International Journal of Social Economics 24,12 1524

Urban development and urban poverty in Malaysia

Chamhuri Siwar and Mohd. Yusof Kasim
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Urbanization and urban poverty Urbanization trend and its impacts on rural-urban relations Malaysia has been experiencing rapid economic and social transformation over the past three decades. Its economy grew 6.7 per cent per annum during 19711990, Malaysia, 1991) and currently Malaysia is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Its gross domestic product (GDP) has been growing by more than 8 per cent consecutively for the past eight years (Bank Negara Malaysia, 1995, p. 16) Empirical evidence derived from Asian Development Banks study (1986) on Urban Development in Malaysia indicates that periods of rapid economic growth have been concurrent with the periods of rapid urban growth and the rate of urbanization is closely related with the level of development. As a result of three main factors, namely natural increase (56 per cent), reclassification of urban boundaries (39 per cent) and net migration (5 per cent), the urban population growth in Malaysia had increased from 3.3 per cent during 19571970 to 4.9 per cent during the 1971-1990 period. Similarly the overall rate of urbanization rose from 27 per cent in 1970 to 34 per cent in 1980 and 51 per cent in 1991 (see Table I). The figure is expected to reach 55 per cent in 1995 (Malaysia, 1993). It is interesting to note that increasing trend of urbanization in Malaysia was characterized not only by the doubling number of urban centres during 19801991 period but also accompanied by the concentration of people in the metropolitan as well as the large urban areas. The number of urban areas had increased from 67 in 1980 to 129 in 1991. As shown in Table II, urban population in the metropolitan area (defined as an urban areas with 75,000 or more inhabitants) had increased substantially from 58.5 per cent in 1970 to 72.6 per cent in 1991. At the same time, however, figures for small and medium size towns had decreased. Excessive urban growth in general and concentration of people and economic activities in the large urban areas, in particular, will lead to not only increasing urban diseconomies and escalating social costs (Johan and Baldev, 1989) but also resulting in uneven distribution of development benefits between urban centres as well as between urban-rural areas.

International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 24 No. 12, 1997, pp. 1524-1535. MCB University Press, 0306-8293

Year

Total population (000)

Rural population (000)

Urban population (000) 402 1,301 2,669 2,819 4,466 8,896

Per cent urban 17.2 26.5 42.5 27.0 34.0 50.6

1911a 2,339 1,937 a 1947 4,908 3,607 1957a 6,279 3,610 1970 10,439 7,621 1980 13,136 8,670 1991 17,567 8,671 Note: a Data for Peninsular Malaysia only Source: Department of Statistics (1970, 1980, 1991).

Urban development and urban poverty 1525

Table I. Urban population in Malaysia, 1911-1991

Population size

1970 1980 Population Percentage Population Percentage (000) of total (000) of total

1991 Population Percentage (000) of total

10,000-19,999 305.7 12.1 381.2 8.0 772.7 8.7 20,000-29,999 172.2 6.8 316.2 6.7 560.3 6.3 30,000-49,999 167.2 6.6 257.5 5.4 562.8 6.3 50,000-74,999 405.0 16.0 549.0 11.6 538.3 6.1 75,000-99,999 261.0 10.3 267.8 5.6 552.2 6.2 100,000 and above 1,218.9 48.2 2,975.7 62.7 5,909.9 66.4 Total 2,530.0 100.0 4,747.3 100.0 8,896.2 100.0 Sources: Adapted from ADB Asian Development Bank (1985) and Department of Statistics (1991)

Table II. Malaysia: city-size distribution of urban population (1970, 1980 and 1991)

Given the present development policy of the Malaysian government which emphasizes rapid industrialization in the context of a laissez-faire economy, the future pace of urbanization is very likely to accelerate. Unless urban problems such as congestion, inadequate amenities, pollution, shortage of housing, etc., are given sufficient attention, the quality of urban life will deteriorate. In addition, the industrial competitiveness may also be eroded. This could lead to a reduction in labour absorption and hence increasing unemployment and incidence of urban poverty. Meanwhile, following Johan and Baldev (1989), excessive concentration of urban growth can siphon off funds necessary for the development of the rural areas, lagging regions, and other lower order urban centres, thereby perpetuating structural inequality and symmetrical rural-urban relation resulting in the persistence of regional and rural-urban disparities.

