Definition The concept of overurbanization first emerged in the mid-20th century to describe cities whose rate of industrialization was growing more slowly than their rate of urbanization.  Hauser, Philip M., ed. “Urbanization in Asia and the Far East.” In Proceedings of the Joint UN/Unesco Seminar (in Cooperation with the International Labour Office) on Urbanization in the ECAFE Region, Bangkok, 8–18 August 1956. Calcutta: Unesco Research Center, 1957.Sovani, N. V. “The Analysis of ‘Over-Urbanization.’” Economic Development and Cultural Change 12, no. 2 (January 1, 1964): 113–22. According to sociologist Josef Gugler, the concept was "widely accepted in the 1950s and into the 1960s" and was split into two approaches, a diachronic and a synchronic approach.Gugler, Josef. “Overurbanization Reconsidered.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 31, no. 1 (October 1, 1982): 173–89.Laumas, Prem S., and Martin Williams. “Urbanization and Economic Development.” Eastern Economic Journal 10, no. 3 (July 1, 1984): 325–32. The synchronic approach, the main one taken in the 1950s, was proposed by sociologists Kingsley Davis and Hilda Golden who defined whether a country was overurbanized based on how its relationship between industrialization and urbanization compared to that of other countries during the same time period. Specifically, countries considered part of the Third World were compared to countries deemed part of the First World. Davis and Golden used data on "the percentage of economically active males not engaged in agriculture and the percentage of the population in cities of 100,000 or above in a large number of the countries in the world," in order to define the normal relationship between industrialization and urbanization. They then determine that countries whose rate of urbanization is significantly higher than normal in relation to their rate of industrialization are "overurbanized." The authors calculate an "expected" level of urbanization based on the rates of urbanization of other countries of the world at similar levels of industrialization (measured by percentage of males not engaged in agriculture). A few countries in particular that Davis and Golden measured as having higher levels of urbanization than expected were Egypt, Greece, and South Korea.Kamerschen, David R. “Further Analysis of Overurbanization.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 17, no. 2 (January 1, 1969): 235–53. Davis and Golden did not see overurbanization as a necessarily negative phenomenon, but rather a statistical reality that could have its challenges but would ultimately be self-correcting as an appropriate balance was found between levels of urbanization and industrialization. Scholars on overurbanization agree that N.V. Sovani was one of the first to discount Davis and Golden's argument, as he found that the connection between urbanization and industrialization was more significant in underdeveloped countries than developed ones, suggesting that Davis and Golden's measure of a "normal" relationship between urbanization and industrialization was not valid. Following Sovani's work, several scholars offered alternative definitions, many of which included not just the relationship between population growth and their means of employment but also the ability of the urban area to provide public services, reflecting that economic development lagged behind population growth in a multitude of ways.Dyckman, John W. “Some Conditions of Civic Order in an Urbanized World.” Daedalus 95, no. 3 (July 1, 1966): 797–812. Several scholars also increasingly embraced a negative connotation for the term. Urban planner John Dyckman suggested that inability to accommodate the expectations of migrants to the city made overurbanization a threat to social order. Economists Philip Graves and Robert Sexton argue that the definition of overurbanization must "involve the presence of negative net external effects for the city size in question," suggesting that as long as "positive external social benefits" from rapid urbanization dominate negative externalities, overurbanization is not at play. Gugler defined overurbanization by two factors: that migration to cities led to a "less than optimal allocation of labor between the rural and urban sectors" and that migration to cities "increases the costs of providing for a country's growing population." Sociologist Glenn Firebaugh disagreed, arguing that if overurbanization is caused by overpopulation, that overpopulation of rural areas could be worse than overpopulation of urban areas.  Causes Sociologist John Shandra states that arguments about the causes of overurbanization fall into five groups: The rural-push and urban-pull perspective; The economic modernization perspective; The political modernization perspective; The neo-Malthusian perspective; The dependency perspective. Shandra's analysis of several variables related to each of these categories suggested that all of these arguments have significant evidence except for the economic modernization perspective. Recent scholars believe that a variety of these factors are relevant. 
