Introduction

The focus of this paper is urbanisation, or more precisely settlement growth, in rural regions of Africa. By settlement growth we mean growth that occurs not in proximity to, but rather disassociated from, existing urban centres, the implication being that settlement growth is associated with drivers other than administrative and economic integration into larger economic centres. Our interest stems from empirical observations of the many growing settlements in rural Tanzania that developed in particular from the late 1980s onwards and the low levels of academic and political attention they have attracted recently. What characterises these settlements is that they are generally not acknowledged as urban entities, but are involved in an administrative process in which they form part of a larger entity that is about to be given urban administrative status. Hence, in order not to conflate the growth of settlements with the changing administrative units of which they are a part, we use the term emerging urban centres (EUCs). The overall purpose of this paper is to understand how rural Tanzania is urbanising. To this end, we analyse empirical data collected on four growing settlements in three different rural regions of Tanzania. Our analysis is structured around three overall questions: (1) What characterises the early development of the settlements? (2) How did they develop into (economic) centres? And (3) Why do they consolidate and take on urban characteristics?

In the next section (“Urbanization in Rural Regions”), we first discuss the blurred categories of ‘rural’ and ‘urban’, showing how this fuzziness tends to make the emergence of urban centres invisible to both research and governance. We then outline how, in rural regions, settlement growth intersects with the rural economy, describing how a focus on the crop-specific organization of production can include local farmers in diverse ways, how the demand for labour and services can spur settlement growth and how immigration and investment in these settlements stimulate growth further. In the “Studying Emerging Urban Centres” section, we present the term ‘EUC’ as an analytical tool with which to understand settlement transitions, followed by a presentation of the type of data we analyse and how we collected them. “Rural Transformations and Crop Dynamics” section is divided into two parts, first tracing pre-1990s crop and settlement dynamics, and secondly examining the crop-related economic dynamics that spur settlement growth. These analyses are followed up in “EUCs as Places of Attraction Beyond the Dominant Crop” section by an analysis of changing types of migration-to-settlement pathways, which together with an examination of the mushrooming business environment, explains how EUCs become places of attraction beyond the crop-related economic dynamics. In the final section, we offer an explanation for how rural Tanzania is urbanising, as well as addressing the wider implications of this for academic research and planning of settlement growth in rural regions.

Urbanisation in Rural Regions

To understand the emergence of urban centres in rural regions, it is necessary to start with some critical thinking about the categories ‘rural’ and ‘urban’, which are often defined as antonyms; e.g. rural is what is not urban (Brenner and Schmid 2015; Roy 2016). Since the 1950s, strong attempts have be made to develop universal definitions of ‘the urban’, where particular population thresholds, based on population size and density, have come to dominate (Brenner and Schmid 2015). In parallel with this, definitions of what counts as urban have also been developed within state policies, in accordance with shifting political, administrative and socio-economic forms of logic. Accordingly, different nation states, and even different departments within state apparatuses, have used different population thresholds, and in some cases also added one or more of the criteria of administrative functions, provision of services and/or thresholds for non-farm employment to define the boundary between rural and urban (McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2014; Muzzini and Lindeboom 2008; Wisner et al. 2015). This complicates any international comparisons and trend analyses of urbanisation (see Satterthwaite 2010 for a discussion), but it is also testimony to how rural–urban distinctions are embedded in national and local politics (Fox et al. 2018; Roy 2016).

Based on the renewed Africapolis data for West Africa, attempts have been made to improve an understanding of the importance and diversity of growing agglomerations (some already defined as urban, others not) and their role in the local economy (Curiel et al. 2017—Africapolis is a geo-spatial database on cities and urbanisation dynamics in Africa, run by the Sahel and West Africa Club in OECD). These analyses have shown that not only cities and secondary towns, but also rural towns, characterised by low integration into the urban hierarchy, are experiencing high annual population growth rates (see also Mukhopadhyay et al. 2017). Moving beyond population thresholds and politico-administrative definitions, these settlement agglomerations take the form of transitional spaces where urban and rural living blend and where a clear distinction between urban and rural is difficult to maintain—what have also been referred to as ‘morphing places’ (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2017, p. 30) or places where ‘the countryside is thickening’ (Roy 2016, citing Chari 2004). The transitions that are taking place are historically contingent and impacted by both local and external factors. On the one hand, past and present administrative reforms and sectoral and regional policies, including infrastructural investments, are central dynamics that should be taken into account (Guin 2018). On the other hand, transitions are also linked to the international dynamics of trade and production that impact either directly or indirectly on local markets and the inclusion of smallholders into the agricultural and/or industrial production. The rapid growth of these small agglomerations points to their potential economic importance for rural regions and shows how the agricultural economy may interact with urban centres, as is also discussed critically in the renewed debate over the functions and roles of small urban centres in rural transformation (Berdegué et al. 2014; Christiaensen and Todo 2014; Hazell et al. 2007).

