Population Growth, Social Segregation, and Voting Behavior in Lima, Peru, 1940–2016

Henry A. Dietz

Description

As one of South America’s larger capital cities, Lima, Peru, is remarkably understudied as a demographic and economic entity unto itself. In this important book, Henry Dietz presents an in-depth historical, sociological, and political analysis of a major Latin American city in the post–World War II period. Dietz examines electoral data for Lima’s districts from six censuses conducted between 1940 and 2007, framed against a backdrop of extensive demographic data for the city, to trace the impact of economic collapse and extended insurgency on Lima and its voters. Urbanization in Lima since World War II has at times been rapid, violent, and traumatic, and has resulted in marked social inequalities. Dietz looks at how equity across the city has not in general improved; Lima is today segregated both spatially and socially. Dietz asks if and how a high degree of segregation manifests itself politically as well as socially and spatially. Do urban dwellers living under profound and enduring social segregation consistently support different parties and candidates? As institutional political parties have faded since the 1990s and have been replaced by personalist movements, candidacies, and governments, Dietz explores how voters of different social classes behave. The result is a vital resource for researchers seeking well-contextualized information on elections and economics in Peru. This book will be of interest to scholars of politics or economics, especially in Latin America, but also to a much wider audience interested in how the developments in Lima, Peru, affect the global sociopolitical climate.

How large was the city of Lima compared to the nation? The 1940 Census calculated a national population of 6,208,000 people; the province of Lima therefore contained 9 percent of the country’s total. 2,240,000 Peruvians were classified nationally as urban (36.1 percent), while 3,968,000 were rural. The Department of Lima had a population of 829,000, or 13.3 percent of the national total. Slightly more than three quarters (76.1 percent, or 630,000) of the Department’s residents were urban, meaning that the Department of Lima contained 28 percent of the nation’s urban population. The Province of Lima, with a population of 563,000, was (as noted above) 95 percent urban, and was thus home to just under a quarter of the nation’s total urban population. And finally, the District of Lima contained 270,000 people, all of whom were classified as urban, meaning that 12 percent of the country’s total urban population resided in one district. In passing, how did Lima compare to other major cities in Peru? Callao, Lima’s port city, had in 1940 a total of 82,300 (98.8 percent urban), or 14.6 percent of the Metropolitan Lima’s total. The argument can be made, of course, that Callao is so close to Lima (about ten kilometers distant) and the two are so intertwined, that they each feed off one another’s growth. Putting aside Callao, therefore, what were Peru’s largest cities after Lima?