International Journal of Social Economics 24,12 1526

Urban poverty Review of past and present status Table III provides some pictures on the past and present conditions of urban poverty in Malaysia respectively. From this, one may tend to conclude that urban poverty is not a serious phenomenon. As shown in Table III, incidence of urban poverty in Peninsular Malaysia had decreased significantly from 21.3 per cent in 1970 to about 7 per cent in 1990. In Sabah the incidence of urban poverty was reduced rather marginally from 19.2 per cent in 1976 to only 14.7 per cent in 1990. As for Sarawak, the extent of urban poverty is relatively minimal. In 1990 the corresponding figure for Sarawak was 4.9 per cent compared to 6.4 per cent in 1976. The incidence of poverty in Malaysia as a whole decreased even further from 7.5 per cent in 1990 to 5.3 per cent in 1993. The figure for 1995 is expected to be merely 2.2 per cent. The pattern of change was similar in Peninsular Malaysia. However, incidence of urban poverty in Sabah and Sarawak had increased during 1990-1993 period and in 1995 the poverty incidence in Sabah and Sarawak is projected at 14.5 per cent and 4.6 per cent respectively. According to the Mid-Term Review of the Sixth Malaysia Plan, 1991-1995 (Malaysia, 1993), the increase in urban poverty was the result of the migration of the rural poor to the urban areas in search of job opportunities. In Sabah, an additional factor was the presence of a large number of foreign migrants who accounted for about half of the poor in the urban areas.

Peninsular Malaysia Rural Urban Total 1970 Number of households 1,203.4 402.6 Number of poor households 705.9 85.9 Poverty incidence 58.7 21.3 1976 Number of households 1,400.8 530.6 Number of poor households 669.6 94.9 Poverty incidence 47.8 17.9 1984 Number of households 1,629.4 991.7 Number of poor households 402.0 81.3 Poverty incidence 24.7 8.2 1987 Number of households 1,800.0 1,008.1 Number of poor households 403.2 82.6 Poverty incidence 22.4 8.1 1990 Number of households 1,924.3 1,062.2 Number of poor households 371.4 77.5 Poverty incidence 19.3 7.3 Source: Malaysia (1981, 1986, 1989, 1991) 1,606.0 791.8 49.3 1,931.4 764.4 39.6 2,621.1 483.3 18.4 2,808.1 485.8 17.3 2,986.4 448.9 15.0

Sabah Rural Urban Total n.a n.a n.a 133.0 78.0 68.5 177.3 68.5 38.6 202.8 80.9 39.9 233.1 91.1 39.1 n.a n.a n.a 30.7 5.9 19.2 52.3 7.5 14.3 49.4 8.1 16.4 57.7 8.5 14.7 n.a n.a n.a 163.7 83.9 51.2 229.6 76.0 33.1 252.2 89.0 35.3 290.8 96.6 34.3

Sarawak Rural Urban Total n.a n.a n.a 167.8 100.7 60.0 230.6 85.9 37.3 240.7 69.8 29.0 274.6 67.8 24.7 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

39.3 207.1 6.4 107.1 16.3 51.7 51.4 282.0 4.2 90.1 8.2 31.9 60.0 300.7 4.5 74.3 7.5 24.7 62.8 337.4 3.1 70.9 4.9 21.0

Table III. Malaysia: incidence of poverty by urban rural strata, 1970, 1976 1984, 1987 and 1990

