs; and it also sets the technical levels of planning that each plan must incorporate, regulative, strategic, sectoral coresponsibility and legal instruments levels.
Also included in the following chapter will be a brief description of the initial "official" evaluation of the National Plan of Urban Development and a discussion
(2) As of 1978, the National Plan of Urban Development included two additional plans, the Urban Plans for Population Centers and the Development Plans for Priroity Zones.

of a third document, the "Global Plan of Development 1980-82". This plan basically sets the national goals and objectives in social, economic political and public issues, and develops general public policies. As a result of this global plan the National Plan of Urban Development and other social,economic and political plans become the main instruments by which to achieve the national goals and objectives. The last section of this chapter will contain an evaluation and recommended changes in the complete national and regional urban planning process of Mexico
This law was adopted by the Federal government in 1976 as a response to the economic and social problems described in the first chapter, i.e., the concentration of people, economic resources, and political power.
The Law of Human Settlements sets the basic planning directives for the establishment, preservation, development and growth of population centers and defines the guiding principles under which the Federal government will specify general land uses throughout the entire country. The general goals and objectives of this law are to determine the basis for concurrence and responsibilities of municipal (similar to county government), state and federal governments in order to organise and regulate the human settlements in the entire nation. It is hoped that with this policy the social and economic conditions of the rural and urban population will be improved.

The ordination and regulation of people as provided for in the Law of Human Settlements is carried out through the "National Plan of Urban Development"; state plans of urban development, which are regulated by State laws; municipal plans of urban development, which preparation and execution is outlined by the local and state legislatures; and by the Ordination Plans of the Conur-banated Zones. Furthermore, all plans must comply with the demographic policy stated by the general law of population.
In order to prepare the "National Plan of Urban Development" a new agency was established in 1976, this agency is the Ministry of Human Settlements and Public Works (SAHOP), and it is the representative of the federal government in human settlement issues. Furthermore, a National Commission of Regional and Urban Development was created in 1978 to evaluate and coordinate the complete urban planning process. (The commission is integrated with several ministries of other federal departments with its president being the minister of SAHOP.)
A financial system was also created (C.U.C.) through which state and municipal governments could secure financial credits from Federal monies to implement urban

plans. However, the Finance Ministry authorizes credits only for plans which follow the federal planning guidelines .
At the state level, the state government is charged with the preparation of state urban development plans, which must be congruent with and adhere to the policies dictated by the federal government. At the municipal level, it is only the local population centers where the urban development plans define, with precision, the specific land uses for an area. Consequently, these plans reflect the urban development policies dictated and established by the federal, and state governments. Moreover, their approval also rests at the state level (the governor) policy, which is opposite of the urban planning practices in the United States, where the community decides what to do about urban planning issues.
In order to explain what a Conurbanated Zone is and how it has to be planned, the General Law of Human Settlements refers to the Constitution of the United Mexican States Section V, Article 115 which says that the phenomenon of conurbanation occur when two or more population centers form a geographic, economic, and social unit. Then, the Conurbanated Zone is formed by a circu-

lar area generated by a radio of 30 kilometers being the central point, or the border where the two or more population centers unite. In this respect, the General Law of Human Settlements says that if the two population centers are within the limits a state, the zone belongs to the government of that state to create a "Conurbana-tion Commission"; composed of representatives from both municipalities or population centers, which must orden-ate and regulate economic and social growth and develop the urban plan for that zone. However, if the population centers belong to a different state; then, it is the responsibility of the President of the Nation to create a "Conurbanated Commission". The president of which will be the minister of SAHOP and the remaining members will be representatives from the states engaged in that conurbanated zone.
Thus, federal legislation provides methods to implement national and multistate plans; and, state legislation provides methods to implement state, municipal, and other conurbanated zone plans. So, therefore, once approved the plans become legally binding, and the responsibilities for carrying out the plans falls on each respective executive level, supervized by the corresponding level above. The functions are to be carried out by each level within its jurisdictions and are to include: im-

plementation of land use specifications, preparation of plans, execution of necessary public works, and regulation of land markets and of low cost housing construction.
The General Law of Human Settlements establishes the means for readjustments of the plans, by regular periodic evaluations, as well as continuous revisions. So, because the planning methodology applied throughout the entire country follows the same planning guidelines, the plans themselves are subject to comparisons.
According to the provisions of the "General Law of Human Settlements", the Ministry of Human Settlements and Public Works (SAHOP) was charged with creation of the National Plan of Urban Development (NPUD), which was approved by the President of Mexico on May 12, 1978. This plan and in general the plans of the complete urban planning process in Mexico, at all its levels (National, State, Municipal, Population Center, Conurbanated Zone and Priority Zones), are presented in four different levels of planning:
(3) "Urban Development" is defined as the transformation process relating to the quality of life; on the other hand, "Urban Growth" is defined as the simple addition of people and physical structures to a population center.

REGULATIVE LEVEL. This level basically analyzes and projects the urban problems; sets goals and objectives; and outlines the general policies to be used.
STRATEGIC LEVEL. Defines, designs, evaluates and selects the programs to achieve the goals and objectives of the urban plans.
SECTORAL CO-RESPONSIBILITY LEVEL. Identifies the governmental agencies which are responsible to carry out specific projects of the complete plans.
LEGAL INSTRUMENTS LEVEL. Creates the legal instruments and establishes the judicial adjustments needed in the preparation and implementation of the plans. The Regulative Level of NPUD is described in the following section.
This level is divided in five sections: diagnosing and forecasting of the urban problems; objectives, definition of and the outlining of the policies of the plans, and definition of the Priority Zones and Population Centers of the country. DIAGNOSIS OF THE CURRENT PROBLEMS. In the prepara-
tion of this plan, the SAHOP found that Mexico has a very high rate of population growth, 3.2$ in 1976, and that the Mexican population is changing very fast from a rural setting to an urban setting, the main reason

being the migration of people from the countryside to the cities. The countryside migrants are moving mainly to the three big cities in Mexico; Guadalajara, Monterrey and especially to Mexico City, where the immigrants form over 30$ of the total population.
Thus, while around 20% of the total Mexican population is concentrated in the metropolitan area of Mexico City, 35% is located in more than 95*000 small communities, of less than 2,500 people dispersed throughout the entire country. There are two sides to this issue: on one side the concentration of urban population and; on the other, the dispersion of the rural population (see Fig. 1). Other characteristics of this imbalanced regional phenomenon are the concentration of people and industrial activities on the high plateaus. For example, 71% of the people who live in population centers of over
15,000 people (95 cities) live on the high plateau; and only the remaining 29%> live in the population centers (85 cities with a population of over 15,000 people) which are located under 500 meters above sea level (see Fig. 2). On the same high plateau, but limited by the parallels of 22 and 18, and above 500 meters above sea level, 60%> of the total population and Q0%> of the industrial activities are located (see Fig. 3)
When you compare population and the Gross National Product (G.N.P.), by economic regions, you find a very

clear regional imbalance. For example, while the South region is in fourth place in terms of population (10.8/2) it only produced 3$ of the G.N.P. (seventh place) in 1975] and on the other hand, the East central region, where Mexico City is located, is in first place in terms of population (33$) and it produced b-9% of the G.N.P. (also first place) (see Fig. 1+). The results are more impressive when you analyze the G.N.P. per State. Only two states, Mexico City (Federal district) and Estado de Mexico produced kb% of the 1975 G.N.P.; the State of
Nuevo Leon, where Monterrey City is located, produced 7$ of the G.N.P.; and Jalisco, where Guadalajara City is located, produced k.8% of the G.N.P. On the contrary, there are seven states, especially in the South and South east, which each produced less than 1$ of the G.N.P. FORECASTING OF THE FUTURE PROBLEMS. According to
the estimates of the National Council on Population, if the 1976 annual population growth rate of 3*2$ continues in the future, Mexico will have 77 million people by the year 1982 and near to 130 million by the year 2000 (high hypothesis). However, if the goals of the "National Plan of Family Planning" are achieved, the total population will be only 10^ million by the year 2000 (low hypothesis of l5> annual population growth rate).
Thus, without a Family Planning Program and without the National Urban Flan, the regional urban differences

will persist and increase in the future. For example, the three big cities Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey will continue growing basically because of the rural migration. So, if in 1975 Guadalajara had 2.2 million people and Monterrey 1.9 million; by the year 1982 they will have 2.8 and 2.h million; and 7.2 and 6.7 million people by the year 2000 respectively. And if Mexico City in 1975 had 13*2 million people, by the year 1982 it will have 16.5 million and 25 million by the year 2000.. In this case, if Mexico City continues growing to a rate of 6% annually, as it was in 1975* it will eventually become the most populated city in the world.
By adding the population of these three cities we found that the concentration of urban population will dramatically increase. For example, if in 1975 these three cities had 25% of the total population, by 1982, they will have 29%> and by the year 2000 the concentration will be 37% 0+8.5 million). OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL PLAN OF URBAN D5VEL0P-
MENT. In response to the regional urban problems previously discussed, the National Plan of Urban Development (NPUD) sets the following long terra objectives:
- To distribute economic activities and population
throughout the country and establish them in the areas which have economic resources to develop;

