Bustee versus favela. This contrast between non-MEDCs’ poorest residents appears insignificant, for over-populated mega-cities have several aspects that are in common. However, Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs) such as Brazil have a completely different story from typical Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) such as India. No matter how different these nations actually are, they share similar problems caused by urbanization. If history is the foundation for future events, then an analysis of the world’s current situation may predict future patterns of development. Indeed, the common assumption that megacities in NICs have a better prospect than LEDCs can be proven as relevant in several circumstances, judging by factors as such but not limited to economic, social, environmental and technological aspects. This essay examines situations in LEDCs and NICs in today’s society, to predict possible future situations.

     It is no doubt that urbanization and globalization have swept across nations globally, even including the poorest countries, where citizens can hardly sustain a living in those gigantic cities. As those who are from rural areas migrate into megacities in search of better employment and education opportunities, they meanwhile form a vicious cycle of poverty, particularly in LEDCs such as India and Egypt. In such countries, the gap between the rich and poor is wider than that of any other countries - literally, a slum can be right next to a five-star hotel. Whilst the rich people enjoy modern convenience including high quality education, medical care, access to Internet, and all kinds of other services, poor people are financially forced to live on streets and their children have to either collect trash on the filthy streets or work as child laborers, which are illegal in developed nations. Despite the fact that most MEDCs clearly ban child labour, child labour is oftentimes necessary in LEDCs to keep the starving children and their families alive. As little as children earn in dangerous and squalid places, the wages are yet a crucial way the families pay for food and water. Had child labour been banned in those poor regions, children might be forced to steal or commit other crimes such as prostitution in order to live on. Childhood, a period of time which should be the happiest time free of concerns in one’s lifetime, is similar, if not worse, than adulthood in these countries’ megacities for the poor access to basic necessities such as clean food and shelter. In fact, these cities are far too overcrowded and filthy that residents constantly suffer from threats related to health or financial terms. Unhygienic food and water sources can often lead to diseases that can be fatal, especially to children with low immune capacities. Many of these children’s parents or other family members are unemployed or underemployed, where they can hardly find financial income sources to support their families. Without steady financial incomes, they are not likely to take care of their families and sustain a healthy lifestyle. This is, indeed, a vicious cycle, because the more children go to work in factories that form a completely different picture to contradict with the common understanding of childhood, the less hope there is for the next generation.

     Similarly, citizens also suffer from the same problems in NICs such as Brazil. Favelas, another regional term for slums, are the similar representation of bustees. Housing conditions are not convenient in many regions also. However, a significant difference between living conditions in NICs and LEDCs is that a number of Brazilian cities take full advantage of technological innovation such as recycling. In fact, the vast amount of trash this NIC produces is so huge that it would take up much of the living space and heavily pollute the air people breath. To solve this issue at hand, the government introduced a policy where hopeless slum dwellers can earn a living by collecting trash or working in factories to recycle waste and turn it to useable materials. The foundation of the economic advantage is different from that in an LEDC, where not much technology can support an innovation as this. This industry is both beneficial to the natural and urban environment and the residents, who seize employment opportunities from this new policy. Moreover, cities such as Curitiba have highly developed transportation services. Bus Rapid Transfers can arrive as regularly as 50 seconds between each bus pickup. This system is based on financial basis of the country, for such convenient transportations require money to design and build. However, once the stations are built, we can conclude that it is definitely worth the cost. Convenient transportations from suburban areas to the heart of large cities can encourage rural dwellers to work in cities without renting favelas, unlike those in LEDCs who have no choice but to pursue better employment circumstances by living in slums of poor conditions. Furthermore, the governmental policy of encouraging ‘self-help’ in terms of constructing houses to replace the favelas, people can escape poverty more easily. By building their own houses, citizens can spend less money in logistical issues with housing companies, and can thus provide themselves with simple yet convenient shelters free from unhealthy conditions found commonly in slums and favelas. Indeed, circumstances in NICs such as Brazil do seem much more optimistic than that in typical LEDCs such as India.

     Having observed past and current situations in both types of nations, let us move on to predicting future circumstances. As described in the aforementioned cases, LEDCs’ future situation is more of a worry to all of us, because skipping away from a vicious cycle is almost impossible to achieve. For NICs, the light of triumph is already seen, though blurry in some sense. As people in NICs blend technology with their current situations as solutions to these problems, they seem to create better living spaces for themselves which cannot even be dreamed of by those in LEDCs, who constantly face the danger of starving to their deaths. However, it is possible that India does become an NIC in a few decades’ time, since Brazil several decades ago seems almost identical to today’s India. According to a Brazilian architecture, with enough cooperation from stakeholders such as the government, residents and transnational companies (TNCs), cities can develop within three years time. Surely, achieving the criteria mentioned about ‘co-responsibility’ is demanding. Yet, taking approapriate actions can definitely speed up the process of development in those cities.

     Therefore, it can be concluded that though the appearance of LEDCs and NICs in regards to urbanization issues seem to resemble each other, the prospects drawn from previous observations are better in NICs than that in LEDCs. In order to fully step out of poverty, an LEDC would have to truly break free from this vicious cycle. Perhaps a first step to be taken is becoming an NIC first...