The demography of Zambia

PEH Te&dcal Note 85-9 July 1985 Population, '&alth and Nutrition Department Xorld Bank 'Eye World Bank does not accept responsibility f o r the views expressed herein 7which arc? those of the author(s) and should not je a t t r i b u t e d to the World Sank or to its a f f i l i a t e d organizations. The findings, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , and conclusions a r e the results of research supported by the Bank; they do not cecessarily represent o f f i c i a l policy of the b n k . The designations employed, the presentation of materid.. m d any maps used i n t h i s document are solely for the cocvenience of the reader and do not imply the e-xpression of any 9 p l ~ i o cr&atsoever on :he ?art of the !JorlC sank or its affiliates concerning :he kgaX s ~ s t u sof any cou_qtry, territory, c i c y , area, or of its a u t h o r i t i e s , or c3nce:rning ehe d e l i n i t a t i o n s of its boundaries, or national a f f i l i a t i o n .  PHN Technical Note 85-9 THE DWoG3APEY OV m u A B S T R A C T The paper reviews and analyses a l l currently available demographic data for Zambia. Population s i z e , d i s t r i b u t i o n , urbanization and migration patterns a r e described, and estimates are made of levels, trends and regional d i f f e r e n t i a l s in mortality, f e r t i l i t y , natural increase and population growth. The construction and results of population projections f o r the next 30 years a t national, urban and r u r a l level a r e a l s o described. Ln summary, f e r t i l i t y l e v e l s a r e generally high, though still depressed i n some areas by widespread pathological sterility. Nortality l e v e l s a r e generally moderately low by African standards and declining, though there is c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a l between the urbanized line-of-rail provinces and the r u r a l , l e s s developed off-line-rail provinces. National population growth is therefore high and r i s i n g , though provincial growth r a t e s vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y due to the massive r u r a l t o urban n i g r a t i o n i n recent decades t h a t has mcie Zambia one of the most heavily urbanized countries i n Arica. lrepared by: Althea X i 1 1 Population, Bealth and Nutrition Department July 1983  Table of Contents Page No. Sources of Data ................................................ National Population Size and Growth ............................ ?opulatian 3 i s t r i b u t i o n . Vrbaniza~ionand Yizracion ............ Interndl Yigration ............................................. International Yigration ........................................ .Age and Sex Distribution ....................................... Ymrtality ...................................................... .. F e r t i l i t y...................................................... Vital %ties, Xatural Increase and Population Grovth ........... Construct:ion and Xesults of Population Projections ............. 6 1 Figures ........................................................ 64 Appendix Tables ................................................  The Demography of Zambia Sources of Data Zambia has had three f u l l censuses i n 1961/63, 1969 and 1980, a sample census i n 1376, and a national deaographic sample survey i n 1950/51. There have a l s o been a few small-scale demographic studies, most notably i n 1968/69 and 1979. Vital r e g i s t r a t i o n is to all i n t e n t s and purposes n e g l i g i 5 l e . The 1950/51 Deaographic Sample Survey %fore 1950, the only d a o g r a p h i c i n f o m a t i o n available f o r t h e African population was the s e r i e s of annual estimates of t o t a l population by . the Provin.cia1 Administration, probably based largely on tax records. The 1950 Demographic Sample Survey was an attempt t o provide some i l s e l i n e data; i t was carried out over a period of a year (Yay 1950 - liay 1951) but most of the f i e l d work was done during the summer of 1950 and the veighted average d a t e of survey was the f i r s t fortnight of July 1950. Besides including the f i r s t actu.al enumeration of the *tican population, the survey collected infomation on age ( i n three age classes, under one year, one year t o puberty and over puberty) , h i r t h s and deaths (distinguishing inlanc deaths) during the ?revious 12 clonths, and f o r each adult woman personally interviewed the cumbers of children ever born and children s t i l l surviving. The interviewers were European o f f i c e r s of the Provincial &&idstration, a s s i s t e d by African glddes and interpreters; f i d d work had t o be f i t t e d into t h e i r noraal duties and :raining consisted only of d i s t r i b u t i o n of derailed v r i t t e n instructions. Given the Lack of age d e t a i l , and the summary aature of the survey report, i t is h p o s s i b l e to evaluate f u l l y the quality of the 1950 data. The a c t u a l ecuseration appears :o have been very d e f i c i e n t , and it is l i k e l y t h a t the age f e r t i l i t y and a o r t a l i t y data a r e not g e z e r d l y reliable. This vould hardly be s u r ? r i s i q i n a pioneer survey carried out by untrained and inexperienced foreign intemievers . However much of the information collectetl is interesting and suggestive, and is occasionallg valuable. The 1961 and 1963 Censuses The 'irst r e a l census of Zambia was held in September 1961, when the de facto non-.African p p u l a t i o n was enmerated together with a census of nrban ea?loyees, and Yap 15th - July 29th, 1963, when the de f a c t o African ?opulation G a scounted. 