- To foster integral urban development in existing population centers which have regional services;
- To foster favorable conditions so that inhabitants may solve their needs for urban land, housing, public services and infrastructures; and
- To preserve and improve the environment that shapes human settlements.
In order to achieve the objectives described in the previous section, the NPUD sets the three following policies territorial planning policies; policies to promote urban development of population centers; and policies concerning the elements, components and activities of the Human Settlements Section.
2.31.^.1 TERRITORIAL PLANNING POLICIES. The goals proposed
by the "National Plan of Family Planning" are adopted by the NPUD. These goals are to reduce the annual population growth rate from 3.2^ in 1976 to 2.5% in 1982, and to continue to reduce this rate until it drops to 1% in the year 2000, when the population should reach approximately 10^ million.
A more balanced distribution of these 10lf million inhabitants presupposes a reduction in the growth rate of the metropolitan area of Mexico City to nc greater than 20 million inhabitants. Within this scheme, Gudala-jara and Monterrey would each have a population ranging between three and five million people.

This plan would allow for a better balance between large, medium and small cities, since the metropolitan area of Mexico City would house 19$ of the total population; 13 cities with a population of over one million inhabitants would house 19$ of the population; and the remaining k0% of inhabitants would live in cities with between 15,000 and one million people. In order to achieve this objective, the NPUD proposed a National Urban System which would represent the basic structure of the national territory and would be made up of several integrated urban systems. These systems would be built around cities with regional services to support the development of their areas, including a range of different sized towns, down to scattered rural settlements. The cities with regional services would be able to offer jobs services, and adequate industrial, educational, and cultural activities to their inhabitants.(see Fig. 5)
The five policies that the NPUD proposes for territorial planning and distribution of population are the following:
- To discourage growth in the metropolitan area of Mexico City through: Promoting a system whereby beneficiaries pay the actual cost of public services, guaranteeing access to these services; controlling the establishment of new industies in the area; promoting the establishment of new units, and some existing ones

of Federal Public Administration agencies to regions outside the metropolitan area of Mexico City; encouraging the establishment of new public institutions of higher education and the expansion of existing centers in cities with regional services.
To promote the decentralization of industry, of public services and relocate them to the areas given priority under the plan through: The design of a finance mechanism and modifying the existing fiscal incentive system; carrying out programs to inform, assist and familiarize companies with the alternatives for industrial location.
To foster development in cities with regional services and medium-sized cities with a potential for economic and social development, through: The creation of the urban development plans for those cities; promoting loans and credits for development of productive activities; fostering of relocation of industrial establishments in accordance with their principal activities; establishing educational services at intermediate and higher levels, in accordance with their principal activity; establishment of welfare services, depending upon the needs of the area; strengthening of construction and housing improvement programs and urban infrastructures; granting of priority to select-

ed cities in regards to loans and financing for infrastructure and equipment programs.
To promote the development of inter-urban transportation and communication systems to strengthen the integration of the national urban system through: Fostering the establishment of a system of bypasses which circumvent the metropolitan area of Mexico City and stop construction of any new highways leading to this area; seek to ensure that the highways link cities with regional services located on the Gulf Coast with cities on the Pacific Coast; strengthen communication between cities with regional services and population centers in their area; foster the construction of transportation feeding networks, secondary roads and labor-intensive roads that facilitate access to medium-sized cities, with development potential, and towns in which services for the rural environment are concentrated (see Fig. 6).
To foster the development of support centers for the scattered rural population, the following measures should be taken: action should be concentrated in towns whose geographical location and influence on the rural environment enable them to cover the greatest number of inhabitants with the following public services: wire and wireless communication, education, technical training, family planning, additional tele-

phone lines, organization and training of peasants, health and social welfare, marketing of basic products, recreation, cultural and sports activities.
CENTERS. In the areas of population centers, the National Plan of Urban Development is basically aimed at coordinating federal, state and municipal urban planning activities, which lead to the drafting by local authorities of urban development plans for the centers given priority. The main instrument for coordination in this sphere is the Urban Schemes of Federal Action.
The coordination described will be based on the four following group policies.
2.31.*+.2.1 PROMOTION POLICIES. These policies are applicable
to urban and rural centers considered essential for ensuring the fulfillment of the spatial objectives of the national plan. These policies presuppose a concentration of a large part of the resources aimed at urban development in a few strategic population centers, in order to ensure incentives for their growth. The effectiveness of these policies depends upon the application of the strengthening and planning and control policies in other regions of the country.
With variations in the size and importance of the population centers to be promoted, the following promotional policies have been developed: To prepare condi-

tions to ensure the creation of several productive activities; to foster the relocation of productive activities and services decentralized by the Federal Government and private industry to selected centers; to channel governments toward housing, in anticipation of a probable expansion in demand; to adopt an internal highway infrastructure, so that it may fit into regional communication systems; and to develop mass transportation systems; to foster an orderly growth and development process by developing instruments to facilitate the occupation of the territory, such as fiscal incentives and taxes for the use of land, the constitution of territorial reserves.
2.3.1A.2.2 STRENGTHENING POLICIES. These policies will be ap-
plied to centers which are currently under development which only need reorganization of their basic structures, so as to prevent any negative effects from population concentration and to maintain the current dynamic growth.
These policies will be set in accordance with the specific characteristics of each center. These policies are: To plan and regulate the physical and spacial structures, establishing the proper interrelation of their functions by preserving and improving their images and fostering an optimum use of the soil and the existing infrastructures; to complement infrastructure, equipment and transportation services foreseeing medium term needs; to plan for physical growth by setting territorial reserves aid, and defining uses of soil.

control policies complement the strengthening policies and have an objective to reduce the current growth rate of some urban centers where the concentration of inhabitants in causing increasingly serious problems of congestion and economic and social inefficiency. The purposes of these polices are: To curb the trend toward providing infrastructure and equipment to land related activities and industry, while making optimum use of existing facilities; to ensure that the social costs of pollution and environmental damage are paid for by the sources that produce them; to foster the decentralization of national education, cultural and administrative functions that are currently located in Mexico City; to establish limits on public services and apply differential rates in proportion to use over and above the minimum use; to reinforce the infrastructure for development of agriculture, livestock and forestry activities that contribute toward curbing urban expansion and creating job and recreation opportunities.
TEMS. In so far as rural population centers'are concerned, development and strengthening policies will be applied, taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the rural environment. These policies are: To attract the external economies generated by the most im-

portant centers through the development of machinery to support production, marketing and transportation, so as to link rural systems and foster their development; to promote the establishment of facilities to process natural resources, especially in rural systems of major importance for the domestic production of food and energy resources; to make optimum use of and complement the structure of population centers that foster the integration of rural systems and the concentration of the scattered population, through coordination between investments in public services and equipment.
ACTIVITIES OF THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS SECTOR. In line with the policies for territorial planning and urban development for the population centers, it is the task of the Human Settlements Sector to promote activities aimed at: territorial reserves for human settlements, urban land, housing, urban infrastructure and services, urban ecology, prevention and attention for urban emergencies and community participation in urban development. The policies of this area are:
- To seek, under the provisions of the law, the purchase of territorial reserves for federal use within the guidelines set by federal programs and action on a medium and long-term basis;

