Blockchain Papers

Robert Β. Kent

In the lapse of the last twenty-five years, municipal development institutions have be- come common components in the governmental structure of many Latin American nations. Municipal development institutions function inBrazil, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Bolivia, Honduras, and Peru (Gall, 1976: 28,30).Generally these institutions are charged with financing the construction of urban infra- structure through loans to municipalities and in some cases to other community groups or governmental agencies.A secondary emphasis is normally given to promoting municipal autonomy and the training of municipal em- ployees through a combination of direct tech- nical assistance to specific municipalities and indirect technical assistance to a wide range of municipal governments through the preparation of manuals or guides and short train- ing courses.Bolivia's municipal development institution, the Servicio Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano (SENDLn, was legally established in 1972 as a decentralized and semi-autonomous agency

宜嗣 林, Yoshitsugu Hayashi

No abstract is available for this record.

Malcolm W. Norris

Abstract The establishment of an effective local government system has been imperative in the Sudan both on account of the vast scale of the country and the decentralization policies of successive governments. District councils were initially established in 1951 following the Marshall Report, but were by stages superseded as budgetary authorities, and reduced to unimportance by the People's Local Government System in 1971, which vested responsibility in Councils at the Provincial level. The subsequent difficulties experienced by this system indicate the value of the District, now renamed Area, as a level for a multipurpose local authority in the Sudan, and explain the reemphasis of this level in the 1981 Local Government Act. This article summarizes the experience leading up to the 1981 Act, and examines the extent to which the new legislation offers an effective structure. The finance of local government, a recurrent problem in the Sudan, emerges as a critical issue, together with the future role of the Provincial Commissioner.

Daniel Tarschys

No abstract is available for this record.

Hiromitsu Ishi

No abstract is available for this record.

Kurt Schlichting

A bstract . The fiscal crisis of particular central cities has been primarily caused by social and economic decentralization within metropolitan regions. This hypothesis is examined through a case study of the Bridgeport, Connecticut metropolitan region. Middle and upper income groups have moved from the central city of Bridgeport to its suburbs while the poor remain. Business and industry have also decentralized. These factors weaken the capacity of the central city to generate sufficient revenue from its declining share of the region's taxable resources. The central city must fund a wide range of services and faces, as all local governments do, increased costs. Because of these fundamental social and economic changes , the central city cannot meet its service commitments. Unless the existing system of public finance is altered, continued decline is inevitable.

Martin Feldstein

A series of recent judicial decisions has focused public attention on the issue of local choice in the provision of public education. In Serrano vs. Priest, Rodriguez vs. San Antonio (1971), and similar cases in other states, the lower courts confirmed that education is a responsibility of the state government and held that local expenditures on education may not be a function of the taxable wealth of the local community.1 Although the United States Supreme Court has overturned these decisions in the appeal of Rodriguez vs. San Antonio (1973), the pressure to change the current system remains strong. The Supreme Court majority indicated that its decision reflected the limits of the federal constitutional authority and was not an approval of the status quo in educational finance. Litigation is now likely to shift to challenging the current methods as unconstitutional under state constitutions which, unlike the federal constitution, do deal specifically with education.2 Moreover, fundamental changes in the financing of local education may not require further pressure from the courts; state legislatures may seek to neutralize the effects of local wealth differences even if the current systems are not held to be unconstitutional. These judicial decisions and the ensuing legislative proposals run counter to the general economic view of local government finance. The basic presumption of economic analysis is that, because local governments can select different levels of service and because individuals can choose their area of residence, decentralized finance by local governments allows the provision of public services to reflect the variety of individual preferences for public services.3 Although the level of local spending may be nonoptimal because of intercommunity externalities and because of the method of local budget determination, fiscal decentralization still remains the only alternative to the insuperable problem of determining the optimal level of expenditure on a public service provided by a central government. In effect, autonomous decentralized financing of education provides a quasi market in which households can exercise their diverse preferences by their location decisions. This paper considers the problem of * Professor of economics, Harvard University. I am grateful to Charles Clotfelter for assistance with the statistical analysis, to Stephen Weiss for providing unpublished data on school expenditures, and to the Ford Foundation and National Science Foundation for financial support. I have benefited from discussions of an earlier version in seminars at Harvard, M.I.T., and Berkeley, and from comments by Noel Edelson, Eric Toder, and David Stern. An earlier and more complete discussion of this study was distributed as Harvard Institute of Economic Research paper no. 293, May 1973 (revised July 1973). 1 In Serrano vs. Priest, the landmark case in this area, the plaintiff and the courts were very much influenced by the line of argument and suggested remedies develope(l in John Coons et al. For a further discussion of the legal precedents, see Arthur Wise. 2 Almost immediately after the United States Supreme Court decision in Rodriguez vs. San Antonio, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the current system of local finance violated the New Jersey state constitution. See Wise for a summary of the provisions of other state constitutions. I Charles Tiebout presented a formal analysis of the full efficiency of local government provision of public services under quite special conditions. See Wallace Oates and James Buchanan and Charles Goetz for a further discussion of these issues.

