Those of us working on urban development, especially in developing countries seem to have failed so far to convince policy makers in government and in many international agencies, of the need to invest more time and effort in planning for urban growth. Why?
Why is it that any discussion on urbanisation over the last 3 decades or more invariably elicits the response that cites are too big and are growing too fast, as though there is some optimum size or rate of growth, beyond which it should be stopped? Why is the concept of 'over-urbanisation' still so widely held, despite that fact that the proportion of urban populations is actually still relatively low in many countries? Why do so many people still argue that more effort should be put into promoting rural development, by providing jobs, schools and other attractions to help keep people in rural areas?
More to the point, why is it that these responses invariably come from people who themselves live in cities? Why do they want to stop others joining them? If cities are so bad, why do these people not go back to villages themselves? Of course, in high-income countries, many people are doing this. They can afford to commute to the cities when they want or need to and can afford a good lifestyle in a village, often funded, however, by selling a high value urban propoerty and buying up lower price homes in the country. That is their choice (though it also makes life tough for villagers unable to afford a place themselves as prices rise, but that's another story!). However, for those living in developing countries, the cities are where the opportunities are, where the services are, the schools, the cinemas, the clubs and restaurants, in fact all the things middle and high income people around the world take for granted. So why do they want to close the door, or pull up the drawbridge? Why do arguments in favour of planning for urban growth get a negative response year after year and country after country, despite all the evidence that growth will continue whatever governments or international agencies, or middle/high income groups do or say? Why do I feel I have been living ground-hog day for over 30 years?
The cynical view is that people enjoying urban life don't want it spoilt by waves of poor people flooding into their neighbourhoods, lowering 'the tone' and the values of their homes. The more benign view is that people want the benefits of urban life to be more widely distributed so people are not forced to move in order to gain the basic necesities of life, let alone a few modest pleasures.
Whatever the reason, arguments in favour of rural development ignore a few basic issues.
Firstly, in a poor country, investment focuses on the few locations where the economies of scale, the educated workforce, the services and the markets are concentrated. It is only larter, when opportunities are greater, that a more diffused distribution of assets and benefits can be generated. Many developing countries have not yet reached that point.
Secondly, where can the resources for rural development come from? The answer, of course, is from cities! For example, Mumbai accommodates about 1.5% of India's population, but contributes a massive 30% of all central government revenues! So if the Indian government wants the resources for developing the rural areas, it needs successful, dynamic, healthy cities.
Thirdly, the forces generating urbanisation are so strong that it will happen irrespective of whether governments encourage or discourage it. Of course, the outcomes in many developing countries at present pose unprecedented challenges, with a billion people forced to live in slums and squatter settlements, lacking tenure security and basic services. However, life expectancy is still greater in the slums of many developing countries than it was in the mid 19th century in Manchester at a time when the UK was a leading economic power and the numbers of people involved were relatively small. Even then, it took the UK well over a century to come to terms with urbanisation and manage urban areas. Developing countries, lack the economic power the UK enjoyed, often have far larger populations and have had much less time to generate appropriate responses.
That is why we need to find ways of managing urbanisation and urban growth. Before we can even start, however, that is why those of us working on urban development in developing countries need to find ways of increasing acceptance of the realities of urbanisation and urban growth and generating the necessary support to make sure the processes are managed well - and for the benefit of all.
UN-Habitat has a major role to play in this and has so far not succeeded in winning the argument. Campaigning for better governance, for tenure security, for harmonious cities, etc., is all very well, but until it can help win the argument about the positive role of cities in social and economic development and show how this can be achieved in environmentally sustainable ways, we will not make any real headway.
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
UN-Habitat launches harmonious cities report
On a day when the UK press reported that a 16 year old was chased down a street, beaten and stabbed to death, simply because he was “from another part of town”, the UK launch of a report promoting harmonious cities (‘State of the world’s cities 2008/2009' UN-Habitat) could not be more timely.