To give technical support to the states for carrying out studies on the need to shape territorial reserves; To define guidelines for the purchase, ownership and use of the territorial reserves by the Federal government in its programs;
To give states and municipalities technical aid in defining the use of land in their urban development plans;
To give the low-income and jobless sectors of the population alternatives in order to achieve access to urban land;
To make it possible for a larger segment of the population to have access to low-income housing, through increased social programs that encourage the participation of inhabitants in progressive improved housing activities;
To strengthen programs that enable inhabitants to build their own housing through technical assistance, support programs and the adaptation of instruments and standards;
To standardize the use of proper technology at a low cost and an intensive use of manual labor in the construction of housing and the production of materials for programs sponsored by the public sector;
To make optimum use of existing infrastructure, equipment and urban services and avoid a waste of these Elements;

To support with new equipment, infrastructures and urban services the areas and population centers with priority, by optimizing their location and adapting these centers to the needs of the population; an attempt should be made to anticipate these needs;
To seek to ensure that the supply of equipment for the education, health and welfare of the population is carried out under a system of territorial planning in which the elements involved complement each other;
To foster the recycling of urban wastes;
To seek to ensure that the economic and social costs of pollution and environmental damage are paid for by the sources that caused them;
To foster the establishment of standards to ensure harmony between open spaces and buildings and the natural environment of population centers;
To give technical assistance to local authorities in establishing restrictions on factors that pollute the environment, irregardless of whether the pollution is of a physical or chemical nature on whether it is a matter of visual or noise pollution;
To determine vulnerable conditions in human settlements that could make them more susceptible to disasters and recommend measures to prevent catastropies; and To promote the contribution of suggestions by all sectors in the country and opinions on the National Plan

of Urban development, and to establish mechanisms for receiving them and taking them into account in the future. PRIORITY ZONES AND POPULATION CENTERS. There are a
wide range of needs in the area of human settlements and they cannot all be satisfied at once, so therefore priority must be given to certain regions in applying resources in this field. Thus, a group of zones and population centers have been given priority to receive support in fulfilling the objective and policies of the National Plan.
Ten areas have been given priority and these areas were proposed in view of the following characteristics: The ability to absorb inhabitants; their location as related to location of natural resources; and a favorable forecast concerning job opportunities in terms of the accelerated development of the different economic sectors in the areas. The plan also defines three areas that, as a result of their growth characteristics, should receive immediate attention in terms of planning and control. Such areas are: Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey (see Fig. 7). The plan also establishes the population centers where regional services should be located. In the population centers of each state which are given priority, the Plan proposes development, strengthening, planning and control policies so that each state and municipal authority may take them into account when drafting urban development plans. In

revising and up-dating the National Plan of Urban Development, the priorities established in the state plans for urban development for the remaining population centers will also be taken into account.
In order to ensure compliance with its basic proposals, the National Plan for Urban Development establishes, at the strategic level, the need to develop and implement different types of programs. Thus the objectives sought and the administrative mechanisms to fulfill these objectives are divided into the four following groups: CONCERTED ACTION PROGRAMS. The structure of these
programs are a response to the objective of grouping the activities and investments of certain sectors of the federal public administration into "packages" thereby identifying specific problem areas in human settlements so that, through proper coordination, negotiations may be held among the sectors participating in the solution. The Concerted Action Programs will be put into operation on the basis of express provisions of the executive within the program mechanisms established by the ministry of Planning and Budget. These programs are: Programs for the territorial decentralization of the Federal Public Administration; programs of incentives for territorial decentralization of industrial activities; programs for regional in-

tergration of urban services; programs for the inter-urban linking system; programs for providing concentrated rural services; and programs for the use, conservation, development and regeneration of natural resources involved in human settlements. SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR SECTORAL PRIORITIES. These pro-
grams are aimed at supporting, with urban infrastructures and equipment, the town where priority activities of the Federal Public Administration will be located. Through those types of programs, guidelines are proposed for areas in which the Ministry of Human Settlements and Public Works and the other sectors may carry out their investments and activities in collaboration with each other.
The final result of these programs will depend upon the agreements entered into by the various sectors involved.
In this case, too, action by the sectors will be carried out through the mechanisms established for this purpose by the Ministry of Planning and Budgeting, which will act as coordinator. These programs are: Programs for providing infrastructures for fishing activities; program for providing infrastructures for tourism centers; programs for providing infrastructures for support of energy resources; program for providing infrastructures for priority industrial centers and support to industrial ports; and programs of equipment for marketing.
GOVERNMENTS. The objectives of these programs are to establish the basis for coordinated action between the Federal government and State and Municipal authorities in drafting urban development plans for each town. These programs support local authorities in the development, strengthening and planning and control policies recommended for application in urban development plans for population centers. These programs are: Programs for the urban development of population centers (includes development, strengthening and planning and control policies); programs for the integration of rural population centers; and programs for new population centers.
1978-82. This program covers activities to be carried out by the Ministry of Human Settlements and Public Works, in collaboration with other agencies in this sector, within the framework of the Organic Law of Federal Public Administration. The principal measures of these programs are aimed at providing a basic infrastructure for the development of population centers; that is, potable water and sewage systems, roads, urban equipment and housing. The programs covered by the Human Settlements Sector are: Programs for planning human settlements; programs for administration and support; programs for urban land and real estate; programs for potable water and sewage; programs for

industrial cities; programs for infrastructure and urban traffic; programs for progressive housing; programs for V using improvements; programs for finished housing; programs for cultural facilities; programs for public service facilities; programs for recreational and sports facilities; and programs for community participation and develop ment.
This level establishes which governmental agencies are responsible for developing specific parts of the plan. The National Plan of Urban Development requires for its execution, an agreement between the different public administration sectors, all jointly participating.
.3.3.1 COMMITMENTS. The suggestions and responsibilities
that the President of the Mexican republic requested of the coordinators in each sector, concerning the objectives policies and programs contained in the National Plan of Urban Development, represent a series of proposed endeavor that establish the groundwork for the commitments to support the plan. The commitments will lead to a chain of decisions that will channel resources into priority areas, discouraging the growth of the conurbanated area in the central part of the country, and provide rural zones with services.
The investments by the sectors of the Federal Public Administration during the period between 1978-82 will be

totally in line with the short and medium-term policies and strategies proposed in the National Plan of Urban Development. Thus, investments will be aimed, to a large extent, at the areas and states given priority within the framework of the plan.
2.3.3*2 GOALS FOR 1978-82. The goals set for this period in-
clude providing and improving housing for 789,000 families; securing potable water for 6.1^ million inhabitants; providing sewerage facilities for 3.62 million inhabitants; building 3 >800 kilometers of main highways; constructing 63,700 kilometers of rural and secondary roads and over 250 kilometers of rural and secondary roads and over 250 Kilometers of urban highways and the construction and maintenance of 52 airports.
This level deals with all the laws and decrees that need to be created or modified in order to implement the National Plan of Urban Development, such as the General Law of Human Settlements (described in part 2.2 of this study), which created the National Commission of Urban Development; the Commissions for Courbanated Areas; and provides the basis for legalization of the National Plan of Urban Development.

In May, 1979? the Department of Human Settlements and Public Works performed the first evaluation of the National Plan of Urban Development. Since the national plan was in its first year of application, the achievements were small but positive. The urban planning process is still in the states of finishing the formulation of the plans at all six operative levels (National, Priority Zone, State, Municipal, Conurbanated Zone, and population Centers).
Among the important achievements or undertaken actions during this first year are the following: Implementation of the program of decentralization of the Federal Public Administration throughout the entire country; implementation of the stimulus program for the decentralization of industrial activities; construction and/or improvement of several kilometers of highways in the priority zones and population centers; agreements between federal and state governments and state and municipal governments concerning coordination of programs for urban development; building and improvement of housing, and initial development of potable water and sewage systems.
The current government of Mexico has been characterized for its efforts to make plans for government activities relating to political, social, and economic matters since it came into power in 1976.

So far, this government has elaborated and enacted, through decrees, the following partial plans and programs of development: the National Plan of Urban Development; the National Plan of Industrial Development; the National Plan of Fishing Development; the Annual Plans of the Agricultural and Forest Sectors; the National Program of Employment; the National Plan of Tourism; the Plan of Urban Development for the Federal District (Mexico City); and the National Program of Science and Technology. Furthermore, some advances were made in the development of the Educative Sector, in the National Plan of Transportation and Communications, and in the Agro-industrial Plan.
Due to the fact that all of these plans and programs are interrelated with each other, in April, 1980 the government created the first "Global Plan of Development for 1980-82(1+) which basically unifies all 8 of the plans and formulates specific public policies which consequently define all the actions of the government in social, economic and political issues.
One of the important characteristics of this plan is that the ministry of Programming and Budgeting began in
( W) The plan will be in effect for only two years because the existing government has two years left in office. Traditionally, governments or presidents make plans for only their presidential time. The constinuation of the same plan depends upon the will of the next president.