B. Balamurugan, T. Poongodi, M. R. Manu, S. Karthikeyan · 5 authors

The moving image archive of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) includes a copy of the film The Double Day (1975), cataloged in the series Moving Images Relating to International Development Programs and Activities, 1979–1991, a collection of more than eight hundred titles “created to provide information on assistance programs supported by the Agency for International Development (AID).”1 Yet, The Double Day does not, in fact, directly depict or engage with any specific development or aid initiative. Instead, the film—directed by US-based Brazilian filmmaker Helena Solberg as part of the International Women’s Film Project collective and described as “the first Latin American feminist documentary”—examines the gendered dynamics of paid and unpaid labor through the testimonies of women from Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico.2 Its presence in the USAID archive is likely a consequence of its funding history, having received support from the Inter-American Foundation, a USAID-affiliated entity; the development agencies of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; the United Nations Development Program; and US philanthropist Calvin Cafritz.3These transnational funding structures not only enabled the film’s production but also determined its archival destination, which renders legible its place within the history of international development.4 The Double Day’s institutional trajectory reflects the shifting configurations of aid, gender, and media during a historic moment when women were being repositioned at the center of what Arturo Escobar has described as development’s “regimes of visuality.”5 Especially relevant to The Double Day’s production and exhibition was the international institutional framework of Women in Development (WID). Emerging in the early 1970s and culminating in United Nations’ proclamation of 1975 as International Women’s Year, WID emphasized women’s participation in the global economy as both an index and mechanism of development. Indeed, The Double Day premiered at the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held in Mexico City.6 Within this context, the film forms part of a broader trajectory of media use by international organizations that intensified during the 1970s—as best exemplified by Media Habitat, a collection of 236 documentary films commissioned by the United Nations to represent urban and rural development initiatives for the 1976 Habitat Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver. As a policy-shaping initiative, Media Habitat primarily featured films from the Global South intended not only to illustrate but also to help codify standardized audiovisual markers of “underdevelopment” that determined access to the emerging global economic order and to international aid.7Framed in relation to these international institutions and their operations, The Double Day could similarly be considered “development media”—exemplifying the type of nonfiction media produced and distributed outside of the commercial film circuits whose aspects and subcategories have been variously described in scholarship as nontheatrical, useful, sponsored, institutional, industrial, educational, or nonprofessional/amateur.8 Scholars working in this area have emphasized the institutional contexts of such media’s production and exhibition infrastructures as shaping its instrumentalized effects. From a feminist perspective, such an approach is crucial to grappling with the broader question of how “gender impacts [these works’] shape, content, and trajectories.”9 Yet we also argue that, taken in isolation, the institutional and infrastructural contexts are insufficient to account for the complex relationship between media and development, potentially not only limiting our understanding of the reach and impact of development but also distorting our interpretive conclusions. For example, to categorize The Double Day as “development media” is to overlook the film’s place within Solberg’s directorial oeuvre, as well as within the histories of both transnational women’s filmmaking and radical Latin American documentary cinema to which it simultaneously belongs. Such exclusive framing is especially limiting given that women globally were disproportionately engaged in nonfiction production throughout the twentieth century—sometimes by political choice but more often due to structural exclusions from fiction filmmaking. Even in nonfiction historiography, however, institutional media has remained particularly marginal, reinforcing hierarchies that separate such works from the aesthetic and authorial frameworks through which film history has been constructed.10 This marginalization not only tends to erase women’s contributions but also presumes a “weak” or derivative authorship, rendering these films unworthy of the interpretive attention needed to apprehend their aesthetic and political complexity.11 The same dynamic is likely to structure assumptions about “development media” as well.Categorizing The Double Day exclusively within this category would further prompt us to assume top-down institutional analyses that have been characteristic of both institutional media methodologies and the scholarship on development at large. This, in turn, would risk obscuring this film’s radical Marxist approach to women’s labor as well as its concrete contribution to activism and its attendant grassroot structures. In Mexico City, The Double Day became a catalyst for feminist solidarity in practice when one of the film’s