The local economy of small urban centres is embedded in local resource use—based among other things on environmental conditions—and a hybrid rural economy (Wisner et al. 2015), as well as on the global marketing of agricultural products. Since market liberalisation and global integration in the 1990s, rural economies have increasingly come to include a diverse rural non-farm economy (RNFE). Urban centres are playing important roles as locations of these economic activities, in particular processing, services and commerce, but they can also become centres for small non-agricultural industries, construction etc. (Haggblade et al. 2010, 2007). However, the nature and scope of local economic diversification, including farm and non-farm economic activities, vary considerably both within and between regions (Berdegué et al. 2015; Haggblade et al. 2007; Tacoli 2003).

Overall, there is a rich array of path-dependent historical features that explain the variations in these processes, including the different geographical locations of rural regions and, related to this, their natural resource endowments and the locations of government and administrative services (including infrastructural developments such as roads). Accordingly, agricultural economic structures and related policies are important factors impacting on the economic and spatial transitions (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2017; Tacoli 2003). In most rural regions in the Global South, the economic base is closely interlinked with agricultural activities, and therefore the nature of agricultural production influences urban settlement dynamics (Fold and Tacoli 2010). Haggblade et al. (2007, 2010) refer to either ‘dynamic rural regions’ with favourable preconditions, where increases in farm incomes due to higher productivity are invested in the RNFE, or ‘stagnant rural regions’, where these dynamics do not occur. For dynamic rural regions, it can be seen how changes in the agricultural sector can stimulate growth of the RNFE and local employment in relation to increasing needs for direct and indirect services in support of agricultural production (Bryceson 2011; Knudsen 2010).

A key dimension influencing the growth of urban settlements in rural regions is the ‘relative diversity of the economic base’, the nature of the crops being grown and the associated value-chain dynamics (Fold and Tacoli 2010). The diverse natural characteristics and perishability of crops typically imply very different needs in terms of the organisation and logistics of production, processing and marketing. Some crops, such as sugarcane, need to be processed immediately after being harvested in order to retain their value, while other crops such as cotton may be stored for several months before being sold to processors (Larsen and Nsimbila 2017). Rural regions dominated by crops that cannot be stored and require processing within a limited period after harvesting might have the advantage of local processing facilities (Fold and Tacoli 2010, p. 91). In addition, employment opportunities based on rural farm and non-farm activities intersect with the annual crop cycle and the seasonal demand for labour in farming (smallholders and plantations), trade, and the labour intensity of processing, which further stimulate settlement growth (ibid.). Trade-centred settlements based on crops that do not need immediate primary processing might also result in urban center development (Knudsen 2010), related for example to the virtuous cycle between increasing money circulation, the purchasing power of the local population and the expanding economic division of labour in the settlement (Bryceson 2011). This can be seen in trading centres for perishable and fragile products such as vegetables, which provide favourable conditions for investments in the transport sector, packaging and storage facilities (Larsen and Birch-Thomsen 2015).

At the heart of this type of settlement growth are those who move to the settlements. Farming and employment opportunities related to cultivation and trading attract migrants, sometimes from beyond the region, though other movements may be of a more local character (Beegle et al. 2011; Bryceson 1999; Kelly 2011; Knudsen and Agergaard 2015; Steel and van Lindert 2017; Wisner et al. 2015). These differences relate to the diversities in agricultural economies outlined above, as well as to changes over time due to settlement growth and the growing provision of basic services (De Weerdt 2010; De Weerdt and Hirvonen 2016). Some people are attracted by employment opportunities, while others move for business purposes, meaning that growing villages attract both the relatively affluent and those with fewer resources (De Weerdt 2010). Thus, growing villages attract people with all sorts of aspirations for a better future, including local farmers wishing to establish a second home close to their markets and facilities (Larsen and Birch-Thomsen 2015; Owusu 2005; Steel and van Lindert 2017).

In this section, we have outlined processes of settlement growth in dynamic rural regions. In particular, we have explored how existing studies emphasise how diversities and changes in agricultural structures can stimulate development of rural non-farm employment and migration dynamics in making growing urban centres ‘places of attraction’. However, we should remember that settlement growth is also imbued with agency, expressed as local action in anticipation of (the need for) the place to change towards becoming an urban centre (Bryceson 2011; Mukhopadhyay et al. 2017; Wisner et al. 2015). Nevertheless, few studies have systematically explored and compared how these settlements develop into urban centres. This is the focus of the subsequent analysis, which considers how ‘rural’ settlements grow in relation to changes in the rural economy and become places of attraction, not only because of the prospects for migrants and new settlers to become directly involved in the crop economy, but also because of other immanent factors related to employment and services.