Launching the report in London, Anna Tibaijuka, UN-Habitat’s Executive-Director, said that whilst there are massive problems of deprivation and inequality, these are by no means restricted to developing countries. As the housing loans crisis in the USA has demonstrated, it is now clear that issues of housing finance are global and that the poor have been left to cope on their own for too long. Sustainable urbanisation needs to provide pro-poor, inclusive approaches to urban management and development.
Summarising key findings from the report, Eduardo Moreno presented a range of data on l social, spatial, and environmental aspects. Much play was made at the launch on data relating to income inequality, though as David Satterthwaite, one of the launch panel stated, we need to consider inequality and deprivation within a broader framework to include aspects such as access to public services, health and educational facilities.
Despite their higher incomes levels, the report demonstrates that cities in the USA are as unequal socially as many in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, which contain the highest level of social inequality in the world. Whilst European cities are relatively equal in social terms, it is impossible to deny that we have a long way to go before we can claim to have created harmonious cities.
In campaigning on behalf of cities, UN-Habitat faces a dilemma. If it celebrates cities and urban life, it can be accused of being in denial of the manifest problems faced by 1 billion people – 1 in 3 of the world’s urban residents - living in slums, many without basic tenure security, clean water or sanitation. On the other hand, if it focuses too much on the scale and complexity of the problems, donors and national governments may just bury their heads in the sand and hope that rural development programmes will curb urban growth. Of course, this overlooks the fact that although 3 million people are being added to urban populations globally every week, rural-urban migration is not the main cause of growth in many cities and has been replaced by increases within existing urban populations. Whilst urban issues are undeniably complex, they can be addressed by bringing the residents into the decision-making process and improving governance at national and local levels.
Another challenge addressed by the report is that of climate change. Nearly 400 million people are considered to be at risk, mostly in developing countries like Bangladesh which are vulnerable to sea level rise.
Cities are also major consumers of energy, with buildings representing a higher proportion than industry or transport in high-income countries and cooking one of the major consumers of energy in low-income countries. Whilst cities are justifiably blamed for contributing to CO2 emissions, the report demonstrates that this is related more to consumption patterns than urbanization per se. For example, Sao Paulo produces one tenth of the emissions of San Diego, with a population ten times bigger. Cities in Europe are making progress in clean energy, whilst those in the USA continue to be the worst polluters, due largely to urban sprawl and private motorised transport.
Improved building design, more efficient land use and friendly, efficient public transport offer the greatest scope for improvements. Clearly, if cities are currently part of the problem, the report makes it clear that they have to be part of the solution.
Launching the report in London, Anna Tibaijuka, UN-Habitat’s Executive-Director, said that whilst there are massive problems of deprivation and inequality, these are by no means restricted to developing countries. As the housing loans crisis in the USA has demonstrated, it is now clear that issues of housing finance are global and that the poor have been left to cope on their own for too long. Sustainable urbanisation needs to provide pro-poor, inclusive approaches to urban management and development.
Summarising key findings from the report, Eduardo Moreno presented a range of data on l social, spatial, and environmental aspects. Much play was made at the launch on data relating to income inequality, though as David Satterthwaite, one of the launch panel stated, we need to consider inequality and deprivation within a broader framework to include aspects such as access to public services, health and educational facilities.
Despite their higher incomes levels, the report demonstrates that cities in the USA are as unequal socially as many in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, which contain the highest level of social inequality in the world. Whilst European cities are relatively equal in social terms, it is impossible to deny that we have a long way to go before we can claim to have created harmonious cities.
