Living ground-hog day - again!

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.