In acknowledgement of the importance of path-dependent growth, and in order to understand the foundations of dynamic rural regions and settlement growth, the analysis takes its point of departure in past and present national and regional policies forming agricultural structures and settlement growth. In the next section and the conclusion, we return to the initial discussion of the blurred categories of rural and urban, outlining how an analytical entry into settlement transition within an administrative process of piecemeal transition might be developed. Thus, how we study settlement growth in rural regions is in their ‘becoming’ rather than their ‘being’.

Studying Emerging Urban Centres

From the experience of development in rural Tanzania throughout the past three decades, it is clear that many villages have grown in size and in some cases merged into larger settlement conglomerates in otherwise rural landscapes. Many of these growing settlements are former Ujamaa villages established under the villagisation policies of the 1960s and 1970s. Villagisation was part of a broader national policy of ‘socialism through self-reliance’ (Ujamaa) that was formalised with the Arusha Declaration in 1967. The Ujamaa and villagisation policies and their mixed impacts on rural development and agricultural production have been widely studied and are summarised in Ponte (2002). The post-liberalisation development, partly driven by population growth and partly by economic activities (markets), has generated growing urban spaces from small rural economic hubs (large villages) to small towns with developed marketplaces and service provision.

A number of questions arise from this observation: What role do they play in an otherwise rural context? How can they be explained? Based on their diversity, how can they be understood/conceptualised within a rural–urban continuum? Common to many of these places is the fact that they have experienced, to various degrees, a transition from rural to urban status. Central to our understanding of this transformation is how the emergence and consolidation of these centres are linked to formal governance structures. As shown in Fig. 1, the formal administrative stages through which a settlement can pass in Tanzania are from ‘village’ to ‘township’ and eventually to ‘town’, as stipulated in the Local Government (District Authorities) Act of 1982. Analytically, we understand the EUC as the ‘urbanised’ core of the administrative category, which has reached different stages along the rural–urban continuum towards the urban administrative category of a ‘town’. The categories of ‘village’ and ‘township’ fall under the District Authorities, but when ‘town’ status is granted, the urban area falls under the Urban Authority [Section 5 in the Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act, 1982]. Of particular interest in the context of this paper is the development from ‘village’ to ‘township’ status, described in sections 13 to 21 of the Act. According to section 13, the announcement and establishment of a township authority (through publication in the Government Gazette) is based on the assessment, by the responsible ministry, of a place or area where changing from village to township status is considered desirable. When announcing a new township, its statutory boundaries are based on local decisions, and often more than one village or even a whole ward is included. As the national authorities admit, this creates ‘uncertainty in the tenure and use of rural land which is enclosed within the urban boundaries’ (National Land Policy; section 6.2, The Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements, Tanzania 1997: p. 26). This highlights our argument of the importance of making a distinction between ‘township’ (including ‘rural’ land uses) and ‘emerging urban centres’. Thus, the establishment of a township authority—starting with the appointment of the Township Executive Officer and eventually a Township Council—can be a lengthy process taking several years. Independent of the extent to which a Township Council is set up and some autonomy granted, all decisions made by the Council have to be approved by the District Authorities.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Note The shaded area in the conceptual graph (to the left) illustrates the village’s transformation towards urban status as a town; the wavy line illustrates the temporal dimension, a process that has no fixed timeframe

Development of EUCs within the rural–urban continuum.

Full size image

The empirical point of departure for our explorations of how rural Tanzania is urbanising is a focus on settlement growth in four EUCs (Ilula, Igowole, Madizini and Kibaigwa) and how this interacts with agricultural dynamics in the rural regions. The four cases were selected on the basis of the identification of settlements that have experienced substantial population growth, as shown by their achieving township status in 2002, announced in the Tanzanian Government Gazette. The four EUCs are located in rural regions characterised by an agricultural economy that is heavily dependent on the dynamics of one particular crop (sugarcane, tea, tomato or maize). The nature of the specific crops and the organisation of cultivation, processing and trade are diverse, but in all four cases, smallholder crop cultivation has been increasingly integrated into value chains. The crops are traded on both national and international markets, or both. In the case of processed crops (sugarcane and tea for export), this takes place after primary processing in the region, while non-processed market crops (tomato and maize) are traded immediately after harvest (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Location of the four research sites in Tanzania

Full size image

Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the selected EUCs, including the crop value chain, the location of each EUC and their respective population figures. There are large differences in their respective estimated population growth between 2002 and 2012. Whereas the high growth observed in Madizini and Kibaigwa (over 70%) shows the importance of these urban centers, the low growth of the Ilula EUC (13%) can be explained in terms of an already high level of population and dense settlement patterns in existence by 2002, while the Igowole EUC is characterised by a generally lower population density and a location off the main road network (see next section).