In first place was Arequipa, in the southern highlands. Its provincial population was 129,000, three quarters of which was urban; its capital city (also Arequipa), contained about half of the province (62,000 people), 98 percent of whom were urban. The Province of Arequipa was thus less than a quarter the population of the Province of Lima; the urban population of the city of Arequipa was about 16 percent that of urban Lima. In second place was the northern coastal city of Trujillo, whose provincial population was 117,000, half urban and half rural (59,000 each). Its capital city of Trujillo had a population of 46,000; 37,000, or 80 percent, were urban. Trujillo Province was a fifth the size of the Province of Lima; its urban population was less than a tenth that of urban Lima.
Cuzco was the third largest city in 1940. Located high in Peru’s southern Andes, its population was listed at 46,000 (78 percent urban), or 84 percent of the total Province of Cuzco. The Province of Cuzco was about 7 percent that of the Province of Lima. Or in sum, Lima was in 1940 roughly six times the size of Arequipa, ten times the size of Trujillo, and fourteen times the size of Cuzco.
One other note on Lima-national comparisons: in 1940, the Department of Lima had the largest population in the country, as already noted. But the next four largest departments were all highland (not coastal): Puno (548,000), Cajamarca (494,000), Cuzco (487,000), and Junín (429,000), which together totaled 1,958,000, or 31.5 percent of the country’s total and 2.4 times the size of the Department of Lima. The point is that regardless of Lima’s growth, Peru in 1940 was still largely rural and the majority of its populace resided in the Andean highlands. Despite the growth of the Province of Lima overall from 1931 to 1940, the city itself had changed relatively little administratively. It did expand from eighteen to twenty districts; the new districts were Lince (formed in 1936 out of Lima Cercado), which was totally urban from its beginning, and Chaclacayo (1940), an outlying largely rural area east of the downtown. Other changes involved nomenclature: Magdalena Vieja changed its name to Pueblo Libre; San José de Surco became more commonly known as Barranco; and Santiago de Surco likewise shortened itself to Surco. The1940 Census classified a dozen districts as one hundred percent urban: Lima Cercado, Barranco, Chorrillos, La Victoria, Lince, Magdalena del Mar, Pueblo Libre, Miraflores, Rímac, San Isidro, San Miguel, and Surco. The Census notes (p. xxix) that a decree (9 February 1940) brought these twelve together under the heading of “Lima, ciudad capital”, which meant that these twelve comprised urban metropolitan Lima. Ancón, Ate, Carabayllo, Chaclacayo, Lurigancho, Lurín, Pachacamac and Puente Piedra were listed in the Census as mixed or partially rural districts, and while they were obviously linked to the urban core, they were not at the time part of “Lima, ciudad capital”. The twelve urban and eight mixed/rural districts comprised the Province of Lima. What demographic characteristics did the urban districts have? Not surprisingly, Lima Cercado was still easily the largest district. Its population of 270,000 was about five times larger than the second largest (Rímac, with 57,000) and was by itself almost half (47.9 percent) of the Province of Lima. However, its dominance had continued to slip since 1931, when, it had been home to 53.8 percent of the Province. Gran Lima (the combination of Lima Cercado, La Victoria and Rímac) had a total 1940 population of 382,000, or 68 percent of the Province – dominant to be sure, but, again less than it had been in 1931, when it was 74 percent, or in 1920, when it was 77 percent. (excerpted from chapter 2)