3 e r e s u l t s of the t-zo counts vere subsequeatly analgaaced i a t o t o t a l population figures f o r 1963 by sinple ac!dition; since :he a s s u ? c l o c is of 20 growth i n the non-African populaticn betveen 1961 and 1 9 0 3 the cozs2quent t o t a l 1963 fLgure is l i k e l y t o be an underestimate. The African censcs co1lec:ed i ~ f o m a t i o non age in three broad age classes (1942 ~ n caf:?r, o r r o u ~ h l yunder 21, j e t - ~ e e n1918 and 19h1, or roughl:~21 t o h5, =.,, - " A befc~rt1913, o r rangtly L5 and over) , plus aczual year of b i r t h f o r those jorn i n 19L2 azd a f t s r . Yo d a t z on f e r t i l i t y o r zorzalicy uere collected, 5u: cocnrr;? s: - .x.rt h zzs askzd. Agsix the qualiry of the r e s u l t s is hard tc d e t e ~ x i n e . Yo post ?nm?raclcn su,--rey -;as held. ?:o ?articular ~)r3b123sxere encountered in the  f i e l d work. The t o t a l count was 35 percent higher than the projected figure based on t h e 1950 sumey r e s u l t s , but t h e cecsus report concluded t h a t both external antd i n t e r n a l checks on the completeness of the count did not indicate an,y gross overcount i n 1963, and i n any case such underestimates of population s i z e a r e common before a f i r s t f lll census. The age data a r e probably unreliable, and the census report describes a i l information on personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s poor. - The 1969 Ce!nsus This cenras, held from 22nd-30th .August, 1969, w a s the f i r s t t h a t counted the e n t i r e population simultaneously and asked f o r exact age. Informatioa on children ever born and children sumiving t o women 15 and over, plus number of birzhs and deaths during the previous year, was collected from a l l urban households and a ten percent sample of rural households. Place of b i r t h and place of rzsidence 12 months age w a s recorded f o r sveryone . The quality of the r e s u l t s is again d i f f i c u l t to evaluate. No post-enumeration sumey was held. No particular problems were reported with the f i e l d siork. However, there is some reason t o suspect a s i g n i f i c a n t undercount r e l a t i v e to the 1963 census (as w i l l be discussed l a t e r ) and t h i s would not be surprising given the dramatic urban growth immediately a f t e r independenc~eand the norsally higher undercount t o be expected in urban areas. The quality of the f e r t i l i t y and s o r t a l i t y data is generally dubious; high proportions of women were apparently recorded a s not-stated v i t h respect t o f e r t i l i t y , while the data on deaths during t h e past year were so deficient t h a t they were discarded a t an e a r l y stage of analysis. Eowever, useful e s t i s a t e s of f e r t i l i t y and a c r z a l i t y can still be extracted fron the census inf omation. The 1974 S;mple Census A de facto sanple census w a s held between 16th August and t h e 7th Septenber, 1974. X sanpls of 10,000 w a s d r a m from a 100%house l i s t i n g exercise i n a l l l a r g e Urban .L-eas; Small Urban Areas and Tomships were e r m e r a t e d completely; and in the r u r a l areas a samplc of rdo *sic Areas (polling di.st r i c t s ) , each conraining an average of 3,000-4,000 persons, was taken from every d i s t r i c t . The o v e r a l l sampling fraction %xsexpected to be abaut I 4 pe!rcent , with a t o t a l sanple population of about 655,000. .A wide range of questions was asked, including children ever born and children surviving, b i r t h s durlng the Fast 12 months, ?lace of b i r t h and ?lace of rssidence 1 2 zionths ?reviously. T'fie quality of t h i s sanple census I s somewhat dubious. Tks level 3 5 undercou.nt appears to 'nave been higher than i n the 1969 o r 1980 censuses / 2s is u s u a l l y :he case k i t h s a ~ y l esurreys) and tke re?orrod zge i i s t i i b u ~ i o nLs quit+ ouc of i i n e vich a l l other infomacion on age sir7Jcture, fetcili:;7 anc -xor=aliry. P e e f e r r i l l t y , a o r t z i i t y a d migration Zaca kave nev2r keen 2ublished; rhe xigration :ablss nev+r -2111 be, due co i ~ t a ?roble=s, j u t the fertility and ~ o r t a l i t y2 a t r a r e available F n m?ublisi;ed for=, and zhile of Lxfzrior q u a l i t y to chose of L969 s t i l l zppear CO be ~ialua.21+.  The 1980 Census The l a t e s t cecsus was held from 15th August -7 t h September, 1980; p r e 1 h l n a r . y f i g u r e s have Seen published, but t h e f u l l census d a t a are still i n the d a t a processing s t a g e and w i l l not be a v a i l a b l e f o r another year o r so. A uidie range of questions, including c h i l d r e n ever born, c h i l d r e n surviving, births during the past 12 months, place of birth and place of residence 12 nonths ago, w a s asked on a sample b a s i s and a n e l a b o r a t e t a b u l a t i o n programme is being designed. Yo p a r t i c u l a r problems with the fieldwork have been reported. F u l l evaluation of t h e q u a l i t y of t h e census is of course still impossible. However, the prelitlinary r e s u l t s appear reasonable and c o n s i s t e n t . Small Scale S u n e y s X number of mall-scale demographic surveys have been held i n Zambia s i n c e 1963. The most notable among these a r e the surveys of the urban population i n t h e Copperbelt Towns and Lusaka, c a r r i e d o u t by t h e University of Zambia i n 1965 and 1968169 r e s p e c t i v e l y , and t h e survey of " I n t e r r e l a t i o n - s h i p s among Tnfant and Child Y o r t a l i t y , socio-economic Factors and F e r t i l i t y " i n Lusaka Cicy and a r u r a l area of Central Province c a r r i e d out j o i n t l y by 'LTNECX and t n e Zambian C s n t r a l S t a t i s t i c a l Office i n 1978179. These have provided i c t e r e s t i n g and o f t e n vsl.uable d a t a *uhich w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as necessary. Internatio.na1 Yigration and Refugee Data Ln addition to t h e national sources of d a t a already mentioned, data on i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i g r a n t s and refugee movments can be gleaned from the censuses o f surrounding c o u n t r i e s and t h e r e p o r t s of t h e IM High Commission f o r liefuge~es(ONBCR) . Such d a t a a r e always t o be t r e a t e d with caution, but a r e indispensable. They w i l l b e r z f e r r e d t o and assessed as occasion a r i s e s . National ?opulation S i z e and Grovth 'mef i r s t actual enmeration of the African population i n Zambia ras carried ~ u zts part of the 1950 Demographic Survey, and gave a total of i.816 s i l l L o n f o r a i d 1950. This was however probably a gross undercount. {,'hen projected forvard ts s i d 1963 using the r a t e of 2.5 percent derived from survey f e r t i l i c p and mortality data-a r a t h e r high r a t e f o r the place and period, anti ix f a c t hig.her than the reported i n t e r c e n s a l grovth r a t e f o r 1963-1959--1: produced a t o t a l -mpulation e s t i m a t e o f 35 percent lower than t h e 1563 African census count. Since chere is no reason to suspect eizher gross over--counting ix 1963-indeed, being a f i r s t fzlt census i t would have 5een ?arti::clarl:~ ?rone to 1~~6ercoun:ing-orunderestizatlon of t h e average grovth r a t s fsr the period 1950-1963, t h e l i k e l y cause of t h e discrepancy is a seriolls :mdsr=oun= ir: 1950. -.is r2oulc hardly 5e sur?risi=g ziven the novelty azd csnscrai=cs of Che 1950 ssr-ley, and f s i n f a c t a comon occurre::=e i11 s a ~ p i esurreys Ir, general, p a r t i c u l a r l : ~those held. before any f u l i ct:lsus has been c a r r i e d o u t t o provide a good saopling f r a n e acd r e l e v a z i f:.eid ex?e:lence. Xe s h a l l therefore consider only t h e s i z e a d grovth of :!opulation i n Zambia s i n c e 1953.  