Table 1 Emerging urban centres and their dominant value chain
Full size table

Fieldwork was conducted in the four EUCs between 2010 and 2015. In all four EUCs, in-depth interviews with key informants were conducted using historical timelines and narratives to identity critical historical events (social, economic and political) that influenced major development turning points in each of the EUCs. Pre-designed checklists of questions were used to guide the interviews. Key informants included ward and village leaders, the heads of the main financial institutions, elderly residents in the EUCs who were knowledgeable about historical and new trends in political, economic, demographic and spatial development, as well as settlers and temporary migrants. In addition, focus-group discussions were held for each study site, involving groups of between 10 and 25 men and women. As in the case of interviews with key informants, the focus-group discussions concentrated on the historical trajectories and changing dynamics of the EUCs.

The changing role of agriculture and value-chain dynamics in settlement development was further examined through interviews with key stakeholders in the four crop value chains. Interviews were conducted with smallholders, primary processors and traders engaged in the cultivation, processing and/or trading of the specific crop. These interviews focussed on historical changes in the organisation and logistics of the crop-specific value chains, the division of labour in the value chains and labour demand. Interviews were also conducted with associations, cooperatives, financial institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). To understand the role of migration, the knowledge about settlement growth and crop value-chain dynamics was complemented by focus-group discussions held in each EUC concerning changes in employment opportunities, migration flows and settlement patterns. These were followed up by semi-structured interviews conducted with households currently living in the respective EUCs. These interviews were structured as the migration/mobility histories of the informants and his/her household members in order to illustrate the motives, contexts and outcomes of moving to the EUCs.

To explore business development trajectories and economic diversification in the EUCs, a survey of their business operators was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were held with business owners, focussing on the background to their entering the sector and on eliciting basic data about business owners (age, gender, education, migrant or indigenous), types of business and year of establishment, sources of capital for investment, working capital and reinvestment practices. In addition, the interviews focussed on the reasons for investing in the specific EUC and migrating to the EUC (if non-indigenous), labour demand and employment, and other economic activities undertaken by the owner or within the household (e.g. agricultural activities).

Rural Transformations and Crop Dynamics

In this section, we examine the historical development of the four EUCs. The first part of the section describes how, until the 1990s, spatial and economic policies formed pathways for their location and formation. The second part analyses how crop-related value-chain dynamics following market liberalisation interacted increasingly with the formation and development of the EUCs as locations for crop-related employment and investment.

Tracking Pre-1990s Crop and Village Dynamics

Table 2 presents an overview of the main drivers and characteristics of the foundation and development of the four study sites prior to the 1990s. As shown, they all have their own locally specific development trajectories, though some common trends can be highlighted.

Table 2 Drivers and settlement characteristics of the early-stage development of the four study sites
Full size table

Agricultural Potential

At an early stage, all four sites were attractive due to their relatively high potential for agricultural activities and the availability of land. This led to early concentrations of mainly food-producing smallholders, as in Ilula, Igowole and Kibaigwa, and/or the establishment of early large-scale investments, as in Ilula (tobacco), Igowole (tea) and Madizini (sugar), leading to early in-migration (in the latter case including workers) to the EUCs.

Implementation of Villagisation

The nation-wide policy on resettlement obviously also affected the study sites, as the local population was resettled into rural village administrative units. In some cases (e.g. Madizini), this also included relocating people from other parts of the country. In addition to the re-organisation of production into collective units, densification into new villages also required service provision in the form of basic education (primary schools) and health centres (dispensaries).

Location

Common to all four sites is their location next or very close to the main road infrastructure, either national transportation routes (Ilula and Kibaigwa) or roads that are maintained in order to enable the transportation of manufactured goods to the national market (Igowole and Madizini). In all cases, this increased the attraction for people from outside the area to settle in the villages that later developed into EUCs, whether to farm, to find work as labourers or to invest in small-scale service provision and businesses.

Crop-Related Economic Dynamics

Following liberalisation in the early 1990s, the EUCs evolved in tandem with the intensification of crop cultivation and crop-specific value-chain dynamics. In the following, we examine the development of the EUCs based on a distinction between centres developed around agro-processing (Madizini and Igowole) and centres developed as marketplaces for the sale of one dominant crop (Ilula and Kibaigwa).