1. Lima 1940-2007: An Analytic Framework and Some Background to 1940
2. Lima 1940
3. Lima 1961
4. Lima 1972
5. Lima 1981
6. Lima 1993
7. Lima 2007
8. Discussion and Conclusions

References/Bibliography

Sujets

• Political Process
• Political Economy
• HISTORY
• POLITICAL SCIENCE
• Histoire
• América del Sur
• Politics Magazine
• Hispanic and Latino Americans
• South America
• Latin America
• Latina

Informations

• Publié par: University of Notre Dame Press
• Date de parution: 30 septembre 2019
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780268106157
• Langue: English

Extrait

POPULATION GROWTH, SOCIAL SEGREGATION, AND VOTING BEHAVIOR IN LIMA, PERU, 1940–2016

Copyright © 2019 by the University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
undpress.nd.edu
All Rights Reserved
Published in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Dietz, Henry A., author.
Title: Population growth, social segregation, and voting behavior in Lima, Peru, 1940–2016 / Henry Dietz. Description: Notre Dame, Indiana : University of Notre Dame Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019021671 (print) | LCCN 2019981134 (ebook) | ISBN 9780268106133 (Hardback) | ISBN 9780268106164 (PDF) | ISBN 9780268106157 (ePUB)
Subjects: LCSH: Voting—Peru. | Local elections—Peru—Lima (Province) | Political psychology—Peru. | Political participation—Peru—Lima. | Peru—Population. | Segregation—Peru.
Classification: LCC JL3492 .D44 2019 (print) | LCC JL3492 (ebook) | DDC 324.985/06—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019021671
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019981134
∞ This book is printed on acid-free paper.
This e-Book was converted from the original source file by a third-party vendor. Readers who notice any formatting, textual, or readability issues are encouraged to contact the publisher at [e-mail] .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
Acknowledgments
Map of Lima with District Names and Boundaries
Dates of Creation for Lima’s Districts
ONE Lima, 1940–2007: An Analytic Framework and 1Some Background to 1940
TWO Lima in 1940
THREE Lima in 1961
FOUR Lima in 1972
FIVE Lima in 1981
SIX Lima in 1993
SEVEN Lima in 2007
EIGHT Discussion and Conclusions
Notes
References
Index
LIST OF TABLES
1.1: Population of Lima by Districts, 1876
2.1: Metropolitan Lima Vote, 1945P
2.2: Reconstructed Presidential Votes by Lima Districts, 1945P
3.1: APRA/UNO versus AP/DC, 1963M
8.1: Lima’s SES Urban Clusters, 1940–2007: Population Percentages (%) of the City and Absolute Numbers in Thousands (000)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is my third book that deals with Lima, and each of them rests upon a great deal of assistance from a great many people. Since this book is based largely on existing sources and not on opinion surveys, I carried out most of the research myself. Nevertheless, many colleagues at the Uni versity of Texas gave freely of their time and expertise, including Larry Graham, Raul Madrid, Kurt Weyland, Wendy Hunter, Dan Brinks, Zach Elkins, Ken Greene, Bruce Buchanan, Zoltan Barany, and Mike Findley, all of the Department of Government. Individually and as a group, Michael Anderson, Stephanie Holmsten, and Michael Mosser became close friends. I would also like to mention the assistance of the staff of the Benson Latin American Collection.
Funding for research across many years came from the Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies.
Other colleagues and friends elsewhere include (but are not limited to) Steve Stein, Greg Schmidt, Scott Palmer, and Cynthia McClintock.
Leslie Anderson and Carol Wise both read the original manuscript; their comments and suggestions helped to improve the book in a variety of ways.
At the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, in Lima, among many friends, Martin Tanaka, Eduardo D’Argent, Rolando Ames, Jeffrey Klaiber, SJ, David Sulmont, Aldo Panfichi, Farid Kahhat, Henry Pease, Fernando Tuesta Soldevilla, and in particular José Íncio all provided assistance and friendship, as did Gilda Cogorno of the Riva-Aguero Institute. Other friends also need to be mentioned, including Marcia and Ernesto Paredes, Jaime Joseph, and Julio Calderon, and the staff at the Biblioteca Municipal, Lima.

