Urban governance and its global importance

Slide 1: Raising the issues Urban governance gained importance from decentralization processes in majority of world’s countries Urban local bodies have new mandates concerning economic development; previously limited to local infrastructure and social policies Cities are less bound to government funding; actively competing with each other in obtaining investment, including FDI Cities produce larger than proportionate share of their regions/provincial GDPs; important sources of tax revenues for regional and national governments

Slide 2: Local and global interfaces Large-city governments have become more outward- looking: linking directly with international companies, professional associations, financial investors Transnational companies look for attractive places to locate, have high requirements for quality infrastructure for business locations and staff living conditions Large cities compete to become part of ‘global city networks’: better infrastructure, housing and services, new communication technology, Cities have become less integrated with their regional and national economies

Slide 3: Cities for citizens? Cities are becoming fragmented spaces: gated areas for wealthy citizens, ‘abandoned’ spaces for the poor Deprivations in well-being are becoming concentrated; lack of housing and basic services, access to education and employment cumulative (Delhi map) Middle-class citizens organize for their own agenda, focusing on neighborhood improvements, excluding poor households and poor areas of the city Increasing ‘urbanization of poverty’, although statistics do not recognize this; 1$/day understates urban poverty (Satterthwaite,IIED)

Source: IDPAD project New Forms of Urban governance Poverty index ranges from ; darker shade of red indicates multiple deprivations Slide 4 – ‘Poverty hotspots’ map of Delhi: deprivations in well-being at electoral ward level using Census 2001 data

Slide 5 – Mapping Poverty hotspots in Chennai: at electoral ward level using Census 2001 data Poverty index ranges between ; darker shade of red indicates multiple deprivations Source: IDPAD project New Forms of Urban governance

Slide 6: Can local government make a difference? Some researchers suggest that local governments have to follow neo-liberal agenda and cannot adopt localized social policies in the face of global economic forces (Sassen, Hall) Others researchers contend that local government policies can make a difference through a range of measures: institutional development, accountability, representation, reducing corruption (Cavill, Devas, Hasan et al.; Douglass) Local governments cannot go it alone: they have to work with other levels of government and international agencies to be effective – metropolitan governance (A. Scott)

Slide 7: Institutional development Local governments need to make their policies transparent and available to citizens (using e-governance and ‘right to information’ measures) Local governments need to put their financial house in order: –collecting taxes and other revenues effectively –Building staff capacity –Using accountancy methods that show capital investment as well as cash flows Local governments need to streamline their regulations and enforce them effectively (illegal building not confined to slums) Local governments need to provide services effectively Local governments need financing for investment in infrastructure

Slide 8: Accountability and Participatory governance Local governments work with ward-level representatives within cities Local governments have privatized basic services, but often lose effective control over them in doing so; they need to be able to make private providers accountable to themselves and to citizens –WDR 2004 describes long and short road of accountability and context for different models of accountability Local governments work more in ‘partnerships’ with citizen groups; ranging from participatory budgeting, implementation of services, monitoring activities; context is influential in determining which ‘citizens’ voices’ are heard –middle-class citizens organize themselves strongly for their own agendas and confront government directly –Poor households have little voice, and work through political ‘leaders’ to gain more voice; leaders may have their own agendas

Slide 9: Participatory governance – developing local models Local ward representatives within cities – political representation Many municipalities in Brazil: Porto Alegre, Curitiba, and many others with political leadership of the PT Aggregating local initiatives to national levels for greater effectiveness: Cities for Life Forum, Peru Local-to-local initiatives with international networks behind them: Homeless International, working with National Slum Dwellers Federation in India, South Africa and local NGOs (SPARC)

Slide 10: Lessons learned from the Latin American experience in PB (Cabannes) political context – tensions between executive and legislative wings of local bodies? Private sector influences in the background (Mumbai)? Municipal finance and participatory budgeting; strong differences in budget allocated to PB, information available about progress, and in accounting systems Effects of PB – less tax avoidance, avoided costs through contributions in kind by citizens method of participation – 2-7% of total population in direct participation; representative participation through CBOs/CSOs ; area-based participation

Slide 11 - Cont,d. Government as anchor for PB – political or executive? ‘inversion of priorities’: investment moves to excluded areas Role of professionals (researchers, NGOs, universities) – from ‘experts’ to ‘resource persons’ Spatial dimension – how far to decentralize? How to link different scale levels? Within city and outside? Avoiding political cooptation, bureacratization? Resources: Urban Management Program (UNDP/WB/UNCHS), Environment & Urbanizationwww.pgualc.org

Slide 12: Government and private sector interests – unexplored links Private sector providing collective goods – housing, infrastructure, collective services How does private sector direct city policy priorities to high profit activities? Does private sector prevent distributive policies? Can private sector link with higher government levels to direct investment allocation? Can private sector set limits to contracts to reduce non-profitable poverty-reducing activities?

Slide 13 - Conclusions Cities and their governments more important as ‘new state space’ Urban poverty needs to be recognized as multi-dimensional deprivations City governments need to strengthen their own capacity and link up with other scale levels of government – metropolitan governance and city-to-city networks, and trans-national urban governance networks Diversity of citizens’ identities and interests made explicit, so that inequalities do not grow further Participatory models can support redistributive urban policies Urban regime research still very necessary to analyze government – private sector links