Panama Urban Society
Panama City skyline
Courtesy Embassy of Panama
Since the 1950s, Panama has been in the midst of massive urban
expansion. In 1960 slightly more than one-third of the total
population was classified as urban; by the early 1980s, the figure
had risen to 55 percent. Between 1970 and 1980, overall population
increased by 2.5 percent per year, urban population by 2.8 percent,
and the metropolitan population surrounding Panama City by 3.7
percent. Regional cities shared in the general urban expansion: the
number of people in Santiago grew at 4.1 percent annually; David,
3.7 percent; and Chitré, 3.3 percent. Economically depressed Colón
lagged with an annual increase of less than 0.5 a percent. Economic
activity and population density in Panama were concentrated along
two main axes: the Pan-American Highway (also known as the the
Inter-American Highway) on the Pacific corridor from La Chorrera to
Tocumen and the Trans-isthmian Highway from Panama City to Colón
(see
fig. 8).
Far and away the most significant focus of urban development
was the path following the former Canal Zone that stretches from
Colón on the Atlantic coast to Panama City on the Pacific. In the
mid-1980s, the region accounted for more than half the total
population of the country and over two-thirds of all those
classified as inhabitants of cities. It also included most
nonagricultural economic activity: 76 percent of manufacturing, 85
percent of construction, 95 percent of transportation, and 84
percent of communications. Growth was not spread evenly throughout
the region, and since the 1950s, Panama City and its environs had
eclipsed Colón. Colón remained the only significant urban center on
Panama's Atlantic coast, but by the early 1980s, substantial
numbers of that city's business and professional community had
emigrated in response to Panama City's expanding economy.
In terms of sheer numbers, most of the urban expansion was
concentrated in slum tenements and, since the 1950s, in squatter
settlements around the major cities. As was the case in most urban
trends, Panama City led the way. In 1958 there were 11 identifiable
slums or squatter settlements housing 18,000 people associated with
the city; by the mid-1970s, there were some 34 slum communities and
their population had mushroomed more than five-fold. Surveys
indicated that 80 percent of slum and squatter settlement
inhabitants were migrants to the city.
Many of the tenements took the form of two-story frame houses
built as pre-World War I temporary housing for the canal labor
force. They continued to be occupied, although in the early 1980s
they were in an advanced state of decay. When one part of a
building collapsed, slum dwellers continued to live in those
sections of the building that remained standing. The structures
were frequently condemned, which merely added to their
attractiveness for impoverished city dwellers, because the rent
therefore dropped to nothing. Squatter settlements offered their
own inducements. If squatters were able to maintain their claims to
land, the settlements tended to improve and gained amenities over
time. Because they were essentially rent-free, they gave their
inhabitants considerable advantages over costly and over-crowded,
if more centrally located, tenements. A substantial portion of the
squatters settled on government land, and there were numerous
programs to permit them to purchase their housing sites. The
Torrijos regime allocated funds for low-income housing projects,
and there were efforts to upgrade the amenities available to the
urban poor. By the 1980s, about 96 percent of the urban population
had access to potable water and nearly 70 percent had electricity.
Despite indications of some slowing in the rate of rural-urban
migration in the 1980s, migrants represented a major strain on
public services and the economy's ability to generate employment.
Although rural society was relatively homogeneous and simple in
the social distinctions it made, urban Panama was not. It was
ethnically and socially diverse and highly stratified. City
dwellers took note of ethnic or racial heritage, family background,
income (and source of income), religion, culture, education, and
political influences as key characteristics in classifying
individuals.
But, in the late 1980s, the boundaries among the elite, the
middle class, and the lower class were neither especially well
defined nor impervious. The ambitious and lucky city dweller could
aspire to better significantly his or her social and economic
status. Neither were the distinctions between rural and urban
inhabitants absolute. City and countryside were linked in numerous
ways; given the frequency with which migrants moved, this year's
urban worker was last year's and (not uncommonly) next year's
peasant. There was considerable social mobility, principally from
the lower to the middle class and generally on an individual rather
than a group basis. Wealth, occupation, education, and family
affiliation were the main factors affecting such mobility.
Data as of December 1987
|