Over the past half century, the various generations and branches of the family of Federico and Enriqueta Sanchez Gularte all count as among my closest friends in Peru; to each and all of them, my deepest appreciation.
I found the staff at the University of Notre Dame Press extremely helpful. Eli Bortz, now editor in chief, was encouraging from the beginning. Matt Dowd, managing editor, provided assistance at every turn, as did Wendy McMillen, design and production manager. Finally, Scott Barker was everything that a copyeditor could be: extraordinarily careful and quick to answer every question.
My family in Austin—Gillian and Harry, and Allison and Mike—all helped in different ways. Finally, nothing would have been accomplished without Anne’s patience and encouragement.
Map of Lima with District Names and Boundaries
DATES OF CREATION FOR LIMA’S DISTRICTS Ancón 1874 Ate 1857 Barranco 1874 Breña 1949 Carabayllo 1821 Chaclacayo 1940 Chorrillos 1857 Cieneguilla 1970 Comas 1961 El Agustino 1965 Independencia 1964 Jesús María 1963 La Molina 1962 La Victoria 1921 Lima 1857 Lince 1936 Los Olivos 1989 Lurigancho 1857 Lurín 1857 Magdalena del Mar 1920 Miraflores 1857 Pachacamac 1857 Pucusana 1943 Pueblo Libre 1857 Puente Piedra 1927 Punta Hermosa 1954 Punta Negra 1954 Rímac 1921 San Bartolo 1946 San Borja 1983 San Isidro 1931 San Juan de Lurigancho 1967 San Juan de Miraflores 1967 San Luis 1968 San Martín de Porres 1950 San Miguel 1920 Santa Anita 1989 Santa María del Mar 1962 Santa Rosa 1962 Santiago de Surco 1929 Surquillo 1949 Villa El Salvador 1983 Villa María del Triunfo 1961
Note : Callao and its six districts are shown on the map but are not included in the book.
CHAPTER 1
Lima, 1940–2007
AN ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK AND SOME BACKGROUND TO 1940
Lima es un pañuelo (Lima is a handkerchief).
—Author and date unknown
We would be missing . . . an essential attribute of [Lima] if we did not mention el alma limeña [the “soul” or “spirit” of Lima]. Something evanescent but real, faded but still present, hints at the most important moments in [Lima’s] life, or perhaps it is just an historical mention found in a book; the truth is that both natives and visitors find a certain peculiar nostalgia in the physiognomy of the city, in the atmosphere of its streets and ancient corners. . . . Everything here has a history. The name of a street, an inscription on a wall or frontispiece, perpetuates an episode from the past, whether trivial or typical, known or forgotten, that clings desperately to life.
—Raul Porras Barrnechea, quoted in Laos, Lima: La ciudad de los reyes (1928, 17)
Back in 1919 Lima was but a small town surrounded by miserable and insignificant hamlets. . . . Back then, [Avenida Alfonso Ugarte] was a pathetic, hideous boulevard flanked by dried-out willows, bereft of any kind of pavement. . . . January 1935. Lima glitters. Sunlight boosts the joy of the citizenry. There are parties at the Hotel Bolivar, at the Country Club, at the Club Nacional, at the racetrack. . . . Cars drive speedily on asphalt. The sumptuous furniture of the Palace; . . . music . . . flowers . . . beautiful women. Champagne flows abundantly; popular joy manifests itself in gay laughter.
—Guillermo Rodríguez Mariátegui (1935) (in Aguirre and Walker 2016, 128–32)
This book rests upon more than half a century’s fascination with one city in Latin America—Lima, the capital of Peru. My first visit to the city was in 1963. I was there for less than a week, but I left overwhelmed and intrigued by what I had seen. I then spent two years in Peru (and a year in Lima) as a Peace Corps volunteer from 1964 to 1966, returned for a year of dissertation field work in 1970–71, and have been going back ever since, for perhaps forty visits and a total of five or six years of residency.
The early and mid-1960s saw Lima struggling with masses of provincial migrants set on coming to Lima to improve, if not their own, then the lives of their children. That time also saw the rise of what became hundreds of squatter settlements and shantytowns, and my Peace Corps years took me into such areas across the city. Just how such individuals and communities managed to cope with myriad hardships and obstacles became a question I wrestled with for many years; simply put, I was trying to understand Lima and its inhabitants as best I could.
Lima is a capital city, but does it resemble other such cities in Latin America? The answer is most certainly yes. For one thing, Lima is and has been since its founding by the Spanish in 1535 what is commonly referred to as a primate city (i.e., a city that exercises a condition of primacy or overwhelming dominance over its rivals). In other words, it dominates everything else from almost any perspective—demographically, economically, financially, socially, culturally, and politically. Most Latin America countries and their capitals follow this same pattern, whether it be Bogotá in Colombia, Santiago in Chile, Buenos Aires in Argentina, Montevideo in Uruguay, Mexico City in Mexico, or La Paz and El Alto in Bolivia. Most of these cities are and have been for decades and centuries several times larger than the second-largest city. Across the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, Lima has consistently been eight to ten times larger than any other Peruvian city. And the condition of primacy in most cases intensified and deepened during the post–World War II period, when rural-to-urban migration sent endless waves of people toward these largest cities in search of jobs, education, safety, and hope. In these and other ways, Lima resembles other capital cities on the continent.
This not to say, however, that all of these capital cities have reacted to these challenges in like fashion. Each of them has had its own way of coping with massive growth and its myriad problems of j