Agro-processing Centres

In Madizini and Igowole, the estates’ processing facilities are located centrally in large factories on the estates, in Madizini close to what is today the oldest sub-village and in Igowole on the edge of the EUC. Sugarcane and tea leaves need to be processed immediately after harvesting in order to retain their value. As these crops cannot be stored, production organisation and logistics, harvest times and transport from the farm to the processing factory are all crucial. Prior to liberalisation, both industries were regulated by parastatal marketing boards (the Tanzania Tea Authority and the Sugar Development Corporation), and smallholders were ‘linked’ to the estates through outgrower schemes in order to promote cultivation of the crops by smallholders. Extension services, inputs, harvesting and logistical services were provided by the estate and/or the parastatal.

After the economic reforms, the marketing boards continued to act as regulatory bodies, while the processing factories (including Mtibwa Sugar Estates, MSE) were privatised. In the cases of both tea and sugarcane, outgrower schemes have grown significantly in the last two decades, while the organisation of the sugarcane scheme in particular has changed substantially (Larsen and Birch-Thomsen 2015; Msuya et al. 2012).Footnote 1 MSE is the only sugar company in the area and thus is solely responsible for the privatised outgrower scheme, covering around 6000 smallholders. MSE has gradually withdrawn from involvement in providing extension services, inputs, harvesting and logistical services to outgrowers and focusses mainly on processing sugarcane in mills and refineries, while newly established farmers associations have assumed the responsibility for these tasks.Footnote 2 This reconfiguration of the sugarcane outgrower scheme following the privatisation of the parastatal processing company has resulted in several new investment opportunities in value chain-related activities. Harvest management (cutting, loading, transportation of sugarcane to the factory) is carried out by private companies, so-called contractors, which operate under contract to the farmers’ associations, and private investment in the transport sector (mainly truck and tractor facilities) by both individuals and associations has increased. A few contractors hire out labour services in the harvest season and provide dormitories for seasonal migrant workers (Larsen and Fold 2012).

The two well-established tea estates are both vertically integrated and cover logistics such as transport, including distributing inputs, collecting the tea leaves and collecting bags at the farm gate, as well as providing extension services, in addition to marketing so-called made tea (manufactured tea used in blends). The ‘room for investment’ in economic activities that is directly linked to value chain-related activities, such as tea processing facilities and undertaking the primary purchasing or transportation of tea leaves, appears less pronounced than in the sugarcane value chain. The tea estates complement their own tea production with produce from smallholders in the surrounding area and carry out all activities related to the cultivation, purchasing and processing of tea leaves from the smallholder subsector. Investments in value chain-related economic activities are constrained by enormous entry barriers, both financial and in terms of managerial capacity. This is linked to a well-developed and effectively coordinated purchasing system run by the two estates, combined with the success of the outgrower schemes, where smallholders receive inputs (seedlings, fertilisers and chemicals) on credit. Only one tea processing factory has entered the market recently, in this case as an extension of its own large-scale tea farm.

The tea estates provide employment opportunities for factory and farm workers (e.g. pickers, transporters). In addition, they have continued to expand their production and have more recently increased their operations by involving smallholders from the surrounding areas in growing and selling their green leaf tea to the factories as a strategy to increase their portfolios of different tea qualities, product varieties and/or brand profiles in more lucrative, niche market segments. Investment in additional processing capacity ‘dedicated’ to smallholders indicates the growing share of the smallholders’ production of green leaf tea intake at the well-established estate factories (Larsen and Birch-Thomsen 2015, p. 69). As such, the economic dynamics in Igowole partly stem from the virtuous circle of increasing circulation of money and purchasing power of those living in the EUC and the rural hinterland.

Market Centres

Over a short period of time, Ilula and Kibaigwa EUCs have developed into huge ‘marketing hubs’ for a dominant crop for its further distribution and sale in both national and international markets. Processing of the crops (e.g. grinding maize grains) takes place elsewhere in Tanzania or abroad. In both cases, the shift from early developments to EUC status started in the early 1990s, following the liberalisation of trade and the entry of the private sector into the purchasing and marketing of crops organised through a single-channel parastatal marketing system.Footnote 3 The Kibaigwa and Ilula EUCs became the main trading centres for maize and tomatoes, respectively. During the 1990s and early 2000s, the crops were marketed from several smaller marketplaces in the EUCs. As a response to the steadily increasing numbers of tomatoes being marketed, the Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) established a new, centralised marketplace in Ilula in 2006, resulting in the entry of a large number of private brokers trading tomatoes for the regional, national and international markets. Similarly, apart from marketplaces in Kibaigwa, the maize trade was scattered among several villages before 1995. Along with the increasing but dispersed trade in maize, the risks of theft and robbery mounted, and the chairman of Kibaigwa Village encouraged young males to establish a group (presently known as the Kibaigwa Cargo Porters Cooperative Society) to provide security in the marketplaces. Initially, the group was responsible for the security, loading and unloading of maize on lorries by ‘the roadside’, but in 1995, a centralised marketplace for maize was established, and further consolidated as an international maize marketing hub in 2004. Traders from countries within the East African Region were allowed to purchase maize in Kibaigwa for resale abroad (Lazaro and Birch-Thomsen 2013).