protagonists, Bolivian activist and trade unionist Domitila Barrios de Chungara, was invited to participate in the Tribune of Non-Governmental Organizations held alongside the official UN conference.12 There, Barrios de Chungara challenged Western feminist priorities by reframing the debate around labor, class, and imperialism, helping to articulate a shared Third World feminist agenda that significantly departed from the developmentalist vision of the United Nations and USAID.13 Seen through the lens of activist media, The Double Day helped forge transnational solidarity networks by enabling information exchange across the diverse voices that shaped its making—from the women featured in the film to the activists who circulated it—revealing a considerably more dynamic interplay between institutional and grassroots or contingent media practices.Moreover, the film’s Latin American context—reflected in Solberg’s formation in Brazil as the only woman in Cinema Novo, its focus on women from across the region, and its premiere and key reception in Mexico City—requires grappling with the regional specificities of the very notion of development in its multiple iterations.14 Far from being an epistemological and political framework imposed solely by the Global North, both the practices of development and the theoretical foundations of developmentalism (understood as a broad and polysemic set of discourses) were shaped through the active participation of Latin American economists.15 Within this iteration, underdevelopment, as a constitutive notion of developmentalism, became central to a distinctly critical strand, which by the late 1960s became known as the dependency theory.16 This same approach is reflected in some of the best-known Latin American radical film manifestos of the time, arising precisely from the same milieus to which Solberg belonged.17These various considerations of the film’s history illustrate the methodological challenges confronting feminist scholars seeking to assess the impact of development on media projects, theories, and practices. To disregard the developmentalist context of such works by emphasizing their political aesthetics and affects risks reproducing a romanticized narrative of heroic resistance (albeit from a feminist perspective). Yet to engage exclusively with their institutional and material infrastructures risks naturalizing developmentalism’s political and epistemological foundations at the expense of the goals and beliefs of the many women who participated in these projects. The contradictions and ambivalences that animate such histories call for feminist frameworks capable of holding both institutional complicity and radical possibility in view.This challenge resonates with ongoing debates about the politics of the archive and what Allyson Field has termed “the practice of informed speculation.”18 As she reminds us, feminist, queer, and decolonial methodologies have long taught us to “press at the limits” of the archive to “inoculate our scholarship against our evidence’s afflictions.”19 The concern that the evidence we draw on in our analysis reproduces the very structures and blind spots of the dominant ideology and therefore shapes and delimits our interpretation becomes particularly urgent when engaging the developmentalist media corpus. Informed speculation offers an alternative by inviting the experimental, creative, and speculative rewriting of history, mobilizing the archive “in a project that runs counter to the original purpose, or the imperative to preserve, or the conditions that led to erasure.”20 Yet, as Field cautions, such speculative gestures must remain grounded in a deep and “intimate familiarity with the archive” that we are working with and against. Building on this imperative, we suggest that the developmentalist archive, in particular, demands expansion and critical reconsideration in ways that unsettle the very disciplinary frameworks through which it has been studied as well as the larger institutional contexts for such knowledge production.Our focus on The Double Day in the opening of this introduction thus foregrounds the entanglements of institutional and grassroots forces, local and international contexts, structural and interpersonal relations, and creative and economic factors that have shaped not only this film but the broader ecosystem of development media projects—and their preservation—over time. Addressing such a constellation involves transgressing methodologically entrenched divisions between political economy and aesthetics, between material infrastructures and affective regimes; reckoning with divergent periodizations across film history and world economics; and situating these within the local specificities of women’s movements and international institutional programs. It also demands attentiveness to the coexistence of multiple, and sometimes competing, understandings of development—each historically, geographically, and ideologically situated.We imagine this special issue as an opening toward a critical dialogue, not only about how such an approach might be enacted in practice but also about the far-reaching ways development paradigms have shaped both our objects of study and the contours of the field itself. The decision to center institutionally sponsored films across all the essays in this issue is deliberate and enables us to highlight institutional critique as a vital methodological imperative within our analytical framework. Created within the frameworks of international organizations, state agencies, or NGOs, these films’ histories make legible the