Appendix Table X.P.1 and Table P.1 below show t h e recorded s i z e and grovth of t h e population from t h e four censuses of 1961/63, 1969, 197t and 1980. The e v o l u t i o n of i n t e r c e n s a l growth rates is a l s o shown g r a p h i c a l l y i n Figure P.L. Table P l (Populacion in m i l l i o n s , Grovth Rates percent) Hale Popul.ation 1.734 1.987 2.275 2.785 Feztale Population 1.756 2.070 2.401 2.894 T o t a l Population 3.490 4.057 4.677 5.680 1963-69 1969-71 1974-80 1969-80 1963-80 Hale Growch Ute 2.18 2.71 3.37 3.07 2.75 Fenale Growth Rat& 2.63 2.97 3.11 3.05 2.90 T o t a l Growth Bate 2-01 2.84 3.24 3.06 2.82 Sex Ratio of Population 98.7 96 .O 94.8 96.2 The t o t a l population of Zambia has grown from 3.5 i n i l l i o n i n 1963 t o 5.7 mil-lion i n 1980, thus h c r e a s i n g by about 60 percent over t h e post- Independetlce e r i o d . l3e rate of growth has r i s e n continuously i n each i n t e r c e n s a l i n t e r v a l . C l e a r l y , hovever, chere a r e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n che s e r i e s of reported population t o t a l s and grovth rates. ?!!st strikingly, nale and f e z a l e growth r a t e s d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n each i n t e r c e n s a l period, with s a l e grow:h lower in 1963-69 (2.2 versus 2.6 percent) and 1969-74 (2.7 versus 3 percent) but hisher i n 1 75-80 3 ( 3 . h v e r s u s 3.1 percent); correspondingly the sex r a t i o drops from 9 ia 1963 :o 96 i n 1969 and yet further to 95 i n L97L, then rises a g a i n t o 96 ia 1980. 9,e d i s c o n t i r u i ; i e s bet-zen 1969-74 a r d L97L-80 can be a o s t e a s i l y a c c o u n ~ ~fda r 5y a higher l e v e l of z a l e undercount i n the sample census of : 9 7 i zhan i n :he f u l l censuses of 1969 and 1980. This vould not be s n r ? r i s i n g L n a s.aql2 caunz s i z c e l o b i l e , of=e2 x i g r a n t , z e 3 a r e ?ar:icularly l i a j l e co 5e ov2rlooked both a s single-?erson households o r ? e r i ~ h e r a l5ousehol2 xenbers 5 2 such ~ i r c ~ m s t t n c e s .Such an c,uplanation ;-cul6 ac--,ux= fsr 50-: L.I :he s z-,,hes z + - Tn a a r a t i o and a l s o the auch s t s e p e r rFse i n :he ale grovth rzte rhan the f m a l ? betveen 1969-75 azd 1976-50; i t is su?porrsd by :he 197; age d i s t r i b u r i o n xhich shovs a s u b s t a n t i a l d e f i c i r of a d u l t s (gr2a:er f o r s a l e s than ,E+nales) conpared v i t n the 1969 age d i s t r i j u t i o c .  However t h e r e still remains a puzzling incoasistency between the 1963-69 growth r a t e s and t h e o v e r a l l grovt5 f o r t h e period 1969-80. The gap jetween w l e and fenale growth r a t e s i n the f o r a e r period is s u b s t a n t i a l , (2.2 versus 2.6 percent) but almost disappears betveen 1969 and 1980 . (ignoring 1974), when they a r e 3.07 and 3.05 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y ; correspondingly t h e sex r a t i o drops from 99 t o 96. There is moreover a v e r y sharp rise i n t h e o v e r a l l rate of growth between t h e two periods, from 2.4 t o 3.1 percent; t h e 1963-69 rate of 2.4 percent a l s o does not a g r e e v i t h aa?ailable s o r z a l i t y , f e r t l l i t y and u i g r a t i o c d a t a f o r the 1960s which point t o a rars o f n a t u r a l Fncrease of arouod 3 percent and sodest n e t inmigration. The obvious explanation f o r these anomalies is t h a t e i t h e r t h e 1963 census was an overcount o r t h e 1969 census an a d e r c o u n t , r e l a t i v e t o each other. Of t h e t-do, it is most l i k e l y t h a t t h e 1969 census v a s an undercount r e l a t i v e to 1963. The p o s s i b i l i t y of an overcount in 1963 was considered i n t h e 1963 c.ensus r e p o r t i n connection v i t h t h e l a r g e s h o r t f a l l i n the population p r o j e c t i o n from i950, and t h e r e appeared t o be no reason t o suppose e i t h e r a c c i d e n t a l o r voluntary overcouncing t o any s i g n i f i c a n t degree. ? l e 1969 census on t h e o t h e r hand, d e s p i t e being t h e second census, had t o coatend v i t h the problems created by explosive urban grovth between I963 and 1.969; l a r g e t o m s and c i t i e s a r e n o t o r i o u s l y d i f f i c u l t t o enumerate completely a t t h e b e s t of t i m e s , and vheli immigration has been r e c e n t , r a p i d and s u o s ~ a ~ n t i a lthe l e v e l of *undercounting in urban areas, and hence i n t h e , =hole country a l s o , could w e l l r i s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Support f o r t h i s hypothesis comes from the Cecrease i n the o v e r a l l sex r a t i o from 99 t o 96, tnr f o r n e r b e i q a p r i o r i inore acceptable (given norsal sex d i f f e r e l i t i a l s i n z o r t a l i t y ,, a c o n a l - r a n g e sex r a t i o a t b i r t h , and net inmigration) and the change being i n t h e expected d i r e c t i o n i f t h e increased undercount is due t o omissions anong predor i n a n t l y mate urban migrants. X f u r t h e r piece of supporting evidence c ~ z e sfrom t h e 1969 age d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r predominantly urban d i s t : r i c c s , uhich tend to shov an unexpected r e l a t i v e male d e f i c i t i n the young a d u l t age groups, t h e group u s u a l l y considered most prone t o a i g r a t e but a l s o the most li'&y to be missed i n enumeration. On t h e h o l e , t h e r e f o r e , it sems l i k e l y t h a t the coverage of the 1969 census ;-as i a v e r thari i n 1963. If the rate of growth betieen 1963 and 1969 were r e a l l y about 3 percent f o r both sexes1/ and the 1963 census a complete c.ount, t h e accual 1969 population *voulz have r e a c h e d 4 -22 m i l l i o n , compared t:o the enumerated L.06 n i l l i o n v f t h the s h o r t f a l l being about L58,000 o r 3.7 ;letcent; rhe m a l e undercount vould have Seen 5.1 percent 2nd the Fenale: 2.b ?ercent. It is of course unlikely that the I963 count was complete, so t h e n m b e r s omizced i n both 1963 and 1969 vould have been sonevhac higher. Zovever, such Levels of omission appear qui:c c r e d i b l e . Lit:le can yet be c ~ n j e c t u r e dof the s c a t u s of the i980 census. 