The liberalisation of trade has created ample investment and employment opportunities in the two EUCs that are directly related to the value chains. The increasing demand for services related to crop cultivation, including agro-input supplies such as seeds, fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, has led to agricultural input stockists investing in shops in the EUCs. In both value chains, transportation, sorting, (re-)packaging and storage facilities are important, and private-sector investments in the transport sector, including the local transport of produce from the farms to the markets and transport from the market to larger national and international markets, have increased substantially. This has resulted in the emergence of numerous transport service providers and different kinds of repair centres for cars, ox-drawn carts, bicycles and motorcycles in the EUCs. Furthermore, demand for and investments in different kinds of packaging materials are mounting: tomato is a perishable and fragile product, and different markets (local/regional, national and international) demand specific forms of packaging, alongside the requirements for transportation equipment. Tomatoes sold in Ilula for resale in Dar es Salaam and internationally require wooden boxes, thus facilitating new business activities engaged in their construction, while tomatoes for other markets can be sold in bamboo baskets. In the latter case, a rental market for woven baskets has emerged. In the case of sales of maize in Kibaigwa, in addition to its large-scale (re-)packaging for the wholesale trade in the regional, national and/or international markets, the sorting of maize (winnowing to remove trash such as dust, stones and pieces of maize cob) is mainly carried out by women. Sorted maize for processing into flour is sold in relatively smaller quantities upon request from the maize buyers.

In summary, the intensification of crop cultivation and the marketing and processing of crops have generated new and more diversified demands for productive capacities and service facilities in the EUCs. There tends to be significant ‘room for investment’ in businesses, trade and services in the EUCs that are directly linked to the value-chain dynamics of tomatoes and maize, while the vibrant and busy marketplaces have created additional demand for refreshments from both dealers and customers. Numerous vendors and street shops have emerged to sell food and beverages in the marketplaces, in addition to hotels, guesthouses and restaurants. This development differs from the cases of agro-processing EUCs, the outputs of which are processed centrally in large processing factories. Nonetheless, the reorganisation of the sugarcane outgrower scheme is providing some new investment opportunities in value-chain activities related to crop cultivation and harvest management, as well as accommodation for seasonal migrant workers.

EUCs as Places of Attraction Beyond the Dominant Crop

While the dynamic changes in crop cultivation and the marketing and processing of crops have been drivers of the particular economies of the four different EUCs, and continue to be so, the EUCs are becoming increasingly attractive beyond the dominant crop. This change is the focus of this section, where we first consider how those engaged in crop dynamics and those attracted by non-farm employment move to and settle in the EUCs. Secondly, we outline how the EUCs become centres for business investments.

EUCs as Hotspots for In-Migration

Changing patterns of migration to and settlement in the EUCs illustrate well the ongoing settlement growth. Whereas seasonal migration with the purpose of taking up employment in relation to the dominant crop has long contributed to the vibrancy of these places, migrants increasingly settle without being directly involved with the dominant crop. This adds to the livelihoods in the EUCs, where residents are increasingly leaving farming to become ‘urban’ residents and where newcomers are increasingly taking up non-farm employment.

This is illustrated in Table 3, which shows the different employment characteristics of migrant-to-settler pathways and how they interact with crop-specific value chains. In spite of the overall differences between the four cases, similar migrant-to-settler pathways can be identified: whereas pathways 1 and 2 are directly connected to the value chains, pathways 3–5 are less connected. When looking at the characteristics of agro-processing, it is interesting to observe how, over time, casual workers in agro-processing have settled in the EUCs, although this is less the case in Igowole. This variance can be explained by the differences in smallholder outgrower schemes. In Madizini, this is the dominant type of production, and because the factory has been located close to the original sub-village, Madizini has become an obvious location to settle in. This is different for the tea plantations, which usually accommodate their workers on the estates, away from the EUC. In Kibagiwa and Ilula, migrants have been employed in the handling of the products, such as transport, sorting and grading, and loading for resale. In Madizini and Igowole too, smallholders have come to settle in the EUCs, Igowole again being the exception. This trend has added considerably to the growth of Madizini, where smallholders growing sugarcane have their fields scattered in different villages in the rural hinterland and therefore find the EUC an attractive place to live. In Kibaigwa and Ilula, this is mainly a practice of the more affluent farmers.