institutional logics that underwrite their production. Yet our critique does not stop at these specific entities. Rather, we argue for a broader interrogation of the political conditions and institutional infrastructures that shape media and knowledge production more generally. This includes contemporary corporations embedded in the digital platform economy, from streaming services to the rapid expansion of AI. Equally critical is a reflexive examination of academia itself, where departments of economics, political science, and centers for development have played a formative role in producing and legitimizing developmentalist theories and policy frameworks. While the humanities and arts have at times offered critical alternatives, they have also frequently mirrored and reinforced many of the same developmentalist assumptions. A feminist analysis of the nexus between development and media must therefore unsettle not only dominant archives but also the institutional and disciplinary foundations of our own scholarly practices.As scholars, we share the complex position of navigating the same tensions between institutional complicity and emancipatory aspiration as many of the media-makers whose work we study. Mirroring our subjects is also the transnational, collective mode of this special issue’s own production as it emerges from an ongoing informal working group we have sustained over several years. While relying on institutional and disciplinary affordances—such as university funding for conferences or access to academic publishing platforms—we have been working toward creating a community that exceeds, and often resists, the prevailing logics of our academic institutions. Our aim has been to create a space for shared inquiry and mutual support that pushes back against disciplinary siloing and technocratic neoliberal assessment modes of both labor and knowledge production—and this certainly extends to our experience collaborating with the journal editors throughout the publication process. Our goal has been to examine both the persistence and variability of developmentalism, understood as what Gustavo Esteva calls a “powerful but fragile semantic constellation,” as a conceptual formation that has historically inspired, legitimized, and mobilized media projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.21 And gendered biopolitics, from population control to gender mainstreaming, have remained integral to development policies and media practices, recurring across formats from institutional newsreels to film festivals.We share the conviction that, far beyond the history of nonfiction institutional media, development (as both a broad ideological project and a network of material and institutional practices) and developmentalism (as a set of discourses and theoretical models associated with development) have exerted a far-reaching influence on film and media cultures at large. As such, they must be treated as a major force in shaping global film and media systems and also the many ongoing assumptions behind their critical discourses. The discipline of communication studies was founded on modernization theory governed by Cold War goals of dissemination of Western liberal democracy around the world, while “an area studies framework allowed compartmentalizing Western and non-Western outcomes of technologies that were always claimed to be universal.”22 Despite critique from postcolonial and critical race studies, many of these frameworks have remained foundational for media theory.23 In historical scholarship, as we increasingly move beyond “modernity” as a dominant conceptual anchor, engaging with practices and discourses of development opens more precise analytical pathways. These film and media’s entanglements with the logics of and economic and the associated with as well as their conceptual underdevelopment, and impact in as diverse as and of media aesthetic and paradigms in film and film and funding are developmentalist assumptions to the they to underwrite the narrative and logics of and global media from the structure of the film to the cultures of argue that a examination of the historical entanglements between film and developmentalist aesthetics, modes of as well as infrastructures and critical the and that our contemporary media is a of the historical contours of development as a field of inquiry embedded within a of some of the methodologies by the featured in this special a of this complex history, to the larger at in media, development, and gender all its development a it as an of be with practices as divergent as and in In as we work on this the of the of the USAID the ideological that have the history of international the and of this on the global its a from development as a global practice and as an institutional and which over the has as a with its own media Yet or does not erase the historical impact of these the contradictions they have reflected and over the as the of development several crucial to the economic theories of development initiatives to and through the of the development an international policy framework at from the Global to the of the Global the by the political role of and the of the International the on was challenged by dependency theory and at development as global structural the neoliberal of the the Programs by the and World imposed and as conditions for and forms of assistance became known as the major markers for international development development has moving beyond economic to such as the Human Development and the Development and from international organizations such as the United Nations to a broader