2 . e clgse3ess of :he s a l e and f e a a l e grovth r a t e s betyeen 1969 and 1980 and fh2 sex rs.tio sf jcst x e r 95 t z l i c z t t s ;5at the degree of r e l a t i v e =ale onc2rc3unc i s v e r y such cne s a e i n 1950 as i n 1969. ?3e o v e r a l l l e v e l of unc!er=ounc, ho~zever, canzot i e e v t l u a ~ e df u l l y as ;ret. .b.actenpt w i l l be zade l a ~ e r:J r e c s n c i l e :he 1359-1980 i l t z r z e n s a l z r a v t h r a t s x i t h a v a i l a b l z =3rt31iz7, :=r:Lli=y 2nd n i g r z ~ l o nd a t a ; hovever i: zould be ?rudent to bear i n z i n c =ha: :h.s ?opulatioc o f ZabLa ix 1950 xay havs 5een g r e a t e r by a t -. l s a s t 230,00C ?ersons over rhe :ensus rlgure. . . -' -btsr secrions .Jill show :hat t h i s is the Sesz e s t l n a t e f o r the pertod. - -  Population D i s t r i b u t i o n , Urbanization and Xigration These t o p i c s a r e so i n t e r r e l a t e d t h a t they . d i l l be d e a l t v i t h under subheadings i n a s i n g l e s e c t i o n , v i t h frequent cross-reference betveen sub-sec t i o n s . P o ~ u l a t i o nD i s t r i b u t i o n The! d i s t r i b u t i o n or' population wi.rhin Zambia is uneven in the extreme, characterized by heavy urbanization concentrated i n a fev large LOMS which alre mostly clustered together i n a mall area, and by very s p a r s e , s c a t t e r e d r u r a l settlement. Variations i n d e n s i t y are s o extreme t h a t they cacmot be adequately represented by e i t h e r n a t i o n a l o r provincial d e n s i t i e s . These a r e shown in d e t a i l f o r 1980 in Appendix Table h.D.l and summarized below in Table D.1 a s w e l l a s i n Figures D.I.A,B: Table D l - - - Number of I n h a b i t a u t s per km2a/ Csnt.ra1 Copperbelt %st.em Luapula Lusaka :lort.hern Xorth-Vestern Southern Western Zambia 7.5 - a / Taken from Vol. 1 OF t h e 1969 Census EZe?ort. These f i g u r e s do show the o v e r a l l low d e n s i t y of population i n Zambia; i n 1980 its neighbcrs Y d a w i and Zbbabwe, f o r example, had d e n s i t i e s of 51 and 18 r e s g c c ~ i v e l y ,while f o r Rwacda and 3urundi, t h e s o s t densely s e t t l e d c o u o t r i e s i n Sub-Saharan . e r i c a n , =he f i g u r e s were 199 and 147. They a l s o d i s p l a y 2 s t r i k i n g contrasc Setueen the r e l a t i v e l y heavily s e t t l e d 2rovinces of Capperbelt and i.usa:cay with between 30 and 40 inhabi5ants per 7 .a-, the rest of Zambia which ranges only From 2 to 10 per knL; clearly 7 and c h i s c o n t r a s t 3ust be 5ue to :he heavy urbanization of Capperbelt 2nd Lusaka c3asared sri:h tko r e s t of tke cocztry. Xoxe-rer, :he i n t r a ~ r o v i n c i a l -?ariation is e q u a l l y striking, a s can be appreciated in Figures D.l.C and 3.1.D t h e f o n e r is a ?opulztion densicy zap by s u p e r ~ i s o r ' s a r e a s from the 1 3 6 3 census, acd the Latzer a 2ot l a p f o r 1363 d r s m from the d e t a i l e d census tats.-j 7 - - 2 : TSe naps a r e reproaticed 5rom:'Zaubia i n Yaps' : D. Hywe; Davies: Fodder ar.d Stoughton, 1971. Conparzbie zaps a r e not yet a v a i l a b l e from t h e 1980 census, bur the o v e r a l l ? i c t u r e w i l l not have changed s i g c i f i c a n t l y s i n c e ih12 1960s.  The main features of population d i s t r i b u t i o n a r e clear. Large areas, particularly i n the Central-Westem and South-Eastern parts of the Tountry a r e almost uninhabited through lack of natural resources; they cover about 11 percent of the t o t a l national surface. Xuch of the remainder is very sparsely populated, with d e n s i t i e s of under f i v e inhabitants per km2. Small patches of very dense settlement occur around toms. There a r e also a few r e l a t i v e l y heavily populated rural-zones, notably along the l i n e of r a i l i n Central and Southern provinces (a zone of a g r i c u l t u r a l developnent as well a s close to urban centers), along the border betveen Eastern province and %zanbique/Xalawi (also a zone of good land and developing agriculture) , i n Luapula Province along rhe Zaire border and around Lake Bangweulu (good land and/or fisheries) and i n Vestern Province aloag the upper Zambezi p l a i n (again, r e l a t i v e l y favorable a g r i c u l t u r a l conditions); densities here a r e mostly i n the range of 10-50 1nhabi:ants per h2outside the toms. The *=pula and Zastern zones stand out i n particular a s both densely s e t t l e d and f r e e from urban influence. The other noticeable feature is the unusually even r u r a l settlement i n the ncrchern half of Sorrhern Province, though a t an intermediate l e v e l of density of about 2-10 inhabitants per h2. Clearly one of the nain determinants of population settlement patterns i n Zambia has been the a g r i c u l t u r a l resources available locally. Another, to be examined i n d e t a i l l a t e r , is the varying l e v e l of natural increase between p o ? ~ l a t i o ngroups, with f e r z i l i t y higher in che s o r e densely populated eastern half of the country than i n the eaptier western half. A third is t h e development of the aodern communications net-rork, s o s t r~otablythe old l i n e of r a i l from Copperbelt t o Livingstone but also the main a r t e r i a l roads north and e a s t ; these have stimulated both agricultural and urban development. The fourth (which is c l e a r l y interrelated with the t h i r d , and possibly the most Fsportant i n recent years), is urbanization, which has not only concentrated a substantial proportion of the population i n t o a few large urbau centers, but has also stimulated r u r a l settlement around the t o m s , v i t h t h e i r large food narkets and good corrrmunications. Zambia is one of the most massively urbanized countries i n Sub-Saharan Africa, wicn L3 percent of the population living i n urban centers at the t h e of the 1980 census. This urbanization is characterized by t-ao s t r i k i n g features; f i r s t , w p l o s i v e urban growth since independence, now slzckening oi f ; and second, concentr;rtion i n large, truly urban, towns founded on strong economic bases of nining, industry, o r c e n t r a l government administration. The trend i n urbanization since inzependence is s h o ~ xi a d e t a i l i n Appendix Ta5Ie 6.3.2 and smnarizcd in Table 92 below, giving the growth races of urban acd r u r a l p o ~ u l a t i o n sby province jetween 1963 and 1980: :hese srz also dis?layod ~ r a p h i c a l l y53 figures D.7.X,3. - 32' Tor t h s d e f i n i t i o c s of urban used in Zanbia see pa;e 7 .  