1980 to allocate federal monies among the various governmental agencies, authorizing loans, and granting credits to state and municipal governments according to the guidelines established by the Global Plan of Development for 1980-82.
The four objectives of this plan are:
- To reassure and foster the economic and political independence of Mexico, as a Democratic country;
- To provide people with employment, food, education, health and housing;
- To promote a high and continuous economic growth rate; and
- To improve income distribution among people, by means of production and by geographical regions.
Therefore, in order to achieve the objectives of the Global Plan all the previously mentioned plans and specific programs of the governmental agencies must be implemented. Thus, by implementing this global plan, all the actions of the Public Administration at all levels (Federal, State, and Municipal) will be coordinated and structured in order that specific public policies may be established that will allow all to reach the same national objectives of the plan.

very good framework for the regulation of human settle-* ments throughout the entire country through all urban development plans (National, State, Municipal Population Centers, Conurbanated Zones, and Priority Zones and Population Centers). Therefore, it has become the basic document concerning human settlements and urban and regional planning issues. This law established the responsibilities of various governmental levels and the legal changes that each state legislatures must carry out in order to enact and implement their plans. Furthermore, the law indicates that the National Plan of Urban Development forms the basis for the rest of the plans. The human settlement law also provides that the urban plan has to be analyzed, evaluated and changed at short, medium and long-terms and there must be citizen participation. Consequently, the success or failure of human settlements, urban and regional issues will depend upon the proper application of the guidelines stated by Human Settlements Law.
At the present, the various plans are being completed and all levels of government are working to implement the plans. However, citizen participation appears to be a forgotten aspect of the law, since the legal, social and political groups do not promote citizen participation efficiently. There are some municipalities which do not know what is occuring in terms of urban planning because

most urban issues are decided by and established by the federal government and agreed to by state governments. Therefore, municipal governments are charged only with implementing what the other levels of government decide.
vided a good method by which to prepare all the urban development plans (national, state, municipal, population center, conurbanated zone, and priority zones and population centers) which are geared to four technical levels of planning: Regulative Strategic, Sectoral Co-responsibility, and Legal Instruments. All levels together contain what the problems are now and in the future; set the goals and objectives; establish the policies and programs to implement the plans; designate the agencies responsible to carry out specific programs; and indicate the legal charges required by state legislatures in order to enact the plans.
The technique of preparing plans utilizing the four levels of planning provides that the planning terminology will be uniform throughout the country. Consequently, since all plans follow the same guidelines and principles stated in the General Law of Human Settlements, it is easy to introduce any changes in the complete planning system. This uniform planning system is different than that practiced in the United States, where each population center sets its own planning goals and objectives and establishes

its own means to achieve them. In this case, national policies are difficult to implement in the entire country.
In Mexico's case, there seems to be a technical confusion with policies at the regulative level and programs at the strategic level. It is my opinion, that both policies and programs belong to the strategic level because this level represents all the means by which the plan may achieve its goals and objectives. Consequently, the regulative level should only include: a) diagnosis; and b) forecast of the problem; and c) goals and objectives of the plan(5) The priority zones and population centers should be removed from the section outlining goals and objectives as they are objectives to be achieved in a short or medium-timeframe. On the other hand, the strategic level should be composed of policies and programs, because each policy has its own programs to implement, thereby forming a direct relationship between them and the goals and objectives. Furthermore, there should be priority policies and programs established in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the priority zones and population centers. Only then,would the total combination of policies and programs represent the complete
(5) The National Plan of Urban Development presents goals for 1978-82 at Sectoral coresponsibility level. I think it should be at the regulative level.

instruments or means by which the plan may achieve its goals and objectives.
I also found a very weak statement of goals for 1978-82. The objective of providing and improving housing for
789,000 families does not take into account the total number of families who need housing. The same lack of demonstrated number of need applies to objectives established for potable water and sewerage facilities and kilometers of highway construction.
In the official initial evaluation of the National Plan of Urban Developmental found that it did not relate the achievements of the first year of operation, to the goals and objectives set in the plan. The evaluation has a lot of obscure statements which make it difficult to analyze the progress achieved by the plan during its first year in operation. This criticism is also valid for several parts of the plan, especially in terms of the policies and programs. In these sections the terminology is very ambiguous and makes the plan look like a political speech rather than a technical plan. This situation along with the existence of a multitude of national plans and programs being implemented by numerous governmental agencies, makes it difficult even for analysts and planners to understand and evaluate the complete urban planning process.

This plan incorporates all the laws, plans, and programs in economic, social and political aspects and forms specific public policies according to the nature of each issue. Therefore, these policies become the basic guidelines for government intervention in the public life of its inhabitants. However, the existence of numerous national plans and programs implemented by several governmental agencies casts doubt on the existence of real coordination between all levels of government acting together in an efficient manner.
In the area of urban and regional planning issues, I have found that the goals and objectives set in the
national plan of urban development are effectively identified. However, the policies and programs to achieve them are very weak. For example, in the efforts to decentralize industrial activities from the metropolitan area of Mexico City, the policies and programs are very soft.
On the contrary, I think that the identification of present and future urban and rural problems, previously discussed, are enough to convince anyone of the need to implement stronger policies. Such policies should include offering fiscal incentives to industries to locate where economic development is needed, or establishing restrictions or imposing strong penalties on industries which settle in the metropolitan area of Mexico City.

Another aspect of the weakness of the policies and programs is the policy to insure that the social costs of pollution and environmental damage are to be paid by the sources that produce them. This is an excellent statement, but how is the plan going to implement this policy?
Another problem I found is the policy of providing public services to support population centers for rural population integration. This policy will not benefit rural population and on the contrary will increase the existing differences between the rural and urban quality of life. For example, the rural population will not receive benefits from health care institutions since peasants do not have a permanent job. For the rural population it is very difficult to use the cultural and recreational activities that the city (or support center) offer because of the poor economic conditions they live in. On the other hand, it is going to be very difficult to scatter an already dispersed rural population because their existence depends upon the agricultural activities, and because for them it will be difficult to live in the city (or support center) and go to work on their lands. Rather than this policy, I recommend that strong economic policies be implemented which provide them with direct assistance, such as increasing rural salaries in relation to urban salaries; setting higher prices for thier products; establishing a health care system which includes

them; providing schools and training centers for agricultural development, etc. In short, assist them directly where they live and not through other means, in other population centers.
Due to the fact that in Mexico the urban planning process is strongly related to economic and political issues, my recommendations are oriented toward changes in economic and political aspects and only slightly to planning techniques. My recommendations are as follows:
- The goals and objectives of the General Law of Human Settlements, the National Plan of Urban Development, and the Global Plan of Development, 1980-82 are excellent. They really try to solve not only urban and regional problems but also all problems which affect public life. However, the policies and programs are so weak that it will be very difficult to reach the goals they have set. I recommend a technical change in the goals and objectives and the means to achieve them.
For example, to decrease the ambitious goals and objectives to a level where they can be reached by the available means or to design strong policies and programs to accomplish the existing goals and objectives. And, additionally, to use a clear language about what is to be done and how it will be done as well as what can and cannot be done.

The government system is so centralized at the federal level that it almost does not leave freedom for the municipalities to decide what to do about their own urban problems. This situation seems contradictory since the Mexican constitution provides for freedom of the municipalities. I recommend that more responsibilities and economic resources (especially taxing authority) be given to the municipal government in order to accomplish their portions of the goals and objectives of all the plans.
Strong economic policies (e.g., industrial incentives, restrictions) are needed in order to implement the excellent and ambitious goals and objectives of all the plans and programs.
An efficient coordination among all governmental agencies is needed in order to implement properly all the plans and programs. There also needs to be a review of the various programs to determine overlapping responsibilities and duplicating of governmental functions.