network of These frameworks increasingly of and liberal of and with what in many ways to various while the of the to development’s epistemological more scholarship has toward a of its and material the field has to a of and critical by and scholars, which development as a dynamic of conceptual and political to these the studies in this special issue call for sustained analysis in place of In we draw from a of and that in of of gender and to this special issue engage that and from Mexico to contemporary specific local historical of global distinctly feminist methodologies as well as attention to studies that this issue a in the global history of development on and documentary work in Mexico how early women infrastructures as of while US films an early of state and transnational on a outside the Global as the of developmentalist both the and markers of development media, its to the and Latin central grounded in archival also women’s in transnational and the methodological of archives on study of the series to a a digital media not by but by women not as but as subjects and within circuits of neoliberal and the aesthetics and of how development’s has models of to contemporary neoliberal paradigms of and analysis how digital and gender and practices, discourses on and their of these essays the of some of the historical of developmentalist as the question of the role of the state within such on a notion of economic as a and the dominant of development that the state as the for and through infrastructural projects. This understanding of development was shared across both of the as well as in the Third The United and the increasingly mobilized international in the of the modes of international at the postcolonial of policy and ideological These programs were at the expansion of their and of while with the and decolonial of The conceptual between modernization and development that the Cold in of and hierarchies of that long and As an of postcolonial their role as of international aid concern about the of Western development projects. In alternative across the Global South that to structural between and through policies of and In many they were further the global structures. In Latin for example, this approach was through organizations such as the United Nations for Latin and the both developmentalist projects and their have taken many forms historically, and they have and they have been to a of projects, and postcolonial and development has been and in ways and with frequently political While many of these alternative frameworks the embedded in dominant Western they often technocratic and assumptions. gender and gender as for the of to be shaped by This becomes particularly in the media that of development where women frequently a crucial associated with and women were as both the subjects and of their participation in the and labor often as the index of In this study of from the 1970s how women were as of this as these about women’s urban and recurring and of a within the own of and critique that official examination of archives and enables a feminist interrogation of their mobilizing a of the in the of contribution to this issue similarly the of a dynamic within as well as across ideological the of women’s and the media of the and as active in labor and as integral to the technocratic women became of as their labor remained a of and analysis and archival with attention to the specific of and It also transnational that as a and affective a nexus of and practices through which gender, media, and developmentalism one film not as a but as part of the of alongside and work a broader concern of this special media as a of developmentalist projects. The debates the World and which international such as the United Nations and a critical historical for such primarily by postcolonial and of the for the of media and communication infrastructures in as to counter Western The a between and economic how systems of media and reinforced global hierarchies of and in an agenda that supported and alternative media infrastructures across postcolonial contexts, the framework gender as an analytical This “gender in the 1970s by of the Women in Development in relation to The Double its political critique of with its broader to center women in development policy through and This was also in of media, which was shaped by its international reach and audiovisual production and and and Yet, as WID institutional it also to the and of the women’s development programs often by in These were by a of studies, and on and the to of women’s presence and through the of their economic and In this on the filmmaker this history directly by the and of for women by the WID framework during the with and agencies the of and against Women in at the of the neoliberal turn, when institutional media often the only to access and support to projects. The an by this dynamic as of the from the Global South are to engage with the developmentalist assumptions funding models that their similarly the as a in developmentalist media history by the of and centers on the Film a between of and the attention toward the and labor by and work was foundational the of and the of audiovisual aid, as both a of development projects and a critical for their the in this issue argue for a with media, gender, and developmentalism as an field of that is and shaped by feminist and methodologies and that challenge the entanglements between academic knowledge production and and technocratic development And while methodological these dynamics at the structural the of feminist in media and cinema by this the very a