Table 3 Characterization of migration-to-settler pathways
Full size table

The third pathway is that of the broad group who have settled in the EUCs with the aim of doing ‘business’, with pathway 4 representing those thus employed. ‘Business’ here is a very broad category covering everything from small shops and local bars to retail, formal hotels and agricultural investment companies. Madizini is exceptional, however, as the policies of the sugarcane company to separate the harvesting and transportation of the canes to the factory from their contracts with the smallholders have made way for the creation of businesses servicing the smallholders in relation to these fundamental tasks. In Ilula, the production of wooden boxes and bamboo baskets can also be seen as nurturing new businesses in the EUC. The new businesses employ many workers, in particular young people, accounting for the fourth migrant-to-settler pathway. Below, we discuss how the business dynamics develop both out of and away from the original crop dynamics. Suffice it to say here that the population dynamics stemming from these developments adds to the urban character of the EUCs through the demand for food, everyday goods (including appliances and furniture) and public and private services, such as water, waste services, electricity, mobile telephony, health clinics, education and banking. Many of these services include educated and skilled personnel, who account for the final migrant-to-settler pathway: the ‘professionals’. The rapid growth of this group shows that public and private institutions are starting to take root in the EUCs.

Thus, EUCs can be seen as important hotspots for in-migration. Obviously, the five pathways are highly simplified: migrants’ occupational pathways often change over time, and livelihood portfolios are usually complex, possibly combining different types of occupation throughout the year depending on, for example, the seasonality of the production, processing and marketing of the different crops. Likewise, because the pathways focus on the occupational aspects of migration, migrants who move as dependants are not really considered here, although they obviously contribute to the gross figures of demographic growth. Overall, what can be realised from the stylised presentation is the diversity among migrants who turn into settlers and the increasing importance of non-farm employment.

The EUCs as Locations for Businesses

The mushrooming of businesses is an important reason for settlement growth and EUCs gradually becoming less connected to the dominant crop. While the creation of new economic activities varies, all EUCs are influenced by important structural changes. First, the declaration of ‘townships’ that included the EUCs (see discussion in “Studying Emerging Urban Centres” section above) in the late 1990s (Kibaigwa 1999) and first half of the 2000s (Igowole, Ilula and Madizini) led to government offices being located within the EUCs. Secondly, health, schooling and financial services within the EUCs have been established or improved. Thirdly, the increase in population and the general economic growth and increases in incomes among people in and around the EUCs have generated increased consumer demand, particularly within the past two decades.

The survey of business operators in three of the four EUCs, viz. Igowole, Ilula and Madizini, showed that the majority (68–87%) of shops were established between 2000 and 2011 and support our understanding of the business environment that develops in relation to the changes outlined above. This confirms the novelty of many of the new economic activities. The survey also documents the clear dominance of migrants owning shops (between 61–80%), illustrating the attraction of non-local investors to the EUCs. A majority of the migrant shopkeepers state that their initial migration to the centres was motivated by the ambition to engage in businesses or to pursue employment opportunities. The main type of business, i.e. shops, took the form of traditional ‘general stores’ selling basic consumer goods such as rice, sugar, salt, cooking oil and vegetables, with little specialisation. However, as the EUCs have developed, more specialised businesses have increasingly been established, dealing in for example clothing and footwear, hairdressing, furniture, electrical items, hardware, pharmacy, motorbikes, welding, and mobile money and phones. Interestingly, quite a number of shops specialise in the wholesale trade and services for smaller shops located in the rural hinterlands. While the majority of shops are self-employed businesses, between 30 and 40% of their owners employ assistants in their shops (cf. migrant-to-settler pathway 4), typically two or three, depending on the type and size of the business.

Although both formal and informal loan and credit facilities and institutions are available in the EUCs, the vast majority (70–87%) of shopkeepers state that their start-up capital consisted of their own savings or resources. In the case of the ‘agro-processing’ EUCs in Madizini (sugar) and Igowole (tea), the savings often stemmed from wage labour in the factories or the fields of the estates. In the ‘marketplace’ EUCs of Ilula and Kibaigwa, savings usually originate in the production and sales of the dominant crops (tomatoes or maize). However, looking only at those shopkeepers who have migrated to the EUCs, the main way of raising capital for their investments was through savings and the experience of businesses prior to their in-migration. While some business owners stated that they concentrate all their time and effort on their businesses, a majority are also involved in the cultivation of the dominant crop or other activities related to their production and/or marketing (from 48% in Ilula to 75% in Madizini).