The population of France is of 53 million people (1978) located in a territorial area of only 55>761 square miles which represents only about b/5 of the size of Texas.
Even though France is a small country, it has a strong-economic base supported mainly in industrial and agricultural activities (see Table 2),
Because of concentration of political and economic power in only one city, Paris, and the backwardness of countryside, after World War II, France started implementing national and regional plans oriented toward economic development and physical, economic and political decentralization from central government add from Paris.
On this context, in 1980 France was in its seven five-year plan of economic development and practicing economic techniques called "Growth Poles". Thus, France has gained a lot of experience in regional economics and urban planning. So, with this knowledge France is becoming the leader of the western world in matters of regional economics and urban planning.
On this chapter we are going to describe and analyze only the national and regional urban policies; the new town's development, which is an important instrument of the French planning policies; the implementation process of the urban policies; and the impact of those policies in regional and national levels.

3.2.1 THE REASONS FOR PLANNING. One of the characteristics
of France, after World War II, was the persistant centralization of economic, cultural and political activities in only one city, Paris.
The economic growth that occurred in France after the 19^0s was marked by the absence of middle sized cities. The social and economic progress occurred in Paris while the rest of the nation stood still. In the post war year, Jean-Francois Gravien wrote a book titled "Paris and the French Desert" in which she showed the concentration of wealth and power in Paris and poverty in the provinces.
From the planning point of view, we can say that there were four basic factors which motivated the need for rational and regional planning in Franch. Such reasons are: the macroconcentration of power in only one branch of government; the economic concentration in only one city, Paris; the backwardness of the agricultural sector; and the unbalanced regional economy between West and East. The west part of France, from LeHavre to Marseille, was both relatively unpopulated and had a predominance of agricultural activities. The few industries in this region were becoming obsolete and were dying, especially the shipbuilding and fishing industries. One of the reasons for the backwardness of the west was the lack of communication with the rest of France. On the contrary, the east part of the country had

more economic possibilities of progress especially since the European market was opened in the east. Due to the lack of social and economic opportunities in countryside especially in the west after the war, the rural population started to flee the land and move to the cities, especially Paris. However, since Paris was not prepared with urban services to receive large amount of rural people, social and political problems commenced in the city. As a result of this situation the rural migration to cities caused a crisis in agricultural activities; and on the other hand, increased migrant
tion rural people to the cities increased the urban problems.
migration of people from the countryside to the cities and the increasing urban disorders because of the lack of urban public services, especially in Paris, the central government had to face those problems very seriously. The first action was taken by the ministry of construction who saw the solution of these problems in the creation of jobs in provincial centers. The basic policy, in order to create jobs, was by decentralizing industrial activities. The means to decentralize industry were very unilateral, since they were aimed at prohibiting restricting construction permits in Paris without stimulating regional industrial locations. The importance of this effort for economic deconcentration was that the initiative and will came from the central and Paris

governments, even though it occurred without any decentralization of the decision-making process. After the middle 1950s, the regional planning process changed from being a simple urbanism and industrial decentralization to a more wider concept of national economic development. All these efforts of regional and national planning led to a new national plan which was eventually regionalized and implemented in the 1960s. (69
The French urban planning process is basically composed of two components. One is the "national plan of development" which deals with national decentralization, physical development, infrastructure, transportation and housing. This plan is administered by the Territorial Planning and Regional Development Agency (DATAR). The second plan is a plan for the Paris region. This plan tries to channel the growth of Paris into corridors to connect Paris with the surrounding new towns.
After DATAR was established in 19635 eight growth poles (Metropoles d'equilibre) were created in the entire country. An industrial program, including incentives and controls, was also established in order to implement the
(6) It is necessary to mention that since 19^+5 France has been practicing a "national plan of development". Thus France was in 1980 finishing its seventh five-year plan. I do not know anything about the eighth plan nor the new policies or what the new President of France will do in matters of planning, especially in new town development that they now have in progress.

growth poles. These growth poles were located in Marseille, Lyon, Lille, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Nantes-St Nazaire, Metz-Nancy, and Strasbourg. Three new towns were also created in order to support, with services, the growth poles. The new towns are: L'Etang de Barre (near Marseilles); L'Isle d' Abeau (near Lyon); and Lille East (near Lille), see Figure 8.
The planning philosophy of French planners at the beginning of 1960s was that, with the creation of the eight growth poles it would be possible to balance economic development in the entire country.
The eight growth poles or counterbalancing metro-poles (7) were to be developed to provide prospective private investors with sufficient rural opportunities in order to take some businesses from the Paris area.
The counterbalancing metropoles had to be provided with efficient communication and transportation facilities to inter and intra urban levels. Cultural and intellectual life had to be promoted too. However, due to the fact that it was almost impossible to change the metropoles into a group of small Parises in the entire country. Therefore, the next policy of the French planners was to promote an
(7)The termiT "metropoles d'equilibre", "counterbalancing metropoles", and "growth Poles" are used in an interchangeable way. The only difference is that metropoles d'equilibre and counterbalancing metropoles are concepts used especially in urbanistic terminology. On the other hand, growth pole is a concept used more frequently in economic theory.

urban division of labor in a way that each metropole would be able to rival Paris in some way, becoming a magnet for activity in some critical areas. In other words, planners wanted the metropoles to have their own economic structure which would give them a fighting chance to attract private capital, to be endowed with intellectual and cultural facilities of their own and to have terciary activities pushed in their direction.(8 ) For these purposes, the country was divided in five zones, each ranked in an order of priorities from government aid to private investments. For example, in the underdeveloped cities of the west the maximum subsidies for new investment and expansion were up to 20% of the total investment. And on the contrary, the Paris region received no special advantages since this region was kept under growth control.
Recently, in 1978, a new operational document for national planning was approved in France and several local plans, including those for the new towns. This New General Development Plan (SDAU) provides a framework and planning guidelines with which the plans for local communes must comply. Among other things these local plans outline the precise use for each parcel of land. However, in order to implement these plans, they have to be approved by the regional prefect and national ministries.
( 8) Ross W. George and Cohen S. Stephen "The Politics of French Regional Planning". In Friedman and Alonso "Regional Policy" 1978, pp. 727-750.

On a regional basis, there were several plans to promote the growth policy of the Paris region. For example, a plan for the development and organization of the Paris region was published in I960, but it was outdated by 1961. Later, in 1965* another plan was published, the plan for the Paris region. The main goals of these plans are:
to create new urban centers in the suburbs and new towns in the newer extended zones;
to channel growth along the axes upon which the new towns are located;
, by the creation of balanced centers in the inner
and outer suburbs, to reduce commuting, ease transportation problems, improve public services and facilities, and to offer greater freedom of choise in leisure time pursuits, employment and housing types; and
protect open spaces of the region from urban sprawl.
The new towns would play an important role in the inner and outer suburbs of the Paris region. In the inner suburbs are the urban centers (poles restructurateurs) which would create a "town center" for dense inner counties with no urban focus. The inner urban centers are: La Defense,
St. Denis, Le Bourget, Bobigny, Rosny sous Bois, Creteil and Rungis (see Figure 10).

The outer area new towns were first designated in the 1965 plan. It contained the creation of nine new towns in the Paris region with a total population of 15 million by the year 2000. However due to the fact that this plan was too ambitious it was modified in 1969 to contain only five new towns, Cergy Pontoise, St Quentine-en-Yvelines, Evry, Marne-LaValle, and Melun Senart (see Figures 9 and 10).
There is also another new town, Le Vaudreuil which appears to be the ugly duckling of the French new town's .family. It is neither in the Paris region nor is it a growth pole. Le Vaudreuil was designated as an experimental new town around the theme of environmental innovation. However, compared with the rest of new towns, it has attracted less population (see Figure 9).
This regional plan, in which the inner and outer new towns played a key role, was in response to the fact that employment was concentrated in Paris, while most of the new housing has been built in the suburbs. This situation created a tremendous problem for the transportation system with individual times and cost budgets. The plan for the Paris region was also a reaction to the large housing projects (grands esembles) which had been built by the government after World War II. These projects were characterized by high density, unattractive architecture, lack of public facilities, excessive concentration of lower income families and ethnic minorities and expensive rent.

It is important to mention that France has strong central control over the installation of major public facilities, such as railroads and highways. That is why the new towns are provided with transportation facilities which are installed according to a long range plan to carry out the Paris region plan. Furthermore, central control and the influence of development is directed through the finance system. Thus, since education and public facilities are also paid by the central government, Paris does not have the fiscal crisis that some American cities, or that Rome and Tokyo are facing.