f a b l e D.2 Urban Growrh Rate Rural Growth Bate Trovince 1963-69 1969-7k 1974-80 1963-69 1969-75 1974-80 central1/ ~ o p p e r bt~ l --stern Luapula Yorthem Yorth-Vestern;!/ - Southern '~es tern21 - T o t a l Zambia 8.2 6.7 6.4 .5 1.0 1.2 -11 Data f o r the new h n t r i l and Lusaka provinces a r e not a v s i l a b l e f o r 1963 o r 1976. Data f a r 1963 and 1980 are shown i n Table A.D.Z. - 21 Yort!~-Wescen had no l o c a l i t i e s c l a s s i f i e d a s urban c e n t e r s i n 1963 o r 1969; Yest:ern a i s o bad m n e 5n 1963. %e overall picture is of high urban grouch, ranging from 5-12 ?ercent per annun, everyvhere bet-deen 1963 and 1969: these vere the years i m e d i a t e l y following Lndependence, vhen copper was booming and c o l o n i a l r c s t r i c c i o n s on urban iiigration bad j u s t been l i f t e d . After 1969, .with the c o l l a p s e 05 a l p p e r , there w a s a f a l l io urban growth r a t e s i n Central and Copperbelt provicces accoupanisd by a v a s t a c c e l e r a t i o n everyvhere else; t h e l a t t e r (as w i l l be seen l a t e r ) being s o s t l y a product of r e c l a s s i f y i n g l o c a l i t i e s f r a n r u r a l to urban. Because of t h e nunerical dominance of Central and b p p e r b c i t , :he n a t i o n a l urban growth rate f e l l continuously from 8.2 percent befoze i969 r o 6.2 percent bet-.een 1976 and 1980. Ccnversely r u r a l growth ;as uniformly low (except i n the s p e c i a l c a s e of Coppertel:) bet-seen 1963 and 1969; Eastern and Southern r u r a l ?opulations grew by less than one percent per annun, while Luapula and Y o r c h e n a c t u a l l y s u f f e r e d decreases. 3etween 1969 and 1974, r u r a l growth r a t e s hiproved somevnat in E a s t t n , Xorthern and Cestern, renained static i n C e n t r a l , 2nd f e i l i n t k e o t h e r ?rovinces; between 1976 and 1980 t h e r e w a s z n .I?turr! in 211 ?rovinc=s b u t E a s t t t n , Yor:hern and Zestern. Some of these fluc:ua:iocs bec-iieen 1959 r3d 1980, however, could well be due t o d a t a roble lens in i97L, and not coo aucn s t r e s s should be l a i d on d e t a i l e d trends i u r l n g t h i s 7eriod. 3 e i a p o r t a ~ tp.lqt is :hat i n a11 pro-~iccesbut !jestern an? Zo??ert.el: rhe r n r d g r c x r h rz:t rose o v e r a l l '5ets.een 1969 and I980 :=on L:3 1963-53 - Y:.e nazionz?. r u r a l growth r a r e doubled from .5 percent ? e t anntn 'ze:-isen LS63 acd 1969 r 3 jusr over o r e sercent be:-deen 1969 and 1380. 3 . e resulting L ~ r e l sof crbanizarion a r e given i n Appendix T a j l e ; . 3 . 1 anc smnarizea in Table 3.3 5elow and Figure 3 . B , shich snow the ?ropor=ion u i i a n of n a t i o n a i and ? r g v i n c i a l ?opulacions i n each census year.: - ! 2acr for the 1969-3G ?erlod .-2 s h o w i n Appendix Table A.il.2 and Figure 3 . 2 . A f o r reference.  Table D.3 Percentage Urban Out of Total Population Province L961/63 1969 1974 1980 ( Yew) C:entral (\lev) Lusaka (Old) Central Copperbelt "~ a s t e r a . Luapula, Yorthern Xorthvestern Southern Yesterra. Total Zambia 21 29 36 43 The provinces clearly f a l l i z t o three groups. The f i r s t comprises Copperbelt and the new Lusaka province, and is essentially urban i n character with l e s s than a f i t r h of the p ? u l a t i o n nov rural-dvelling; i t contains parts cf the l i a e of r a i l and eight out of the ten large urban ar?as. The second conprises Southern and the aeu Csntral province and is moderately urbanized . ri:h a quarter to a third of the population aov urban-dwelling; it holds the remainins parts of the Pine of r a i l and the remaining two large urban areas. The third h c l u d e s a l l the off-line-of-rail provinces, Eastern, Luapula, Yorthern, Northwestern and ilestern and is still only l i g h t l y urganized with between a tenth and a f i f t h of the population urban-duelling; there a r e no large urban areas. The pace of urbanizarion has Seen slowest in the f i r s t group, f a s t e r i n the second group, a d spectacularly f a s t i n the th'rd group, particulazly a f t e r L976. >is is partly, of course, a func. rn of the ~ n i t i a llevel of urbanization and accual s i z e of urban population in each province and does not prevent Capperbelt and Lusab from being s t i l l the dominant urban areas. Their hportance can be c l e a r l y seen i n Table D.4 below; which gives the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Zambia's urban population among provinces by 1980. -Again the three groups a r e evident. Lusaka and Capperbelt bet-ieen the3 hold 71 ?ercent of the coutry's urban population (nearly 0722 cuarter ar.C ana half respectively; Central and Sout::ern each have ahout 7.5 ssrcent; an2 :he rss: of :he provinces range betueen one and f i v e ?ercent. >-s ?as keen 3_L~.2aCynored, thas2 three grDups Ciffer h tho type of ur5aoization as % e l l a s rhe level. The definition of xrban has varied over ---e -.h , - Ln Zanbis. 3owe-:er, :?ie== 5as al-~ays5ce3 a distinction nade betrecn -;.- ---= , a L 5 , T ~ L X S (Liirzz L'rha-, .;reas) anc the s a a l l e r to~-nshi?s( a t ?r=senc  callled Small Urban the current cut-off point between the two seems lri practice to be a w p u i a t i o n of 40,000 t o 50,000, v i t h no obvious minilnum s i z e f o r the s s a l l e r centers. The LUAs consist of the seven Copperbelt t o m s plus Lusa'ka, Kabue and Livingstone, a l l ten on o r very c l o s e t o the l i n e of rail. m e SJTs consist of a l l other urban centers i n the country and numbered 75 i n 1980. Table D.4 Xo. of TJrban Z of Total Urban Province Duellers, 1980 Population, 1980 (ko) Central 183,* 32 (Xew) Lusaka 579,118 (Old) Central C~pperbel t Eastern Luapula 30r t h e m :?~rthvest e n Souchern Vestern Total Zambia 2,440,419 LOO .O So definirion of urban is given i n the 1963 Census &port, but 50th 1arp.e t o w s and small townships were included. I n 1969 an urban a r e a xas defined 2s "a localicy containing a t l e a s t 5,000 people, the naj o r i t y of whom a r e dependent on aon-sgrfcul t u r d occupatioas" . In i97G there were t-JO- t = s o r i ~ s of urten center; the f i r s t was Large LIrban k e a , defined a s having a r it&": -\O,OO? inhabitants, and the second comprised L w t ~"Snzll Grban .*..as znL lociaships (including dl diszrict, bonas however small] + i :in% r--5 IS7L e s t i z a t e d population of :ass thao 30,30Cl." So defin',t.'