In campaigning on behalf of cities, UN-Habitat faces a dilemma. If it celebrates cities and urban life, it can be accused of being in denial of the manifest problems faced by 1 billion people – 1 in 3 of the world’s urban residents - living in slums, many without basic tenure security, clean water or sanitation. On the other hand, if it focuses too much on the scale and complexity of the problems, donors and national governments may just bury their heads in the sand and hope that rural development programmes will curb urban growth. Of course, this overlooks the fact that although 3 million people are being added to urban populations globally every week, rural-urban migration is not the main cause of growth in many cities and has been replaced by increases within existing urban populations. Whilst urban issues are undeniably complex, they can be addressed by bringing the residents into the decision-making process and improving governance at national and local levels.
Another challenge addressed by the report is that of climate change. Nearly 400 million people are considered to be at risk, mostly in developing countries like Bangladesh which are vulnerable to sea level rise.
Cities are also major consumers of energy, with buildings representing a higher proportion than industry or transport in high-income countries and cooking one of the major consumers of energy in low-income countries. Whilst cities are justifiably blamed for contributing to CO2 emissions, the report demonstrates that this is related more to consumption patterns than urbanization per se. For example, Sao Paulo produces one tenth of the emissions of San Diego, with a population ten times bigger. Cities in Europe are making progress in clean energy, whilst those in the USA continue to be the worst polluters, due largely to urban sprawl and private motorised transport.
Improved building design, more efficient land use and friendly, efficient public transport offer the greatest scope for improvements. Clearly, if cities are currently part of the problem, the report makes it clear that they have to be part of the solution.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
My hands are clean!
Now that the sub-prime crisis has triggered the end of free market capitalism, many are understandably claiming they saw it coming. However, how many can claim they saw this in 1989, nearly 20 years ago? Let me explain.
In 1989, I was invited by the World Bank to review a large number of reports, articles, books and papers on land tenure policies in developing countries as a potential contribution to the Bank's forthcoming housing policy paper. I explained to the Bank that I was not an economist, had minimal knowledge of the subject, but was, of course happy to be paid to learn more. I was told it was because I had already reviewed the literature on housing policies in developing countries and could summarise complex issues for a non-technically sophisticated readership (they had students in mind), that I was in fact well qualified. Flattery, and the prospect of being paid to learn, was enough for me to accept.
During correspondence and the exchange of a first draft, it became increasingly clear that the Bank wanted my report to endorse a policy of promoting home ownership in developing countries. Other forms of tenure, such as customary or rental tenure, were apparently not of interest.
The more I read, the more these assumptions seemed politically driven rather than empirically based. I could see no reason why home ownership was being so widely promoted. The reason given - that people could use the collateral of their titled homes to obtain credit, set up a business and thereby lift themselves out of poverty, was seductive, but made a rather basic assumption, namely that collateral is only relevant if you can afford to service the debt in the first place. For the majority of low-income households in developing coutnries, this was clearly not possible. Home ownership, in other words, is not appropriate for everyone.
My draft report advocating caution and promoting tenure diversity was condemned internally as biased, though no substantive criticisms were made and I was told that they would permit me to publish elsewhere. My report findings were excluded from the Bank publication, which was published in 1993 under the revealing title of 'Housing: Enabling Markets to Work'. A cynic might claim that this was a clever highjacking of the enabling concept being advocated by UN-Habitat and many progressive housing professionals working in developing countries, but that's another story.
It was this experience that got me into working on land tenure issues. Several research projects later, the initial concerns have now been fully vindicated. The assumptions made by the Bank - and many other advocates of free markets - have been exposed for what they were - an ideologically driven agenda.
I trust we are all pragmatists now.
In 1989, I was invited by the World Bank to review a large number of reports, articles, books and papers on land tenure policies in developing countries as a potential contribution to the Bank's forthcoming housing policy paper. I explained to the Bank that I was not an economist, had minimal knowledge of the subject, but was, of course happy to be paid to learn more. I was told it was because I had already reviewed the literature on housing policies in developing countries and could summarise complex issues for a non-technically sophisticated readership (they had students in mind), that I was in fact well qualified. Flattery, and the prospect of being paid to learn, was enough for me to accept.