3A implementation of the urban planning policies
As we saw before, France has been, since after World War II, practicing economic policies in order to create growth poles and urban balance throughout the country. So, during all that time, France has gained a lot of experience in regional economics and urban planning techniques. Thus, France is now becoming the leader in regional economics and urban planning techniques in the western world.
The uniqueness of its planning techniques are the application of strong instruments to carry out its growth policy and the new town's goals. These instruments include: good regional planning; strong administrative centralization; special techniques to control land sales and escalation of land prices; industrial location incentives; desin-centives and controls; techniques for public intervention in land and development for housing; controls over commercial space; and direct central government intervention in the houseing market. (9)
In 1962 the French government created a new planning technique in order to control development patterns. This new tool is land acquisition and control of land prices in selected areas through the zone of deferred development. It
(9)The information for this section comes basically from Underhill A. Jack. "French National Urban Policy and the Paris Region New Towns". H.U.D. 1980.

is aimed at combatting the speculative increase in prices of land in areas where development is foreseen.
With this technique the government agency in charge with the application of this policy intervenes in any real property transaction, fixes a price at which the property may be sold and either buys it or permits the seller to sell to a third person at that price. The important thing here is that, the government agency has the right to purchase the land before others, and so doing controls speculation in land prices.
In the Paris region the government agency is the Land and Technical Services Agency of the Paris region. This agency acts as contractor designing, financing and coordinating development of some projects. It has the right to preempt the land which is going to be used in the future. Generally, land is not purchased more than six or eight years in advance of need.
In the countryside there is in practice a similar technique for controlling prices of land which is going to be urbanized. The government agency in charge of this function in rural areas is the Society for the development of land and rural settlements. It buys up land which has escalated rapidly in price and resells it to insure that that land is used for agricultural purposes. This technique has been applied slowly in rural areas because of the limitations in government money to buy land.

Another important tool in controlling development is the Mixed Economy Corporation. This is a quasi public development corporation which combines both public and private sectors in order to build housing.
These organizations are administered by councils chosen by shareholders. The important thing of this technique is that the central corporation for land development which is a strong agency of the Central Savings Bank provides central management, consulting services, and financing to the mixed economy corporations. This financial assistance from the bank makes possible to develop the projects that government approves.
In order to pursue the national and regional policies the French government not only influences the location of housing and infrastructure, but also influences the location of industrial, office, and commercial enterprises.
Government seeking to locate jobs in the new communities outside of the Paris region, with the office space control Paris has to pay a permit tax of $7.7^ a square foot (*+00 francs square meter). The taxes decrease from central Paris to adjacent departments outside of Paris from $5-81 a square foot to $3*87. However, in the outer suburbs and surrounding new towns land is not taxed.
Regarding new industries, the tax to pay for locating

in central Paris is $3*50 square foot and decreases to $1.^6 outside Paris and in the surrounding new towns the tax is only $lA6. While these incentives and desincentives encourage industrial location and consequently creation of jobs in the Paris region new towns, other decentralization incentives are practiced at national level.
So, the areas of maximum assistance are the most depressed areas of Brittany, the northern border with Germany and Belgium and others scattered in the southern of France. These areas are eligible for cash grants for regional development, varying from 12 to 25% of the total construction costs. Additionally, these zones have other incentives such as indemnities, exemption from local business tax, reduction of transfer taxes, accelerated depreciation of construction costs, reduction of tax on capital gains from the sale of land, and subsidies for training and personnel moving expenses. On the contrary, the Paris region has no industrial incentives for the creation or expansion of industrial facilities. In addition, a special permit is required from the ministry of public works. Urban development is also controlled through the location of commercial centers. For example, in 1975 from 12 shopping centers proposed in the Paris region,
3 were approved to be located in new towns and 2 in the suburbs of Paris.

The results of the urban policies to regional and national levels regarding population decentralization are very positive. Population decentralization has been occurring slowly but continuously, from central Paris to outer rings, new towns, and also to other parts of France.
This decentralization is explained with the following data: Table 3 shows that the annual percentage growth of the Paris region population has been decreasing throughout the four periods of study (from 19*+6 to 1975) with relation to the rest of France. For example, the growth of the region was of 2.02$ per year from 195*+ to 1962, but only 0.92$ from 1968 to 1975* Thus, the difference between the growth of the Paris region and the rest of the nation decreased from 1.18$ in 195*+ to 1962 to only 0.13$ from 1968 to 1975.
Analysing these results from another angle, Table if shows that in absolute terms, annual population growth of the region has declined from l*+7,000 a year from 195^ to 1962 to 87,500 a year from 1968 to 1975. This table also shows that the immigration to the region has decreased rapidly from 62$ during the first period to only l*+$ during the last one. Thus, the Paris region has changed from being importer of h3,000 people annually from 1951* to 1962 to exporter of 22,600 during the period of 1968 to 1975*
One important characteristic of the French population decentralization is that it is not only occurring in the

Paris region and in the growth poles cities, but also outside them. The explanation to this situation is that the industrial incentives were located strongly in the depressed areas of France. Table 5 shows the distribution of population growth in France in various periods and by regions. So, in the period 195L< 62 only 3^$ of the population growth occurred in the rest of France. It increased in the period 1962-68 to 37$ and in 1968-75 it reached h6% of the national population growth. On the contrary, the population growth of the Paris region decreased from 31$ during the period 195^-62 to only 22$ during 1968-75.
This population decentralization can also be seen from the urbanization point of view. Thus, cities of more than 200,000 inhabitants outside the Paris region have been growing especially after 1968, at less than the national average. And, on the contrary, cities of less than 20,000 inhabitants have been growing more rapidly than the national average. Cities with population from 20,000 to 50,000 have experienced the fastest growth.
In the specific case of the Paris region, the central city has been losing population with relation to its suburbs and outer cities. Table 6 shows that situation.
If in the population decentralization issue France has achieved its goals set in its regional and national plans, in some aspects of urban design they have failed. For example, in Paris and outer suburbs there is a lack of open

space especially in central Paris where population density is of 117 persons per acre and the acres of open space are of only 0.23 acres per 1,000 people.
Another even more critical problem for France is that Paris and its surrounding cities are getting into a process of deterioration of environmental quality, increase in noise, pollution, traffic, crowding, inadequate recreational space, inadequate pedestrial space, and lack of contact with nature.
b. COMPARISON OF THE MEXICAN AND FRENCH URBAN PLANNING PROCESSES The most important similarities and differences between the Mexican and French urban planning process found in this study are the following:
ACTIVITIES AND POPULATION. France, after World War II, suf-fered serious regional economic disequilibriums. The social and economic progress occurred in Paris while the rest of France was dying in misery. The concentration of economic activities in the Paris region and the lack of occupational opportunities in countryside resulted in a strong pressure for people to flee rural areas and move especially to the Paris region. (See section 3.2.1).
Almost parallel in time, in Mexico after 19^0 the economic public policy was basically directed toward the development of industrial activities and overlooking the rural

sector. The consequences of that policy were large migration of rural population mainly to Mexico City and to the United States. People who moved to Mexico City are still fighting for a piece of land and a space in the social life (see introduction to this study).
*+.1.2 GOVERNMENT CENTRALIZATION. Both, Mexico and France
have almost the same centralization type of government. On these countries, central or federal government decides what to do, where to do it, why and for who, not only in urban planning matters, but also in social, economic and political issues.
Since the planning point of view this phenomenon has two sides, one positive and one negative. The positive side is that, with centralization of government, national urban policies can be easily implemented in order to achieve national goals and objectives. In the negative side, with government centralization almost all public decisions are made to federal level and frequently that situation ignores
local issues such as municipal finance and local urban plan-
ning needs.
This government centralization is also one of the reasons for people concentration in a small area, such as Paris and Mexico City, since central or federal government has the strong capacity to create jobs, people move where jobs are, and consequently, people go where central or federal government is located.