The transformation of the EUCs into service centres has also intensified rural–urban linkages in the form of the increased mobility of people, goods, remittances, services and investments. This has resulted in improvements to rural livelihoods and stimulated the emergence of small (and less diversified) village centres dominated by small general stores and shops. Thus, the EUCs have also become centres for wholesale businesses where village shopkeepers can now buy stock, instead of having to do so in more distant towns.

Settlement Growth in Rural Tanzania

The overall purpose of this paper has been to understand how rural Tanzania is urbanising. Empirically, the paper has reported on four cases of settlement growth in Tanzania, all located in rural areas. In the paper, we have examined how the early development of these settlements, together with specific crop dynamics, has stimulated settlement growth and how the growing importance of the non-farm economy and establishment of businesses have led to their consolidation. In all four centres, the early trajectory is characterised by particular agricultural developments and important political reforms. In the case of the latter, two reforms are highlighted: Firstly, the villagisation policy of concentrating the rural population, leading to the formation of rural village centres. Together with subsequent infrastructural investments, this has provided the geographical basis on which the emergence of urban centres has taken place. Secondly, economic and political reforms from the early 1990s onwards, characterised by liberalisation of the agricultural sector, have impacted significantly on rural economic dynamics. Central to the liberalisation process was the privatisation of processing and marketing, including the dismantling of the parastatal marketing boards, which stimulated the intensification of crop cultivation, the establishment of local trading centres and local reinvestments. The outcomes of these reforms are visible in all four selected EUCs.

Regarding more recent settlement growth, the analysis has shown that crop-specific value-chain dynamics have stimulated smallholder production, marketing and employment. These changes have made the EUCs important destinations for short- and long-term migrants, further stimulated new and increasing livelihood opportunities, and created settlement growth. Thus, the analysis has shown that, over time, settlement growth has become detached from crop dynamics.

As well as demonstrating the clear similarities in how the EUCs have developed, the analysis also points to differences. The analytical distinction between agro-processing centres and marketing centres shows that they are based on different organisations of production, the involvement of smallholders, and the importance of local processing and marketing. Accordingly, they follow rather different logics of investment and employment in relation to the restructuring of the different value chains: the reorganisation of the sugarcane outgrower scheme, for instance, provides more diverse investment and employment opportunities than in the case of tea. Differences in settlement growth are also visible in relation to the marketing centres, where the marketing of tomatoes more directly stimulates diversification in income activities compared with maize. However, the manner in which the EUCs are connected to the rural hinterland and larger urban centres, markets etc. also adds to both the initial and subsequent development trajectories; For example, Igowole continues to be infrastructurally disconnected, while Madizini has become increasingly connected through the past 10 years of road-building. This contrasts with the two market centres, which, being located on main roads, have become well connected and have continuously benefited from being located in transport corridors.

Overall, the analysis demonstrates the importance of understanding path-dependent settlement growth and underlines the prospects for studying emerging urban centres in relation to their ‘becoming’ rather than their ‘being’. In the paper, we have deliberately used the terms ‘settlement growth’ and ‘emerging urban centres’ (EUCs) in order to emphasise that we are not focussing on villages, townships and towns as they are defined administratively in Tanzania and beyond. While the four EUCs grew out of one or more old villages that have been governed directly by their rural districts, they have all become parts of larger administrative units, namely townships. While this potentially paves the way to formal urban status, at least two governance challenges have emerged. Firstly, how to address the urban character of the EUCs while huge parts of the township continue to be rural. This has implications for what economic and human resources need to be devolved from the districts to the townships in order to address both urban and rural service needs. Secondly, how rural districts with only few officers responsible for urban development can be made to oversee and support the urbanisation process. This is a crucial question in Tanzania, because the rules and regulations stipulated in the Local Government Act define township development as a District Authority responsibility, while the development of towns falls under the Urban Authority.

Overall, our paper contributes to the recent scholarship on how, in rural regions, settlement growth characterised by high annual population growth rates intersects with the rural economy in forming ‘urban’ places characterised by low integration in the urban hierarchy. Our analysis has demonstrated how a historical and spatial approach to settlement growth can explain how rural non-farm employment both stimulates and is stimulated by settlement growth. Also, by comparing four different trajectories of growth, we illustrate how they may vary due to rather different pre-conditions for settlement growth and also show how the specific dynamics of crop value chains add to this diversity. This is an important contribution to the ongoing debate on rural transformation and provides important insights into why the merging of urban and rural living makes a clear distinction between urban and rural difficult.