.g.i I s ;-e7 < . the ?-;eli~inary1980 . . Censxs b p o r c , but urban center: .ri: :- e 1: iz:-. 2 groups, Large iirban .Lrezs aod S c l d l L'rSa- Tonshi?:. 3.-~t:. -:rf -~!.nrcould oo longer be 30,3CC siilce a f e w of =he SSTs :.:r:2sz: r:-\?.s7.3 38G.  Table 3.5 below shows f i r s t the national distribution of urban population by s i z e of l o c a l i t y . Table D.5 Yo. af lahabitants Xo. of Urban Centers Total Urban Population xos . X Large Urban -Areas 500,a)oO i Soall Urban To~mships 25,000-k9,999 10,0100-14,999 5,000- 4,999 1,000- 4,999 Less than 1,000 Total LJAs Tocnl S'JTS Fercentages nay not add exactly to totals-, due to rounding. The dominance of large-scale urbanization in Zambia is very clear; 78 percent of all dwellers l i v e in t o m s v i t h more than 50,000 inhabitants, and indeed nearly half i n t o m s of more than a quarter of a million. Lusaka alone, with over half a z i l l i o n inhabitants, accotmts for nearly a quarter of the e n t i r e urban population. Xt the other end of the scale, only 10 percent of =ban dvellers l i v e ia cows v i t h l e s s t h n 10,000 izhabitants, and l e s s ihan 5 percent i n :o~-o.s -xitS l e s s than 5,OCO. R e variation Setxeen provircss i n concentration of urban population, hovever , is very sar'ked, a s can be seen from Xpperdix Table X.D.3 and Tabla 9.6 belov:  25, W 9 , 9 9 3 53 Sc 16 - - LO, -24 ,?S9 -- 3 - 54 - 7 - 17 9 17 40 40 5,COC-3,999 - L 7 24 25 21 7 W 36 L , W , 9 9 9 * - - - x 7 22 5 15 22 17 21 kiss tkm 1,m - * - - * 4 - - - - - Total LL3s LC0 93 78 39 Total %Ts * - 6 21 LOO LOO LOO 62 LC0 LOO m LOO LOO LOO LOO .loo LOO LOO LC0 LOO - k. of LLb 7 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3.of %IS 1 4 7 8 5 L2 20 LO 8- *-less &ma-e mt. Percentage zay m t add -5y to eotdls, due to mdiq ermrs. . h o s t a l l the urban population of the most urbanized provinces, Copperbelr and Lusaka, is concentrated i n large toms. The group of intersediate urbanization, Centrsd and Southern, both show substantial ?roportions concentrated i n one large t o m s apiece; but mall t o m s are even sore important i n Southera vhich contains the longest s t r e t c h of the l i n e of r a i l with i c s accompanying mall urban centcrs. In all the other provinces there a r e no large tobns and the e n t i r e urbvl population is dispersed i n s c a l l c c ~ i s h i ? s . indeed i n Kestern and Norrhvestern, the tvo provinces of xost rzcent urbanization, the largest t o m had no more than 24,319 and 15,032 inhzbitan:~ respectively. Clearly l a r ~ et o c ~ ss t i l l dominate the pattern of urbanization i n Zr-3ia. Xovever the bzlanco has been snifti-g over recon= years v i t h the overall r a t + o r growth for large towns cocsiderably lower i n recent years, than for m a l l :osnshi?s. .?-ppendis Tab12 ..L.D.A, Figures D.5.X,S and Table -. 3.7 5elas skov zrrst :.!12 z r o ~ ~ tr aht s s of the LChs between 1963 and 1980;  - 13 - Table D.7 Intercensal Average Annual Rate of Growth Large Ctban Area 1963-69 1969-7!, 1974-80 1969-80 Lusaka iCitve Xdol a Nufulira Chingo:La 'Ka Sue Luanshga Living!stone Chililiibombwe 'Kaluluqhi Total LUX Population 7.9 6.5 3.4 4.8 Growth r a t e s have apparently f a l l e n sharply since the W e d i a t e post-Independence period, from an average or' 8 percent i n 1963-69 to under 5 percent i n the 1970s. If 1974 is taken into consideration the decrease seems to have been auch sharper i n the late 1970s than i n the e a r l y 19709, and t h i s is quite plausible given Zambia's economic h i s t o r y over the past 15 years; however the uncertain q u a l i t y of the 1976 d a t a precludes assurance on this point. It is clear, none the less, that large tova growth has been much reduced o v e r a l l ; indeed i n four of the seven Copperbelt t o m s , namely ChingolLa, Xufulira, L~lanshyaand Chililabcmbve, grovth r a t e s are now down to, o r below, l i k e l y r a t e s of n a t u r a l increase, inplying t h a t n e t immigration t o these 1:owns has ceased. Only Kabwe and W u l u s h i still maintain races of growth t h a t a r e unequivocally well above l i k e l y natural increase. However, since :Large-urban r a t e s of natural increase vill probabiy be auch higher than r u r a l o r national averages, became of lowered mortality, persisting high f e r t i l i t y and a favorable age structure, the large urban popuiation vill probabl-y still concinue t o grow f a s t e r and the proportion of the population residing izi LUh 'dl1 increase still further. Growth r a t e s f o r the SZI,l tomship population present rather a d i f f e r e n t picture, a s c a r be seen from Appendix Table A:3.9, which shows availalrlr data on s i z e and growth betyeen 1969 aod 19800/ f o r a l l the 75 SUTs l i s t e d i n 1980; these d a t a a r e sumarized i n ~ a b l e - ~ . 8below: - 5/ Da,ta 2r2 20: a v a i l a b l t f o r the e n t i r e L9iL/63 ?opularion (of a l l races) oi zh2 a a a l l s r to~nskL?s.  -- Table D.8 Total Population Intercensal Growth Rate Province . 1969 197G 1980 !.965-74 1974-80 1969-80 (Xew) Central 0 (Xew) Lusaka 11,481 (Old) Central ?L,G81 Copperbel t 0 Eastern 13,413 Luapula 7,066 Southern ?.5,210 Northern 14,206 Northwestern 0 18,759 38,045 - 11.8 - Western 9,600 31,370 62,578 23.7 11.5 17.O - - - - -- - -- - --- Total Zambia 74,380 245,972 540,143 23.9 13.1 18.0 There has been a spectacular increase i n the small-tom urban population in every province since 1969, which more than tripled i n the 5 years between 1969 and 1971 and then more than doubled again in the 6 years between i975 and 1980; t h e overall increase from 1969 t o 1980 w a s nore than 600 percent. The growth r a t e was generally higher i n the e a r l y 1970s than i n the l a t e 1980s. Tfiese figures, however, a r e somevhat misleading as they stand. Urban po?ulation can grov because che population within a given urban l o c a l i t y has increased 13. numbers, o r because the boundaries of the urban l o c a l i t g ha-?e been shifted t o include a larger area, or became l o c a l i t i e s jreviousljr classifred as rural have been moved into the category of urban. In the case of LC&, population increase .within the towns has been the dominant factor. In the case of the SUTs boundary changes appear not to be a signific.ant factor, but r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n certainly is, a s can be seen from Table D.9 below, which shovs the ambers or' l o c a l i t i e s c l a s s i f i e d as s m a l l t o w s i n 1969, i971 and 1980.  