Probably the best point to neutralize the negative effects of this phenomenon is a situation where there can be aii unique national planning system for urban development but complemented with decentralization of decision-making power from federal to state and until local levels. I feel that with decision-making decentralization local entities (municipalities in Mexico and communes in France) would have more economic resources and responsibilities with which local governments would create jobs and would attract more people, reversing migration back to small cities and towns.
I feel that with the implementation of this policy the real goals and objectives of national plans of urban development would be accomplished.
Mexico have an unique national and regional urban planning techniques and one national institution which deals with urban matters.
In France DATAR (Territorial Planning and Regional Development Agency) is the government agency in charge with the national plan of urban development; while in Mexico this duty belongs to SAHOP (Ministry of Human Settlements and Public Works).
At regional level, in France there are the growth poles plans and the new town plans; while in Mexico, the General Law of Human Settlements enforced each state, municipality and population center to create a plan of urban development

according to the guidelines stated by the national plaJ urban development. Furthermore, in Mexico, each plan of urban development has to be prepared to four levels of planning, regulative, strategic, sectoral, co-responsability, and legal instruments levels (see Section 2.3)* With this unique national planning technique cities in France and Mexico theoretically do not have the financial aid that some American cities, such as New York and Chicago, are facing because of the move of the economic base. In Mexico and France, the money for cities is centrally budgeted by federal or state governments.
TERS. In general, in France and in Mexico, because of the decision-making centralization in central or federal government there is not real citizen participation not only in urban matters, but also in public social life. However, there are some facts that make me think that in France, citizen participation in public matters is improving. For example, the labor strikes and social revolts in France in 196# pressed General deGaulle "to address the nation and (to) promise to bring participation to France: participation by workers in industry and participation by citizens in government on a regional level". (11)
(ll)Ross W. George and Cohen S. Stephen. "The Politics of French Regional Planning". In Friedman and Alonso "Regional Policy". 197#j p. 759

Mexico, on the other hand, is still lacking citizen participation. In the Mexican case there is a justification used by politicians that there can not be decentralization of decision-making power because of the lack of skilled people in government matters to local levels. In ray opinion, it is probably true, but at the same time it is a cause-effect cycle where local people are unskilled to handle government matters because of the lack of access of people to know and deal with those matters.
if. 1.5 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTS. By constitution Mexico has
a method to implement urban plans in metropolitan areas that include several jurisdictions, states, and/or municipalities known as "conurbanated zones". A conurbanated commission is created in a conurbanated zone to ordinate and regulate economic and social growth through an urban plan for the entire metropolitan area (see Section 2.2A). This agency is like the Council of Governments in the United States.
In the French case, each commune has its own government. However, in the new towns there is a central government for that town even if it includes several communes. In this case, "after a commune voted to become part of a new town, they form an agency called Inter-municipal Department District (syndicate communautaire d'Amenagement, SCA), which is administered by a committee composed of representatives from each of the communes". (10)
(10) Underhill A. Jack. op. cit. p. k-2.

If.2.1 NEW TOWNS DEVELOPMENT. In the French urban planning
process the new towns play an important role as instruments of policy in order to accomplish the national and regional goals and objectives. When at the middle of 1960s eight growth poles were created in the entire nation to balance economic development, three new towns were also created to support those growth poles (see Section 3*2.3 and figure 8). Additionally, in the Paris region six new towns were created in order to channel urban growth from Paris toward outer areas (see Section 3*3 and Figures 9 and 10).
In the Mexican case, there is not creation of new towns to implement the national and regional plans of urban development; rather, the national plan identifies the existing cities and towns that can accomplish the objectives of of economic and population decentralization (see Section 2.3. l.*f.l and Figure 5)
case, one of the factors which made possible economic and population decentralization was the good understanding and cooperation between private and public agencies. Both were working together in the economic decentralization through the creation of growth poles and in population decentralization through the new towns development. Public policies have favored private sector to locate enterprises where economic development is foreseen. And, at the same time, pri-

vate investments have created jobs to attract population.
In Mexico there is a lack of cooperation between private and public sectors; rather than being agreeing to develop some regions in the country, they are still fighting about the limits of public sector intervention in the market economy. It seems to me that the Mexican private sector is very timid about investments outside of a strong captured market such as that of Mexico City.
portant factor that helped France to success in urban planning matters is the planning techniques used in its planning process. These techniques include excellent regional economic development through the growth poles creation; strong techniques to control land sales and prices; efficient industrial location incentives; strong restrictions and desin-centives; and direct central government intervention in the housing market (see Section 3*^)*
On the other hand, Mexico has not developed neither strong planning techniques to restrict and penalize industrial and commercial locations, especially in Mexico City, nor has created efficient stimulus to orient private enter prises to locate where economic development is needed.
It seems to me that in Mexico it occurs two difficult situations of the same matter, in one side private sector, as I said before, is very timid to invest outside of a

strong market; and even sometimes with good subsidies and fiscal stimulus enterprises prefer a safer market rather than locate on the priority development areas. On the other side, government is very timid to penalize and control private sector because private enterprises would not create more jobs. In this delicate situation, for sure, a new strong public policy is needed to restrict and control, and at the same time estimate efficiently industrial and commercial locations.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEXICO 5.1 CONCLUSIONS. The most important finding of this stu-
dy, regarding the French urban planning process, is that the secret of the French success in urban planning matters resides in implementing strong economic policies to achieve urban development objectives.
At the middle of 1960s, France created eight growth poles to balance economic development throughout the nation. Additionally, nine new towns were also created to support the growth poles and to move urban growth out of the Paris region. The strategy was to promote an urban division of labor in a way that each counterbalancing metropole would be able to rival Paris in some ways becoming a magnet for attracting private capital and activities in some critical areas.
This success was possible, thanks to the good uner-standing and cooperation between private and public sectors.

So, it was feasible to keep Paris under control setting high restrictions for industrial and commercial location in that area and designing efficient stimulous to private enterprises to locate in the cities of the west of France where economic development was needed. The other factors are the techniques used in the urban planning process such as controlling sales and prices of land in areas where urban development is foreseen; and, a direct intervention of government in the housing market.
From the Mexican urban planning process I conclude that Mexico has a pretty good method of preparing all urban plans to four technical levels, regulative, strategic, sectoral co-responsibility, and legal instruments. This technique helps to introduce any change in the entire urban planning system. I also found that the objectives of the General Law of Human Settlements, the National Plan of Urban Development and the Global Plan of Development 1980-82 are very accurate. These plans intend to solve not only urban and regional problems, but also all problems that affect public life. My main objection to this situation is that the policies and programs to implement the plans are very weak in order to accomplish the good goals and objectives set in the plans. For example, one policy says that the plan will insure that the social costs of pollution and environment damage be paid for by the sources that produce them; but the plan does not say how government is going to implement and enforce that policy (see Section 2.31*3*2.3)

I also found some technical and structural problems to think about. A technical observation is that the plan includes at regulative level the policies of the plan, and programs at strategic level. I feel both policies and programs should be at strategic level since policies and programs belong to the implementation stage of planning.
A structural observation is that the policy to assist rural population by providing public services to "supporting centers" is not really going to help rural people; on the contrary, that policy might increase the gap between the urban and rural social and economic conditions (see section 2.6.3).
Another technical observation is that the terminology used in the plan and especially in the sections of policies and programs are so ambiguous that I feel it is difficult even for government planners to understand and evaluate technically the plans.
Lastly, the first initial evaluation of the plan does not relate to the achievements of the first year to the general goals and objectives of the plan; it rather praises the achievements of government in planning matters.
From the analysis of both the French and Mexican planning processes I conclude that the beginning of the planning era that Mexico is now initiating, France began it since the middle of 1950s. However, it is not just a matter of time. In other words, nobody can assure that after 20 more

years Mexico will be in the same stage of planning as France is now living.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEXICO. As I said, in the intro-
duction to this study, I am not going to recommend Mexico to apply all the planning techniques used in France just because they have proven to be good. However, I feel that Mexico might try to modify and apply some of those techniques according to the particular Mexican situation. I am also aware that specific studies have to be done in Mexico in order to evaluate the application of these techniques and the policies required to implement them. But, that is a matter of another study in the future.
Thus, my recommendation to be introduced in the Mexican planning system are the following:
1) To continue the existing decentralization of the federal agencies and also to decentralize some of the federal government functions to local levels in order to give municipalities more responsibilities and taxing powers. I feel that with the implementation of this policy, municipalities could create more jobs and consequently revers migration back to small cities and towns.
2) To design a strong economic policy to restrict and/or penalize industrial and commercial locations in large cities, such as Mexico City, and also provide attractive incentives for private enterprises to locate in the priority zones.

To revers public policy back to the agricultural sector in order to assist both agricultural development and dispersed rural population. As I mentioned it before (Section 2.6.3), in order to really assist rural population a specific policy should be created. This policy might include an increase in rural salaries in relation to urban salaries, increase the price of their products, establish a health care system and provide schools and training centers for agricultural development. One of the planning techniques we could borrow from the French experience is the creation of "growth poles". I feel growth poles in Mexico might challenge Mexico City in some essential functions such as education, government, industrial, technological, financial and commercial activities.
5) The last recommendation is to promote citizen
participation in urban planning matters, since by right local people should participate in the planning process of their communities.