Although the overall incidence of urban poverty in Malaysia is low compared Urban with that of rural poverty, it must be noted that the poverty line income (PLI) development and used in measuring poverty incidence in urban areas is similar to that of rural urban poverty areas, i.e. RM405 per month for a household size of 4.8 in Peninsular Malaysia, RM582 for a household size of 5.1 in Sabah and RM495 for a household size of 5.1 in Sarawak. Thus, if one uses different PLI for urban areas, say 20-30 per 1527 cent higher from that of rural areas, reflecting the higher cost of living in the urban areas, one will find higher incidence of urban poverty. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that if we enlarge the urban boundary to include urban periphery as illustrated by the study on urban squatters in Miri Sarawak, the incidence of urban poverty would be higher than that of the urban centre alone (Ko, 1991). Another point that one should also consider in assessing urban poverty is the very concept of urban poverty itself. It is observed that using income as a measurement is necessary but not sufficient. Consequently, if we consider other socio-economic variables such as housing conditions, amenities, etc., in measuring the incidence of urban poverty in addition to income, the extent and magnitude of urban poverty may be more serious. Causes of urban poverty Although there are numerous studies on urban underdevelopment, most of them focused on squatter problems. A comprehensive study on urban poverty is relatively limited. However, the following will give a brief account on profiles of urban poor and causes of urban poverty. Onns (1989) study focuses on the state of urban poverty in four urban centres comprising Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Kota Bharu and Johor Bharu representing four different regions of West Malaysia. With 2,000 samples covering 100 locations, the study found out that unlike rural areas, the presence of poverty in the urban areas transcends ethnicity and the main causes of urban poverty were low level of education, lack of job opportunities, large family size, and lack of access to social facilities. The study by Hassan and Salleh (1991) focuses on the magnitude of urban poverty in the six Malay Reserve Areas (MRAs) of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, namely Gombak, Selayang, Sungai Pencala, Segambut, Kampung Baru and Datuk Keramat. The study reveals that the incidence of Malay poverty in the MRAs is quite low (4 per cent) and the extent of Malay poverty in this area is less than those in the squatter area of Kuala Lumpur. Similar to Onns finding, the poor not only have low level of income and wealth, but also lack access to public utility. Johari and Kiong (1991) attempt to develop a rough profile of the urban poor in Sabah. Their findings include the following: urban poor are found in all ethnic groups; the urban poor are wage earners and concentrated in low wage sectors, they have low level of education, limited access to employment opportunities, social facilities and services.

To sum up, it is clear that the causes of urban poverty are multiInternational dimensional. They include structural, institutional and cultural factors. Journal of Social Economics Urban policy for the urban poor 24,12 At present there is no explicit or specific national policy which directly

1528

addressed problems of the poor in the existing urban centres. However, as implicitly stated in the five-year development plan, policies and programmes for the urban poor may be classified into four components, namely employment creation, provision of housing and social amenities, development of growth centres and special programmes called NADI. Employment creation Job opportunities in urban areas are generated in many ways, though they are not necessarily directed at the poor. Most of the employment may be found in the industrial and service sectors. The government has encouraged the growth of these sectors by providing infrastructural facilities and fiscal incentive. Although this effort has resulted in creation of new jobs, the extent to which they benefited the poor is questionable, since most of the urban poor have a very low level of education and skills. Other programmes for creating urban job opportunities include the development of small-scale industries or business and industrial villages. These programmes have the potential to succeed but their implementations are confined to certain large urban areas and target groups and this does not necessarily benefit the poor (Kasim, 1991). Provision of housing and social amenities In order to raise the standard of living and quality of life of the lower income groups in urban areas the government implemented various projects including the provision of low-cost housing units and social amenities. Although the Government has controlled the price of low-cost housing, most of the urban poor cannot afford to buy house owing to low income. They cannot obtain loans or even service the loan if they had one. On the supply side, most of the problems are related to finance, management and business profit motive. These problems limit the achievement of the private developer in developing even a target of 30 per cent low-cost houses. The short supply of low-cost housing has resulted in high house rents and the establishments of squatter settlements. On social amenities, however, there has been a lot of improvement. The provision of social amenities are important components in upgrading programme within squatter settlements (Kasim, 1991). Development of growth centres The main aim of this programme is to meet the objective of the New Economic Policy (1971-1990), namely poverty eradication and restructuring of society. This programme has been implemented in three different forms or place as follows:

