Review: [untitled] Author(s): Basil G. Zimmer Reviewed work(s): Controlling London's Growth: Planning the Great Wen, 1940-1960.

by Donald L. Foley Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 6 (Dec., 1964), pp. 944-945 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2090895 Accessed: 12/12/2009 18:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

944

AMERICANSOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
is consideredlarge. If all of this sounds idealistic, it is mild by comparison with the solutions other countriesmay be forced to adopt. CHARLESF. WESTOFF
Princeton University Controlling London's Growth: Planning the Great Wen, 1940-1960. By DONALD L. FOLEY,

is the villain, however, and very seldom is on the positiveconsequences thereany emphasis of growth,but their argumentsby and large arepersuasive. A good review of Americanresearchon the social factors affectingfertility is followed by a recitation of the arguments againsta stationary of why these populationand a demonstration are invalid; the economic,scientific arguments and militaryjustificationsfor a growingpopulationare vigorouslyrebutted. Their very sound positionon the questionof man'stechnological an everand scientificcapabilities for supporting expanding populationis that the goal shouldbe to maximizethe quality of life, not to support the largestnumberof personsthat can be kept alive. It is not obvious,however,that a stationary populationin this countrywould promote economicgrowth.One might equallywell argue (the authorsdo not) that we ought to aim at time reducingpopulation. But at this particular in this country there are economicas well as psychological reasons to regard population growthas a stimulusratherthan an impediment to economic growth. In perhapsthe weakestchapter,some of the argumentsincluded in many eugenicists'programs are refuted by a strongly cultural apof IQ, skin color, inproachto the significance come, education, and so on. Although the authorseffectivelydestroy the propositionthat populationgrowth produces cultural progress, their insistencethat the same Athenianculture with twice as many Athenianswould not have producedtwice as many Aristotles is neither logically relevant nor particularlyplausible. Given the authors'strong convictionthat it to achievea stationary is imperative population, in the final chapterare their recommendations quite sensible and realistic. They stress the alimportantpoint that perfect contraception, though obviously important,is not the final solutionto the problemand that people'sideals of family size will have to be altered-an obto achieve jective that may not be as impossible as it sounds,considering the experience of many European countries. Their program requires governmentleadershipand involves a general educationalcampaignon the populationproblem, promoting access to all methodsof family limitation, advertising the advantages of a small family and later marriageand increasing the appeal of alternative activities, such as employmentfor women. These efforts are to be made within a democraticcontext, where no unwantedchild is born, where the decision to bear a child is made solely by the potential parents,and where a family of three children

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1963. xvi, 224 pp. $5.00. The GreaterLondonPlan, which is the subject of this book, proposed that the growth of the metropolitan regionbe firmlycontrolled. This plan was largely instigatedby the central government during the war years and was approvedas public policy between 1941 and 1946, while London and other urban areas were under heavy bombingattacks. The plan had two aims: (1) nationally, to limit the growth of the metropolitan region in order to preventan undueconcentration of employment, to halt uncontrolled and (2) regionally, suburban spreadand to limit the density of development by redistributing population and employment within the region. Redistributionwas to be accomplishedpartly through the creation of new towns with a maximum population of 60,000 and a metropolitan green belt. The new towns were to be largely self-contained,with a cross sectionof incomeand class levels. They were designedto siphon off excess population and employmentfrom inner, congested areas. The greenbelt wouldhalt undesirable suburban growth, preserve good agriculturalland conveniently close to London,and wouldbe available for the enjoymentof Londonresidents. The author addresseshimself to two questions: (1) what are the main social policies incorporatedin the plans for metropolitan London, and (2) how effectively have these policies been carriedout in the face of subsequent development forces? The book is directed primarilyto an Americanaudience. The first part of the book presentsthe backgroundof the plan and how it evolved, and in the second part, the author describesthe governmental for carryingout the plan, machinery the economic and demographic trends in the London region, the programs for decreasing density, creating the metropolitangreen belt and buildingnew townsand expanding old ones. He also discusses modificationsin the plans and policies over time. Of particularinterest in Part III is the author's discussionof the Containment Concept,that is, the attempt to limit the growth of populationand industry