Table D.9 Province 1969 1974 1980 (Yew) Csntral (Sew) Lusaka Capperbel t Eastern Luapula Northern Southern Western Yortthwestern Total Zambia 8 57 75 Clearly the reclassification has been on an enormous scale, wlth only 8 SUTs in 1969 but 75 in i986, and is a major factor in the recorded grovth of %J'T population; c l e a r l y also, part of the reason f o r the higher SUT population growth r a t e i n 1969-74 than f n 1976-80 was the l a r g e r amber of reclassified l o c a l i t i e s added in the e a r l i e r period. It is hpassible, w!.th the data currently available, to t e l l what the popu.iation grovth r a t e s *Jitkin the reclassified l o c a l i t i e s were, since w e do not blow t h e i r population s i z e before reclassification, f o r those reclassified i n L974. Bowever ve can examine the growth r a t e s a f t e r reclassi.fication of those reclassified i n 1974, and also the grovth rates of the eight small towns already so categorized i n 1969. These a r e all s h o w graphically in Figure D.6, and the i a t t e r a r e also given ia Table D.10 below: Table D. LO - - - - Average k n u a l Small Urban ?opularion i n Intercensal Growth iZate Province To~nsni? 1969 1980 1969-74 1974-80 1969-80 Kafue Chipata Yansa Choaa Xazabu:a :Zzsama ! % a h :to ngu  There is obviously enornous variation i n levels and trends i n growth of SUTs betveen 1969 and 1980, no doubt due to individual town h i s t o r i e s and fluctuations i n data quality i n each case. I:! general, however, growth has been very high i n the l a t e 1970s. Moreover, out of the eight towns so c l a s s i f i e d since 1959 (which include a l l the l a r g e s t SUTs) the growth r a t e iocreased a f t e z 1976 f o r s i x of them. Again, the 1974 data cannot be considered absolutely r e l i a b l e , but it seems l i k e l y t h a t overall, the observed slackening of grovth i n the t o t a l SUT population a f t e r 1974 is due to a decrease i n the numbers of reclassifications rather than decelerating growth of the population u i t h i n the townships. Trends u i t h i n the small t o m s thus present an interesting contrast to those u i t h i n the l a r g e towns. In the SUTs grovth is generally much higher, and may w e l l have accelerated i n the late 19709, w h i l e in the LUAs growth is r e l a t i v e l y lov and appears to have decelerated Fn the late 1970s. The former have evidently grown chiefly through inmigration, v h i l e i n the l a t t e r natural increase has a l s o been important, and indeed may nov be the dominant component of grovth i n some. These trends a r e no doubt the mixed r e s u l t of goverument policies to decentralize industry and administration into smaller centers and of declines i n nining and i n d u s t r i a l d e v e l o p e a t i n the l a r g e toms. Internal Mgration Basic d i r e c t evidence on patterns of i n t e r n a l (and to some -tent international) s i g r a t i o a come from 1969 d a t a on place of b i r t h cross-classified by place of current residence; these measure only lifetime, o r "stock", migration, but are valuable n o n e t h e l e ~ s . ~ / Unfortunately the satching 1974 data are now i r r e t r i e v a b l e , so no more-up t o date information can be obtainec! u n t i l the 1980 census d a t a a r e ready. The I969 data a r e shovn i n the form of percentage distributions i n f u l l i n Qpendlx Table A.D. 6; they are a l s o smimarized below i n Table D.11. Table D. 11 Percentage of iksidents Percentage of Xative-3orn vho are Native-Bon Now Resident Elsewhere (Inmigration) (Oucnigration) Xorthwest e n Luapula -Xorchern r a s t e m Lirie of Xail Southern ,,ziicral ,- Cdp?erjel: - 7 / X cu(=sEioil.;as asked on $ace of residence one year previously, which could have provided "flow" infomatLon, but was apparently poor1y understood 2nd not answered reliably.  The percentages of residents vho vere born i n the same province is a measure of the a t t r a c t i o n of the province to imnigrants. The overwhelming a t t r a c t j . 0 ~of Central and Copperbelt, about half of whose residents had moved i n from elsewhere, is very clear. So also is the r e l a t i v e uzlattractiveness of Vestern, !;orth Glestern, Luapula, Yorthern and Eastern all of whom had only about LO percent foreigners among t h e i r residents. Southern occupies an iateciecliate position, having attracted 17 percent of its residents from e1sewhex:e. n e s e patterns obviously r e s u l t from migration to t o m s , and t o the devc!lopment surrounding the line-of-rail, and c o n f i n the data on urbanization already discussed. Conversely, the percentage of native-born l o s t is a measure of the propensity t o outsigrate from a province. The patrern here is rather varied. The heaviest losers a r e Sorthem and a s t e r n , each with around a quarter of t h e i r native-born l o s t , followed closely by Sorth Western and Luapula, each wich a l o s s of just over a f i f t h . The l i g h t losers are, a s expected, Central,, Copperbelt and. Southern, but also Vestern. Evidently the urbanized line-of-.rail provinces have retained t h e i r population a d the r u r a l off-line!-cf-rail population have l o s t t h e i r s , the exception beirg Western which apparenrly has rather an i m o b i l e population. This is again much as expected from the urban data. The f u l l pattern of interprovincial migration, shorn in Appendix Table X.D.6, holds few surprises. Briefly, Copperbelt a t d Cerrtral a r e the magnets for all other provinces, with Capperbelt the more a t t r a c t i v e to Xorzhwes,t e r n , Luapula and fiorthern, vhile Central is nore a t t r a c t i v e t o Eastern and Southern, and there is l i t t l e difference between the two f o r l e s t e r n , vhich is most a t t r a c t e d to Southern; Copperbelt also a t t r a c t s s i g r a t i o n from Cantral. These flovs follow the normal "gravity" pattern of migratia~n,wnereby the nearest a t t r a c t i o n s a r e preferred. .As a summary, Table D.12 belov shows the nmber and percentage of t o t a l pa~pulationborn i n and resident i n each province with the net gain/ loss. .Qain the massive nigratory gains of Copperbelt and Central, t h e minor gain of Southern, the substantial losses of Xorthwestern, Luapula, Xorthorn and Eastera, and the m a l l e t l o s s of Western, can be c l e a r l y seen. These data of course shov only the situation i n 1969, a f t e r the period o f m s s i v e urban growth and r ~ r a lnear-stasis o r decline. For a ref1ec:ion of subsequent trends ve aust await the 1980 census results. Some ixdirect evidence, hovever, together ~71thfurther confirsation of migration flovs up t o 1969 and general urbanization patterns, can be gathered f r o s provir~cialgrovth r a t a s , as vell as sex r a t i o s of provinces and t o m s and - incompleea ase distriSution data from 19iL for urban and r u r a l population./ - 3: -+e and sex dlstrlhutions far ur5an and rural ?opulations as a vnola >;ere not t a b u l a t e d L2 1959 and a i e not pet available f o r 1980; age ~:;stri5utiocs zx5sc for 197L, but only f o r both sexes coobineci. See seccfon an as% structxr2.  