(1) Centres within centres. In Kuala Lumpur for example four growth centres Urban have been developed, namely Wangsa Maju, Bandar Tun Razak, development and Damansara and Bukit Jalil. This programme could create job urban poverty opportunities in secondary as well as tertiary sectors and provided lowcost and medium-cost housing. (2) Centres in a new region. A number of urban centres/new township have 1529 been planned in regional development authorities such as DARA, KEJORA and KETENGAH. However, their achievements have been unsatisfactory (Kasim, 1988). (3) Rural urbanization. The main activities included in this programme are village regrouping and the establishment of small-scale industries. While the former aims at improving the quality of life the latter provide job opportunities as well income generating activities. NADI (Nerve) programme The implementation of this programme is limited to squatter areas and low-cost flats in Kuala Lumpur. Under this programme, the poor in squatter areas benefited from the provision of electricity, water stand-pipes and health care, while those in low-cost flats were provided with tuition and day-care centres. Furthermore, income generating projects such as small business for housewives to supplement household income, were also implemented (Malaysia, 1993, p. 59). Issues in urban development and urban poverty Numerous issues in urban development have affected not only the performance of urban development but also the extent of urban problems. Some of the main issues of urban development and the present approach in solving the problems of urban poverty are discussed below. Town centric approach in urban planning In general town planning in Malaysia is generally done in isolation of other towns and its hinterland and emphasis is given to physical planning rather than on the socio-economic aspect of planning. This approach of urban planning may result in two problems. First, it limits the potential growth of the peripheral areas and causes secondary weakening of the linkages between urban-rural and also between urban centres of different sizes. Lack of national policy on urban poverty alleviation It may be argued that to some extent urban planning tends to bypass the poor (Kasim, 1991). Policies and programmes for the urban poor are ad hoc and most of them are not specifically aimed at the poor. Furthermore, local authorities, other than Kuala Lumpur City Hall, have not undertaken specific programmes to eradicate urban poverty.

International Journal of Social Economics 24,12 1530

Lack of institutional capability Most local authorities face deficiency in human and financial resources. They suffer from insufficient administrative and technical capacity. Local authorities except City Hall of Kuala Lumpur, city councils and municipalities which are state capital have a small number of staff and limited financial resources. Some of them are even incapable of collecting arrears which have accumulated over the years (Kasim and Noor, 1995). Thus their capability to undertake urban development and implementing an anti-poverty programme (if any) is severely limited. In addition, the role of private sector in financing urban development especially in the less developed regions has been discouraging. The development of urban centres in these regions relies heavily on the government. As a result urban activities in the poor regions are therefore limited (Kasim, 1991). Case study of urban poverty An action-oriented study of urban poverty was conducted in 1995, sponsored by the Malaysian Islamic Economic Foundation (YPEIM). The study is aimed at identifying the urban poor, developing capabilities in the poor in Kuala Lumpur to become urban entrepreneurs. A purposive sample of 510 respondents were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. The sample was chosen from poor heads of households that were on Baitulmals assistance recipients list. The respondents were predominantly Malay (97 per cent), with an average family size of 4.87. About 63 per cent of respondents have a family size of up to five, and 36 per cent have between six to ten members. Two per cent of respondents had between 11 and 15 members, with the maximum family size of 15. Characteristics of the poor Household income was used to determine the level of poverty. A comprehensive income concept was used incorporating cash and non-cash incomes of heads of household and household members. Non-cash incomes include imputed value of own house, assistance and subsidies in kind. The respondents were classified into very poor, poor and non-poor based on a per capita equivalent of a poverty income line (PLI). Using the national PLI of RM405 per month for a family of five and considering a higher urban cost of living of about 23 per cent, an urban PLI of RM500 per month or its per capita equivalent of RM100 per month was used. The very poor are defined as those having half the PLI income. Hence those with a per capita income of less than RM50 per month were determined to be the very poor. The non-poor were those with per capita income of more than RM100 per month. Using this measure, the incidence of very poor was at 3.3 per cent, poor 28.2 per cent and non-poor 68.4 per cent. Using an alternative measure of household income of RM500/month as the PLI results in a higher incidence of very poor (5.7 per cent) and a lower

incidence of poor (17.4 per cent) and non-poor (76.9 per cent). The incidence of Urban poverty (very poor and poor) is higher by 8.4 percentage points using the per development and capita income. However the incidence of non-poor is higher using the household urban poverty income concept. The higher household size of the very poor results in a lower incidence of poverty among the very poor using the per capita measure (see Table IV).

1531

Characteristics By household income PLI RM500/month 1. Incidence of poverty (%) 2. Mean monthly household income (RM) 3. Maximum monthly household income (RM) 4. Minimum monthly household income (RM) 5. Mean monthly head of household income (RM) By per capita income, PLI RM100/month 6. Incidence of poverty (%) 7. Mean monthly per capita income (RM) 8. Maximum monthly per capita income (RM) 9. Minimum monthly per capita income (RM) 10. Mean monthly per capita expenditure (RM) Socio-economic characteristics 11. Average family size 12. Average age 13. Average family member employed 14. Place of origin (%): Rural Urban 15. Employment (%) Unemployed Labourer Self-employed Government employee Private sector employee 16. Education (%): No formal education Primary education Secondary education 17. Interest in entrepreneurship (%): Possess entrepreneurial skills Possess capital Willingness to borrow capital Type of loan Individual Group Mean loan required (RM) Mean ability to pay per month (RM)