BOOK REVIEWS

945

in London. This he shows to be the unifying Human Fertility and Population Problems. of the Edited by Roy 0. GREEP. Proceedings key to the plans. by the Academyof Arts SeminarSponsored Unfortunately,the author attempts to find in this study for Ameriand Sciences with the support of the Ford particularsignificance Foundation.Cambridge,Mass.: Schenkman can planners.London is a unique case and it Publishing Co., 1964. 278 pp. $7.45 (paper, is readily apparent that what was possible in the United $2.65). there could not be accomplished in the functionsof States becauseof differences This excellent collection of papers and acgovernment at both the local and national are companyingdiscussionsstems from a seminar the generalizations level. More particularly, in land con- held in 1963.Six of ten papersrelateto biologilimited becauseof the differences taxa- cal and clinical aspects of humanfertility and property a local of trol and the significance these differences its control. In his "cyberneticsof population tion. Foley tends to underplay Plan- control,"HudsonHoaglandlooks at the human Metropolitan for American in his "Lessons ning."Thus, while the study has inherentvalue populationproblem from a perspective influas an interestingand thoughtfulpresentation enced by his knowledgeof animal behavior. of what happenedin London in carryingout A. S. Parkes presents a broad review of the and organizational biology of fertility. In his survey of "physiothe plan,the uniquehistorical means of variables in London limit the generalizations logic" as opposed to "mechanical" that can be made on the basis of the findings. fertility control, C. R. Garciaselects for parIt is rather surprisingthat as a sociologist ticular emphasis the ovulation inhibitors. A Foley did not make more use of the work more detailedtreatmentof currentresearchin being done by the Centrefor Urban Studiesat this area is given by GregoryPincus. Warren UniversityCollege,London.For example,repre- 0. Nelson concentrateson physiologic means to the male.JohnRock looks forward sentativesof the Centretend to be criticalof the pertaining includingtechniques Concept,which the directorin a to possible"easymethods" Containment has called the anti-urbanism exploiting the olfactory sense and the applirecent publication policy. Perhapsmore contact with this group, cation of heat. ChristopherTietze presents as well as others who have criticizedthe de- some strikingfacts about the incidenceof legal centralists' goals, would have tempered the abortion. Four other papersrelate to social, economic of the merits author'slaudatoryinterpretation of the GreaterLondon Plan. In his capacity and cultural aspects. John Wyon presents a as a planner,Foley seems to have been unduly case for field studies broad enough to encomand Green Belt pass the many types of factors affectinghuby the decentralists influenced amongthe Town and CountryPlan- man fertility, mortality and migration.Ansley enthusiasts J. Coale reviewssome of the relationsbetween ners. For the most part the author commendably economic developmentand growth rates, as what he set out to do, but the influenced by changing age composition, in accomplished areas. Ronald Freedmanoffers last chapter,"Doctrineand Change,"is disap- underdeveloped on the exciting efforts to a report progress analrather is a In it superficial pointing. part ysis of the power structurein England,and in accelerate fertility decline in Taiwan. Billing part an appraisalof the planningprofession. her paper as "purelyan armchairenterprise," Cora A. Du. Bois outlines The author describesthe facilities availablein the anthropologist, Englandfor the trainingof city plannersand a strategy for fosteringfamily planningwhich concludesthat such trainingis generallypoor. turns out, quite fascinatingly,to share many guidingthe Taiwan He then proceedsto drawa roughblueprintfor elementswith the principles strengtheningthe planning schools, in which programas reportedby Freedman. Addinginterest to the papersis the heavily he urges plannersto become more professional edited discussionwhich occupies a little less moreon research. and to concentrate this book has than one-thirdof the book. At severalpoints it In spite of a few shortcomings and apa great deal to offer.Anyone interestedin the illustratesthe disparateinterpretations from different urban communitywould profit greatly from a proachescarriedby investigators carefulreadingof this report.The book should disciplinesto the same problem, such as the be widely used in courses in city planning, seasonalvariation of human birth rates. Percommu- haps the strongest points of this volume are urban sociology,and the metropolitan its scope of subject matter and the efforts of nity. distinguishedinvestigatorsto popularizetheir BASIL G. ZIMMER specialties. Inevitably it is subject to speedy Brown University