Definition The concept of overurbanization first emerged in the mid-20th century to describe cities whose rate of industrialization was growing more slowly than their rate of urbanization. Amin, Galal A. The Modernization of Poverty: A Study in the Political Economy of Growth in Nine Arab Countries 1945-1970. BRIILL, 1980. Hauser, Philip M., ed. “Urbanization in Asia and the Far East.” In Proceedings of the Joint UN/Unesco Seminar (in Cooperation with the International Labour Office) on Urbanization in the ECAFE Region, Bangkok, 8–18 August 1956. Calcutta: Unesco Research Center, 1957.Sovani, N. V. “The Analysis of ‘Over-Urbanization.’” Economic Development and Cultural Change 12, no. 2 (January 1, 1964): 113–22. According to sociologist Josef Gugler, the concept was "widely accepted in the 1950s and into the 1960s" and was split into two approaches, a diachronic and a synchronic approach.Gugler, Josef. “Overurbanization Reconsidered.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 31, no. 1 (October 1, 1982): 173–89.Laumas, Prem S., and Martin Williams. “Urbanization and Economic Development.” Eastern Economic Journal 10, no. 3 (July 1, 1984): 325–32. The synchronic approach, the main one taken in the 1950s, was proposed by sociologists Kingsley Davis and Hilda Golden who defined whether a country was overurbanized based on how its relationship between industrialization and urbanization compared to that of other countries during the same time period. Specifically, countries considered part of the Third World were compared to countries deemed part of the First World. Davis and Golden used data on "the percentage of economically active males not engaged in agriculture and the percentage of the population in cities of 100,000 or above in a large number of the countries in the world," in order to define the normal relationship between industrialization and urbanization. They then determine that countries whose rate of urbanization is significantly higher than normal in relation to their rate of industrialization are "overurbanized." The authors calculate an "expected" level of urbanization based on the rates of urbanization of other countries of the world at similar levels of industrialization (measured by percentage of males not engaged in agriculture). A few countries in particular that Davis and Golden measured as having higher levels of urbanization than expected were Egypt, Greece, and South Korea.Kamerschen, David R. “Further Analysis of Overurbanization.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 17, no. 2 (January 1, 1969): 235–53. Davis and Golden did not see overurbanization as a necessarily negative phenomenon, but rather a statistical reality that could have its challenges but would ultimately be self-correcting as an appropriate balance was found between levels of urbanization and industrialization. Scholars on overurbanization agree that N.V. Sovani was one of the first to discount Davis and Golden's argument, as he found that the connection between urbanization and industrialization was more significant in underdeveloped countries than developed ones, suggesting that Davis and Golden's measure of a "normal" relationship between urbanization and industrialization was not valid. Following Sovani's work, several scholars offered alternative definitions, many of which included not just the relationship between population growth and their means of employment but also the ability of the urban area to provide public services, reflecting that economic development lagged behind population growth in a multitude of ways.Dyckman, John W. “Some Conditions of Civic Order in an Urbanized World.” Daedalus 95, no. 3 (July 1, 1966): 797–812. Several scholars also increasingly embraced a negative connotation for the term. Urban planner John Dyckman suggested that inability to accommodate the expectations of migrants to the city made overurbanization a threat to social order. Economists Philip Graves and Robert Sexton argue that the definition of overurbanization must "involve the presence of negative net external effects for the city size in question," suggesting that as long as "positive external social benefits" from rapid urbanization dominate negative externalities, overurbanization is not at play. Gugler defined overurbanization by two factors: that migration to cities led to a "less than optimal allocation of labor between the rural and urban sectors" and that migration to cities "increases the costs of providing for a country's growing population." Sociologist Glenn Firebaugh disagreed, arguing that if overurbanization is caused by overpopulation, that overpopulation of rural areas could be worse than overpopulation of urban areas. Firebaugh, Glenn. “Structural Determinants of Urbanization in Asia and Latin America, 1950- 1970.” American Sociological Review 44, no. 2 (April 1, 1979): 199–215. Causes Sociologist John Shandra states that arguments about the causes of overurbanization fall into five groups: The rural-push and urban-pull perspective; The economic modernization perspective; The political modernization perspective; The neo-Malthusian perspective; The dependency perspective. Shandra's analysis of several variables related to each of these categories suggested that all of these arguments have significant evidence except for the economic modernization perspective. Recent scholars believe that a variety of these factors are relevant. Bradshaw, York W., and Mark J. Schafer. “Urbanization and Development: The Emergence of International Nongovernmental Organizations Amid Declining States.” Sociological Perspectives 43, no. 1 (April 1, 2000): 97–116.
A
Amin, Galal A. The Modernization of Poverty: A Study in the Political Economy of Growth in Nine Arab Countries 1945-1970. BRIILL, 1980.
A
Firebaugh, Glenn. “Structural Determinants of Urbanization in Asia and Latin America, 1950- 1970.” American Sociological Review 44, no. 2 (April 1, 1979): 199–215.
A
Bradshaw, York W., and Mark J. Schafer. “Urbanization and Development: The Emergence of International Nongovernmental Organizations Amid Declining States.” Sociological Perspectives 43, no. 1 (April 1, 2000): 97–116.