Very poor

Poor

Non-poor

All

5.7 175.8 250 227.9 3.3 40.5 50 61.8 5.7 48.2 1.18 72.7 27.3 28.6 7.1 28.6 14.3 21.4 23.5 52.9 23.5 41.2 50.0 10.0 50.0 71.4 28.6 950.9 150.0

17.4 425.2 500.0 411.1 28.2 83.2 100.0 52.0 88.5 5.7 46.1 1.53 63.2 36.8 22.1 23.7 23.7 9.9 20.6 27.1 43.1 29.9 59.4 60.0 15.0 64.0 96.3 3.7 17,518.5 164.8

76.9 1,107.1 7,605 300.0 565.3 68.4 220.0 839.0 101.0 164.9 4.5 48.0 2.06 69.4 30.6 22.1 18.1 29.3 10.6 19.9 28.9 37.2 33.8 65.9 62.2 9.4 66.2

100.0 935.1 7,605 510.0 511.0 100.0 252.4 839.0 139.9 4.9 47.4 1.9 67.8 32.2 22.3 19.3 27.7 10.5 20.2 28.2 39.4 32.4 63.2 61.2 11.4 65.3 Table IV. Characteristics of the very poor, poor and non-poor in urban Kuala Lumpur (N = 510)

92.1 92.8 7.9 7.2 11,905.0 13,444.5 165.0 160.0

International Journal of Social Economics 24,12 1532

The mean household income of all respondents was RM935.1. The mean household income of the very poor was only 18.8 per cent of mean household income, while that of the non-poor was 18.4 per cent higher than the mean household income. The mean income of the poor was 45.5 per cent of mean household income. The incomes of head of household form a large portion (55 per cent) of household incomes, while the remaining 45 per cent was contributed by household members income. The mean head of household income was RM511. The head of household income of the very poor form only 45 per cent of mean head of household income compared to 80 per cent of the poor. The non-poor head of household income exceeds the mean head of household income by 11 per cent. The very poor and the poor have a relatively larger family size of 5.7 respectively, compared with the non-poor (4.5). In terms of age, there is no significant difference between the ages of very poor, poor and non-poor. The average age of all respondents is 47.4 years, with the average age of the very poor and non-poor slightly higher, respectively at 48.2 and 48 years. In terms of residence, about 60 per cent of respondents are squatters, 20 per cent of them living in transit squatter houses waiting for relocation into permanent houses, which for some take more than 20 years before actual relocation takes place. About 40 per cent of respondents reside in low cost houses (6 per cent) and low cost flats (34 per cent). With regard to place of origin, we investigated whether the respondents originated from rural or urban surroundings. It was hypothesized that rural poverty might be transferred to urban areas through rural-urban migration. Our data indicated that 68 per cent of respondents originated from rural areas. In fact the non-poor had a greater percentage (49 per cent) of rural migrants, compared with the poor (17 per cent) and very poor (2 per cent). We cannot conclude definitively concerning the transfer of rural to urban poverty. Ruralurban migration is a continuing phenomenon since the 1970s, induced by the restructuring strategies of the New Economic Policy (1970-1990) and the respondents desire to seek better opportunities in the urban industrial areas. About 32 per cent of respondents originated from urban areas. Household income is influenced by the number of family members employed. On average, 1.9 members of family are employed. Lower household incomes of the very poor and poor households could be explained by a smaller number of members employed, 1.18 for the very poor and 1.53 for poor household. The non-poor had a larger employment of family members, at 2.06. In per capita terms, the mean per capita income is RM252 per month. The mean per capita income of the very poor and poor formed about 16 per cent and 33 per cent respectively of overall mean per capita income. The mean per capita monthly income of the non-poor was 87 per cent of the mean. In terms of expenditure, the mean per capita monthly expenditure was RM140, with the expenditure of the very poor and poor forming about 44 per cent and 63 per