- Area: 1,978,750 sq. Km. (76^,000 sq. mi.)
- Capital: Mexico City
- Other large cities: Guadalajara, Monterrey
- Climate: Varied-tropical to desert
- Population: 66.9 million in 1978. Annual growth rate
- Ethnic groups: Indian-Spanish (Mestizo) 60$
American Indian 30$
Caucasian 9$
Other 1$
- Religion: Roman Catholic 97$
- Language: Spanish
- Education: 9 years compulsory Literacy 75$
- G.N.P.: $71+.3 billion (1977)
- Per capita G.D.P. (gross domestic product): $1,1^9
- Annual growth rate: 6$ (1978)
- Rate of inflation: 15-20$ (1978)
- Natural resources: Petroleum, silver, copper, gold,
lead, zinc, natural gas, timber
- Agricultural products: corn, cotton, coffee, sugarcane,
vegetables (Percentage of G.D.P. 12$)
- Industry: food processing, chemical, basic metal and
metal products, petroleum (Percentage of G.D.P. 37$)
- Trade Exports: $*+.6 billion (1977)
- Average exchange rate: 22.5 pesos = $1 U.S. (1978)
- Type: Federal Republic. Date of constitution, February
5, 1917
- Administrative subdivisions = 31 States and the Federal
- Branches: Executive
- Legislative
- Judicial
Source: U.S. Department of State, 1979

Table 2
(Official Name: French Republic)
- Area:
- Capitol:
- Other
- Climate:
55,761 Sq. Miles Texas)
Marseille, Lyon, Temperature Like
(About *+/5 the size of
Lille, Toulouse, Strasbourg Eastern United States
- Population: (1978) 53 Million, Annual Growth Rate 0.03$
Groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic,
North African, Vietna Mese, and Basque Minorities
- Religion: Roman Catholic, 90$
- Language: French
~ Education: 10 Years Compulsory. Literacy 97$
- Work Force: (1977) 22 Million
- Agriculture 10$
- Industry & Commerce *f0$
- Services 50$
- G.N.P.: $M-69 billion (1978) Average Growth Rate ^.7$
- Per Capita Income: $7,150 Average (1978)
- Annual Growth Rate: *+.7$ (1966-77)
- Rate of Inflation: 11.8$ (1977)
- Natural Resources: Coal, Iron Ore, Bauxite, Fish,
Agricultural Products: Beef, Cereal, Sugar Beets,
Potatoes, Wine Grapes
- Industries: Steel Machinery and Equipment, Textiles
and Clothing, Chemicals, Food Produce, Aircraft

- Trade Exports: $79.5 billion (1978)
- Official Exchange Rate: (1980) U-.2 Francs = United
States $1
- Type: Republic. Date of Constitution, September 28,
- Subdivisions: 95 Departments (Metropolitan France)
- Branches:
- Executive
- Legislative
- Judicial
Source: United States Department
of State, 1980

19^6-51+ 195^-62 1962-68 1968-75
Paris Region France 0.98$ O.69# 2.02% 0.8k% lA8# 1.15% 0.92% 0.19%
Source: Underhill A. Jack. "French National Urban Policy
and the Paris Region New Towns. H.U.D. 1980, Table
6, p. 120
195^-62 1962-68 1968-75
Natural Growth 56,000 38$ 67,000 53# 75,100 86#
Migration 91,000 82% 60,000 '97% 12,1+00 lb%
Total Net Migration 11+7,000 100# 127,000 100# 87,500 100#
to and from Provinces +1+3,000 +11 ,300 -22,500
Source:Underhill A. Jack op. cit. Table 7,p. 120
195^-62 1962-68 1968-75
Paris Region 31# 2*f# 22#
8 Growth Centers 2*+# 27# 20#
35 medium sized and important towns in the Paris Basin 11# 12# 12#
The rest of France 3^# 37# 1+6#
All of France 100# 100# 100#
Source: Underhill A. Jack op. cit. Table 8, p. 120
199^-62 " 1962-68 1968-75
Paris -9,000 -33,ooo -1+2,000
Inner Ring +89,000 57# +66,000 i+o# +21,000 15#
Outer Ring +67,000 i+3# +98,000 60# +110,000 85?
A0 Jack op. cit. Table 9, p. 120

25% of the total population
live in only 3 (17.3 million)
- Mexico City:
- Guadalajara:
- Monterrey:
big cities
13.2 million
2.2 million 1.9 million
17.3 million
35% of the total population dispersed in 95>356 communities of less than 2,500 people
(22.7 million)
Rural Population: Urban Population:
22.7 million b3.1 million
65.8 million
Source: National Plan of Urban Development, 1978, pg. 18.

85 cities of more than 15000 people (29$ total pop.)
Source: National Plan of Urban Development, 1978, pg. 19.

60$ of Total Population
80$ Industrial
Source: National Plan of Urban Development, 1978, pg. 20.

G.N.P. AND POPULATION RANKED BY REGIONS: 1975 (Percentages Estimation)
NORTHWEST 5th Pop 8.1% 2nd GNP 11%
Source: Gross National Product (GNP)
Taken from the National Plan of Urban Development
Regional Economic Division
Taken from Bassols Batalla Angel. Geografia, Subdesarrollo y Regionalization. 1978

PROPOSED NATIONAL URBAN SYSTEM (Cities that according to the National Plan of Urban Development must offer regional services)
Source: National Plan of Urban Development, 1978, pg. 25.

........ New Highways
Bypasses past the metropolitan area of Mexico City
Source: National Plan of Urban Development, 1978, pg. 20.

Priority Zones
I, II, III Ruling and Regulation Zones
Source: National Plan of Urban Development, 1978, pg. 35.

FIGURE 8. FRANCE: GROWTH POLES AND NEW TOWNS (Not included the Paris region New Towns)
SOURCE: Readapted from Underhill A. Jack. "French National
Urban Policy and the Paris Region New Towns". H.U.D. 1980, Map 1, page 17.
NOTE: St. Nazaire and Nantes are considered as only one growth pole. It is the same with Metz and Nancy.

O Towns assimilated to counterbalancing capitals
Supporting towns in the Paris Basin # New Towns
__Planning zones for counterbalancing
metro centers
___ Planning zones for supporting towns
in Paris Basin
New Towns in the Paris Region 1. Cergy-Pontoise
St. Quentine-en-Yvelines
Source: Underhill A. Jack op. cit. Map 1, p. 17

LEGEND Principal Centers Scale
n Urban Area 1. La Defense 0 10 ^0 1 11 1
m New Town 2. 3. St. Denis Le Bourget Knv
Principal Center k. Bobigny
0 Secondary Center 5. 6. Rosny Cretail
7. Rungis
8. Yelizy
9. Versailles
SOURCE: Underhill A. Jack op. cit. Map 2, p. 19

-- Bassols, Batalla Angel. "Geografia, Subdesarrollo y Regionalization" (Georgraphy, Underdevelopment and Regionalization). 1978.
Bravo, Anguiano Ricardo. "El empleo y las migraciones campesinas a las cuidades en Mexico" (The employment and the rural migration to cities in Mexico". Professional thesis, National University of Mexico, 1978.
Mexican Government Documents:
- "General Law of Human Settlements", 1976.
- "National Plan of Urban Development", 1978.
- "Global Plan of Development, 1980-82", 1980.
- "First Evaluation of the National Plan of Urban
Development, 1980.
U. S. Department of State. "Mexico: Background Notes", 1979.
-- Ross, W. George and Cohen S. Stephen. "The Politics of French Regional Planning". In Friedman and Alonso, "Regional Policy", 1978, pp. 727-750.
Strong, Ann Louise. "Planned Urban Environments:
Sweden, Finland, Israel, the Netherlands, France".
Underhill, A. Jack with Brace Paul and Rubenstein James. "French National Urban Policy and the Paris Region New Towns". H.U.D. 198O.
U. S. Department of State, "France: Background Notes", 1978.
Blakeley, Denis, "More than the Skyline is Changing".
The Economist (January, 1976).
Rubenstein, James. "The Appropriateness of New Towns in National Urban Growth Policy with Particular Reference to the French Experience". Johns Hopkins, 1975*