Martin C. McGuire

This paper addresses the question of whether, in the context of decentralization among levels of government, an output or performance subsidy is demonstrably superior to a cost subsidy as a tool for influencing the behavior of a local unit. Grants-in-aid for example are cost subsidies; are they therefore inherently inferior incentive devices? The answer suggested to this question is that a performance subsidy may be superior to, equal to, or inferior to a cost subsidy depending upon three factors: (1) the technology of local production, (2) the optimizing behavior of local officials, (3) the equity objectives of federal government.

Jesse Burkhead, Jerry Miner

Analysis of the pure theory of public expenditures reveals a pathological case of market failure. That is, goods with the “double polar” characteristics of joint supply and the impossibility of exclusion are such that their production will occur only under public organization (collective supply). Yet, in itself, the pure theory of public finance constitutes neither an economic rationale for the state nor an adequate economic theory of government expenditure. An economic theory of the state, consistent with the traditions of individualistic economics, may be developed around the assumption that the state aims to maximize societal economic welfare defined in terms of conformance with individual preferences. 1 If market-determined prices are presumed to be the primary way in which preferences are manifest, such a theory requires a thoroughgoing description of all sources of failure of decentralized markets coupled with an analysis of the potentialities of various government policies to deal with these failures. The analogous economic theory of public expenditure must elucidate the specific role of government budgetary outlays as one among various state actions intended to deal with market failure. Further, it must distinguish public expenditures whose purpose is to subsidize households and private market organizations from those government expenditures for goods and services which then are either provided through collective organization and supply or are sold by the state. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bryan Ellickson

completely from the question of why households decide to live within a particular jurisdiction. Although we have no satisfactory thleory of urban local government, economists have not been reluctant to propose reforms in existing institutions. Advocates of metropolitan government suggest that decisions must be made at the metropolitan level if externalities are to be internalized and economies of scale realized. Tn contrast, the proponents of decentralization argue that further political fragmentation is required in order to provide greater variety in local public services. The only consensus, if any exists at all, is that present institutions of local government are inefficient. However, nowhere in the literature do we find an explanation of why, in view of this inefficiency, change is so rare. Annexations to the cen-tral city, relatively common at the turn of the century, ceased rather abruptly in most metropolitan areas after 1918. Subdivision of the larger political jurisdictions in our metropolitan areas does not appear at all likely. Thus, it seeins reasonab)le to ask of an adequate theory of metropolitan political economy an answer to the question: why are existing jurisdictional bourndaries so impervious to change? To answer this question we must investigate the impact of local governmental structure not only on allocative efficiency but on the extent of redistribution from rich to poor as well. In a recent study of suburbs in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, Williams, et al. [5] report that, when heavy expenditures were involved, wealthy communities were unwilling to enter into cooperative agreements with less wealthy communities. Only when their wealth was about the same would cities agree to engage in a jointly financed program. Across the United States, proposals for nietro-

James E. Bruno

Public school finance in the United States is highly decentralized and can be described as the sum of separately determined school finance programs established by each state. Since funds to support educational expenditures in a school district come from various sources, primarily state and local, it is necessary for states to derive schemes by which these resources can be combined to finance education at the local level. The administration and derivation of these resource allocation schemes is usually carried out at the state level.

Douglas S. Paauw

No abstract is available for this record.

Homer Hoyt

Urban concentralization may signify either the settlement of a large percentage of a nation's population in metropolitan areas or the concentration of the dwellers of any city into a compact mass with high population density per acre. The term is used in this article in both senses. The urban functions that once contributed to urban centralization, namely, (1) centralized governmental power, (2) defense, (3) religion, (4) amusement, (5) trade, (6) industry, (7) transportation, (8) finance and banking, and (9) utilities, are now promoting urban decentralization in the form of the exodus of the residential population from central areas to the periphery of cities. A historical review of urban development shows that the original small nations in the Mediterranean basin were finally merged into the Roman Empire, with the apex of ancient urban civilization at Rome itself. The disintegration of the Roman Empire caused urban decentralization in the sense of the breaking-up of large cities. The small feudal states of the early Middle Ages could support only villages or small towns in Europe. The rise of modern urban communities began with the growth of commerce and the discoveries of the Portuguese and Spanish navigators. England became the first great commercial manufacturing nation and became highly urbanized by the middle of the nineteenth century. The United States and Germany made rapid progress in industrialization and urbanization from 1851 to 1891. The competition between rival industrial-urban nations was one of the chief causes of World War I. After 1920, Russia, Italy, and Japan endeavored to develop self-sufficing industrial-military systems, thereby increasing the population of their great cities but also heightening the tension leading to World War II. The prospects for continued urban centralization in all these powers are not favorable, for the victory of one group of nations will tend to inhibit the growth of urbanism in the defeated states.