cent, respectively, of mean expenditure. Comparing mean per capita income and Urban expenditure of respondents, it can be observed that the expenditure of the very development and poor and poor exceed their incomes, implying inadequacy of incomes to meet urban poverty expenditure and basic needs requirement. While it is recognized that the very poor and the poor live on meagre incomes and have a tight budget, this inadequacy may also arise due to underreporting of income by respondents. 1533 There is no significant difference in employment among the very poor, poor and non-poor. Among the non-poor, there are also the unemployed (23 per cent) labourers (18 per cent), self-employed (23 per cent), government employees (11 per cent) and private sector employees (20 per cent). The participation rates of the very poor and poor in most categories of employment do not differ significantly from the non-poor. The unemployed among the very poor, poor and non-poor are mainly the old aged, pensioners and those receiving religious assistance among heads of households. In these cases, the incomes of household members contributed significantly towards determining the status of respondents as very poor, poor and non-poor. The educational levels of the respondents are considered low. About 28 per cent of respondents had no formal education, 39 per cent completed primary education and 32 per cent completed primary education. Among the respondents there is no significant difference in the level of education of the very poor, poor and non-poor. A larger percentage of the very poor (53 per cent) and poor (43 per cent) completed primary education, compared to the non-poor (37 per cent). Conversely, the non-poor had a higher percentage completing secondary education (34 per cent), compared to the very poor (24 per cent) and poor (30 per cent). The education levels are expected to play an important role in determining the employment status of respondents. As can be observed, low educational levels are associated with low employment status of most respondents. Even those employed as government and private sector employees are engaged in low paying employment. Urban entrepreneurship programme One of the aims of this action-oriented research is to come up with policy options for an urban poor entrepreneurship programme. In this paper we highlight some issues related to this programme. The urban entrepreneurship programme was thought of as an effective means to uplift the status of the urban poor. The programme will provide the enterprising urban poor with credit through a benevolent loan scheme which will enable the urban poor to participate in various small-scale enterprises and other income generating activities that will alleviate their poverty problems. Our initial results show that 63 per cent of respondents expressed interest in the urban entrepreneurship programme. Not surprisingly, the programme interests the non-poor (66 per cent) more than the very poor (41 per cent) and poor (59 per cent). The non-poor have more entrepreneurial skills (62 per cent), higher willingness to borrow capital (66 per cent) and higher ability to earn

International Journal of Social Economics 24,12 1534

(RM165) per month. Nevertheless the poor show moderately high interest (59 per cent), possess skills (60 per cent), are willing to borrow capital (64 per cent) and have the comparable ability to earn (RM165). The interests of the very poor are encouraging (41 per cent), with moderate willingness to borrow capital (50 per cent) and slightly lower ability to pay (RM150). Regarding the type of loan, the majority of respondents, especially the poor (96 per cent) and non-poor (92 per cent) preferred an individual loan scheme. Among the very poor, the preference for group loan scheme is higher (29 per cent), reflecting the need to design group loan scheme to share the burden of the loan to provide strength through joint liability and group responsibility. Initial response indicates that the types of enterprise preferred by the respondents are food stalls (63 per cent), retail outlets (22 per cent), tailoring (8 per cent), night markets (4 per cent) and motor workshop (4 per cent). Basically the types of enterprises are small to medium, requiring loan capital of between RM500-RM10,000. About 56 per cent of respondents require between RM1,0015,000 loan capital, 25 per cent requiring more than RM10,000. Although the loan requirements are substantial, the respondents ability to pay seems much lower. Policy option The experience of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and its successful replication in many countries in Asia, including Malaysia (Gibbons and Kasim, 1990; Hossain, 1985) show that credit or benevolent loan could be an important instrument for poverty eradication and uplifting the socio-economic condition of the rural poor. The institutionalization of the benevolent loan scheme through an NGO Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia show the credibility of this scheme in alleviating the problem of rural poverty (Siwar, 1991, 1992). In Malaysia, there is no similar credit scheme for the urban poor. Strategies for urban poverty alleviations are mainly in the area of generating employment opportunities and improving basic urban amenities like housing for the poor, sanitation, education, health and nutrition. The urban entrepreneurship programme represents a paradigm shift in attempt to eradicate urban poverty in Malaysia. The programme will be targeted specially on the very poor and poor urban households. The programme will have a specialized delivery mechanism, requiring no interest, no collateral, with simple procedures, supervised training and scrutiny to ensure viability and sustainability of projects and repayment of loan. A training and motivational course will to be organized to motivate prospective participants and to train them in basic project management, marketing, accounting, bookkeeping, entrepreneurship development and business strategies. Project supervision, monitoring and impact analysis will also be conducted. The sustainability of the entrepreneurship programme will be an important factor in determining the success of the programme. An initial launching grant for administrative and loan capital will need to be provided by YPEIM and Islamic Banking institutions to start the project. If successful, the programme