During correspondence and the exchange of a first draft, it became increasingly clear that the Bank wanted my report to endorse a policy of promoting home ownership in developing countries. Other forms of tenure, such as customary or rental tenure, were apparently not of interest.
The more I read, the more these assumptions seemed politically driven rather than empirically based. I could see no reason why home ownership was being so widely promoted. The reason given - that people could use the collateral of their titled homes to obtain credit, set up a business and thereby lift themselves out of poverty, was seductive, but made a rather basic assumption, namely that collateral is only relevant if you can afford to service the debt in the first place. For the majority of low-income households in developing coutnries, this was clearly not possible. Home ownership, in other words, is not appropriate for everyone.
My draft report advocating caution and promoting tenure diversity was condemned internally as biased, though no substantive criticisms were made and I was told that they would permit me to publish elsewhere. My report findings were excluded from the Bank publication, which was published in 1993 under the revealing title of 'Housing: Enabling Markets to Work'. A cynic might claim that this was a clever highjacking of the enabling concept being advocated by UN-Habitat and many progressive housing professionals working in developing countries, but that's another story.
It was this experience that got me into working on land tenure issues. Several research projects later, the initial concerns have now been fully vindicated. The assumptions made by the Bank - and many other advocates of free markets - have been exposed for what they were - an ideologically driven agenda.
I trust we are all pragmatists now.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Living in interesting times!
My first blog - and what a time to start!
All the old certainties of the world, that governments had all the answers, and then that markets had all the answers, are gone. Even bankers, those 'masters of the universe' are now civil (or uncivil) servants! Can we assume they will be subject to public sector pay restraint?!
The housing bubble has finally burst - and about time. Surely it is not just bad economics, but also immoral to be able to get richer by lying in bed as one's home rises in value, than if one goes out and gets a job?
If this bubble had not burst now, the pain when it finally burst would have been even bigger. So now we have effectively got a form of socialism. However, its not the old form that strikes terror into the hearts of God-fearing Americans, under which the State decided who needed what and what they would get. This form of socialism is far more interesting and, hopefully, sustainable. The new socialism is in fact a form of social capitalism or tax-payers socialism, since the state is investing taxpayers money - yours and mine - so needs to listen (or at least pretend to) when it places its representatives on the boards of banks and other joint venture companies (which is what banks have become).
We can expect a new generation of 'smart regulation' in which private corporations will need to take into account the wider public interest when making their investments.
The time has arrived in which we need to redefine the public interest in economic development (and urban development) and formulate ways of protecting it, whilst still enabling bankers and other investors, to make a reasonable living.
Interesting times indeed - and potentially exciting! This time, we need to get it right.
All the old certainties of the world, that governments had all the answers, and then that markets had all the answers, are gone. Even bankers, those 'masters of the universe' are now civil (or uncivil) servants! Can we assume they will be subject to public sector pay restraint?!
The housing bubble has finally burst - and about time. Surely it is not just bad economics, but also immoral to be able to get richer by lying in bed as one's home rises in value, than if one goes out and gets a job?
If this bubble had not burst now, the pain when it finally burst would have been even bigger. So now we have effectively got a form of socialism. However, its not the old form that strikes terror into the hearts of God-fearing Americans, under which the State decided who needed what and what they would get. This form of socialism is far more interesting and, hopefully, sustainable. The new socialism is in fact a form of social capitalism or tax-payers socialism, since the state is investing taxpayers money - yours and mine - so needs to listen (or at least pretend to) when it places its representatives on the boards of banks and other joint venture companies (which is what banks have become).
We can expect a new generation of 'smart regulation' in which private corporations will need to take into account the wider public interest when making their investments.
The time has arrived in which we need to redefine the public interest in economic development (and urban development) and formulate ways of protecting it, whilst still enabling bankers and other investors, to make a reasonable living.
Interesting times indeed - and potentially exciting! This time, we need to get it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