Table D.12 Percentage of T o t a l No. of Yative Xo. of Yon- Population of 3orn Lost, Xative brn !let Gain/ of Zanbia, 1969 Province 1969 Gained, 1969 Lass, 1969 Besident I n Born I n 0ff - l i ne- rail - Western 62,521 40,891 -21,730 10.1 10.6 :Torthwes:ern 61,250 21,001 -40,249 5.7 6.7 Luapula 76,494 37,381 -39,113 8.3 9.4 Xorthern 168,742 50,378 -163,364 13.4 16.4 163,695 47,659 -116,036 12.6 15.4 Southera 65,289 84,600 +',9,3 11 12.2 11.8 C e n t r a l 75,733 311,667 +235,934 17.6 11.8 CopperSe!l t CL,Y34 444,756 +382,922 20.1 10.7 T o t a l Zasbia - - - LOO .O 100. Oa/ - -a/ Includes a l s o 1.5 p e r c e c t of not-stated b i r t h p l a c e . Table D.13 below shovs i s t e r c e n s a l growth rates by province, summarized from Appendix Table A.P. 1. They are a l s o displayed g r a p h i c a l l y i n Figures D.3.X,B. Table D.13 A v c ~ a g eAnnual I c t e r c e n s a l G r w t h Xates ( X ) P r c v i a c e 1963-59 l969-7& 1974-80 1969-80 C e n t r a l Copperbel: 3 scerz Luapula Sorrherr. !ioi~tves:?r~ Souther. Yesterx  Rese patterns are by now easy to interpret. Copperbelt and (old) Central s u f f e r e d d e c e l e r a t i n g growth from t h e high l e v e l of 1963-69, a s the pace of large-tovn urbanization slackened during the 1970s; a l l o t h e r provinces but 'dest2rn experienced a c c e l e r a t i n g growth from the low point of the l a t e 1960s. The tuo provinces ' d t h lowest, indeed negative, growth during t h e 1963-69 period were Xorthern and Luapula; Uesterb s u f f e r e d decreasing growth a f t e r 1969. A l l these trends r e f l e c t i n i t i a l l y high rural-to-large town migration from every r u r a l province but Cestern, which then declined s i r h the d e c l i n i n g mining and i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r s ; consequently the growth of t h e highly urbanized provinces f e l l while t h a t o f t h e r u r a l provinces, with t h e i r developing mall towns, picked up. The anonalous trend i n Vestern suggests t h a t perhaps d g r a t i o n t o l a r g e t o m s may have been lagged, beginning to be Fmportant only a f t e r it had reached its peak and s t a r t e d t o d e c l i n e i n t h e rest o f Zambia; however confirmation of t h i s must await the 1980 data. Data on levels and trends in provincial sex r a t i o s , useful i n d i c a t o r s of a i g r a t i o n d i r e c t i o n and l e v e l , are given below i n Table D.14 and shown g r a p h i c a l l y i n Figures D.7X,9. T a b l e D. 14 Reported Sex Ratio 91963 / 1980 (?lev) Cent,ral (Yew) Lusaka Cent:cal Coppl~rbelt zastlem Luap~ula Xorthern Xorthwestern .Southern . nes t e r n T a t a l Zambia 98.7 96.0 94.7 96.2 -a; For t h e African ?opulation, except f o r T o t a l Zambia; hence not s t r i c c l y conparable, but the &u=lusion of Yon-Africans should not make auch d i f f e r e w e . These d a t a a r e complicated t o i n t e r p r e t , because of t h e uncertainties surroundisg the changes in the national sex ratio an$ possible -?ariations ia :he r e l a t i v e undercounilng of a a l e s acd females. i-??vever, the e x ~ e c t e d? a t t e r n appears cf high sex r a t i o s i n ~ h urbanized nigrant- e receiving provinces of b e p e r 5 e l c acd Central/Lusaka, low sex r a t i o s i n t h e r u r a l zigrant-sending of h a p u l a , :iorth Vestern, Yorthera and EasCern, acd -ne osuai i.3-Sezveen ?osiclon f g r 3ourhern (anc! t h e new Central province); L .  western is again a curious anomaly since its sex r a t i o s a r e almost the lowest although net a i g r a t i o n is r e l a t i v e l y ninor. It is also possible to discern the expected o v e r a l l trend of sex r a t i o s f a l l i n g a f t z r 1963 i n the urbanized provinces and r i s i n g , o r a t l e a s t remaining f a i r l y s t a b l e , a f t e r 1963 o r 196Sr i n the r u r a l provinces; t h i s could be a t t r i b u t e d t o the commonly supposed i n i t i a l 'catching up' movement of wives and families t o the l a r g e t o m s betveen 1963 and 1969, followed by a slackening i n purely d e labor s i g r a t i o n coupled with a settling-down of families already there. Unfortunately, similar t h e s e r i e s of sex r a t i o s for t o m s a r e not a v a i l a b l e . Sowever, some notion of the nacure of presenc-day urban populations can be gained from t h e data f o r 1980, srnrnnarized from Appendix Tables A.D. 4 , 5 i n Table D.15 below. Table D.15 Trovinci-i Small Urban Large Urban .Area Sex Ratio 1980 Tomship Population Sex k t i o 1980 Lusaka (Sew) Central :titste (New) Lusaka Ndola (Old) Central Yufulira Copperbelt Chingola 'Kabwe Luapula Luanshya Southern .Uvings tone - Northern Chililabombwe Xorthwestern :(dLtlushi Western Total LUXs 106 Total SUTs 97 There is c l e a r l y some difference between l a r g e and small towns. The LUA sex r a t i o s a r e f a i r l y consistent, ranging only from 106 t o 108 and a r e a l i t t l e above n o n a l i t y , indicating a well-settled but not yet e n t i r e l y norsally st;ructured population. The SUTs by contrast vary widely between themselves ( a s can 5e seen even more c l e a r l y i n Table X.D.5) with a range of 77 t o 191, but o v e r a l l a r e l e s s than, o r close t o a r a t i o of LOO, indicating no general sovement of labor &grants o r uell-developed economic base for SYTs a s a class. Clearly, a l s o , :he s i t u a t i o n is still faFrly f l u i d i n the SUTs , while the LEA populations appear s o r e balanced and vell-established; sudden and rapid larse-scale net out-migration is not l i k e l y Crom the l a t t e r over the near future (since s e t t l e d families tend t o be l e s s nobile), whereas cnpredi:=abfs and sudden f l o ~ sa r e quire conceivails i n the forser. .. nay conclude by b r i e f l y mentioning ~ n a can be gleaned of the t characceristlc age znci sex s t r u c t u r e of the t o t a l urban population from the 197: .~r