will represent an effective poverty alleviation strategy based on self-help, selfUrban reliance and the capabilities of the poor themselves. development and
References and further reading Asian Development Bank (1985), Malaysia Urban Sector Profile Study, Asian Development Bank, Manila. Asian Development Bank and Government of Malaysia (1986), Urban Development Policy and Programme Study, Manila. Bank Negara Malaysia (1995), Bank Negara Annual Report, 1994. Bank Negara Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Department of Statistics (1970), General Report on the Population Census, Vol. 1 & 2, Kuala Lumpur. Department of Statistics (1980), General Report on the Population Census, Kuala Lumpur. Department of Statistics (1991), Population and Housing Census, Kuala Lumpur. Gibbons, D.S. and Kasim, S. (1990), Banking on the Rural Poor, Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia, Penang. Hassan, O.R. and Salleh, A.M. (1991), Malays in the reserve areas of Kuala Lumpur: how poor are they?, in Johari, M.Y. (Ed.), Urban Poverty in Malaysia, Institute for Development Studies (Sabah), Kota Kinabalu. Hossain, M. (1985), Credit for the Rural Poor: The Experience of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, Research Monograph No. 4, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Dhaka. Johari, M.Y. and Kiong, C.S. (1991), An overview of urban poverty in Sabah, in Johari, M.Y. (Ed.), Urban Poverty in Malaysia, Institute for Development Studies (Sabah), Kota Kinabalu. Johari, M.Y. and Sidhu, B.S. (1989), Urbanisation and Development: Prospects and Policies for Sabah beyond 1990, Institute for Development Studies (Sabah), Kota Kinabalu. Kasim, M.Y. (1988), Ketidakseimbangan Wilayah: Satu Penilaian Terhadap Dasar dan Strategi Pembangunan Wilayah dalam Tempoh Dasar Ekonomi Baru (1970-1990), in Siwar, C. and Piei, M.H. (Eds), Dasar dan Strategi Pembasmian Kemiskinan, DBP, Kuala Lumpur. Kasim, M.Y. (1991), Urban development and urban poverty: current thinking, in Johari, M.Y. (Ed.), Urban Poverty in Malaysia, Institute for Development Studies (Sabah), Kota Kinabalu. Kasim, M.Y. (1994), Kemiskinan dan Pembangunan Bandar Selepas 1990: Isu dan Penyelesaian, in Ali, S. and Saleh, M.Z. (Eds), Rancangan Malaysia Keenam: Prioriti Pengukuhan Negara,. UKM Press, Bangi. Kasim, M.Y. and Noor, M.S.H. (1995), The role of local government in urban development towards meeting vision 2020, Paper presented at National Workshop on Local Government: Effective Governance for Vision 2020, 10 June, Subang Jaya, Malaysia. Ko, J. (1991), Studying urban poverty in Sarawak: some methods, logical issues and problems, in Johari, M.Y. (Ed.), Urban Poverty in Malaysia, Institute for Development Studies (Sabah, Kota Kinabalu. Malaysia (1981), Fourth Malaysian Plan, 1981-1985, Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia (1986), Fifth Malaysian Plan, 1986-1990, Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia (1989), Mid-term Review of the Fifth Malaysian Plan, Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia (1991), The Second Outline Perspective Plan, 1991-2000, Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia (1993), Mid-term Review of the Sixth Malaysian Plan 1991-1995, Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur. Onn, F.C. (1989), Kemiskinan Bandar di Malaysia: Profil dan Kedudukan pada Pertengahan 1980an, Ilmu Masyarakat, Vol. 15. Siwar, C. (1991), Credit programme for rural development and poverty alleviation in Malaysia, Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 1 No. 2, December. Siwar, C. (1992), The role of women in poverty eradication: impact study of Ikhtiar Project (in Malay), in Rahmah, I. (Ed.), Wanita Dalam Pembangunan, Fakulti Ekonomi, UKM, Bangi.

urban poverty 1535