By Rasna Warah
The urban millennium has ushered in the era of globalization, which is increasingly shaping the world's ideas, economy and politics. Technological advances in communications are linking people's lives in ways never thought possible before. Today, it is possible to know in an instant what is happening in a city or a household half a world away. National borders are becoming less significant as the flow of trade, capital and information becomes more frequent between cities rather than between countries.
 |
Globalization has placed cities in a highly competitive framework of intercity linkages and networks. These globally networked cities, sometimes referred to as the "urban archipelago", act as energy nodes in a global force field. In a volatile global economy, the growing speed, complexity and precariousness of innovation in all sectors seem to demand a parallel concentration in cities, which have the necessary assets to sustain ongoing competitiveness.
As more and more cities compete with each other to attract global capital, they are obliged to provide a minimum package of enabling conditions that will serve the forces of globalization. The package varies from place to place, but includes incentives, such as well-functioning infrastructure and urban services, excellent communications, efficient transportation systems, availability of housing, and access to educational and recreational facilities. Although globalization certainly affects rural areas, global forces are centred in cities. The characteristics of cities and their surrounding regions help shape and promote globalization. As global forces increasingly mediate the economic base of cities, the critical nexus between cities and globalization will only strengthen.
The recent East Asian crisis demonstrated that economic growth policies do not necessarily profit the poor. In that region, the urban poor were worst affected when there was a sudden decline in economic growth.
In all regions where the number of poor has increased, a majority of them are in urban areas that have been the key drivers of the local economy. Technology-driven options for growth and development, which spur globalization, have a global and local downside: they lead to more lines of stratification between places, people and groups. The paradox associated with globalization is that, while cities need to increasingly operate as territorial units if they are to compete effectively in the global economy, it has in fact led to increased fragmentation of cities-socially, economically and physically.
The benefits and costs of globalization are unevenly distributed within cities. Homeless people are living in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks of gleaming skyscrapers occupied by corporations, whose budgets exceed that of most countries. Enclaves of "super-connected" people, firms and institutions, with their increasing broadband connections to the world via the Internet, mobile phones and satellite televisions, often exist cheek-by-jowl with large numbers of people who have never even made a phone call.
|
The beginning of the twenty-first century has seen the continuous transformation of the world's population into urban dwellers.
The urban population has increased from less than 30 per cent of the total in 1950 to more than 47 per cent in 2000.
By the year 2006, more than half of humankind will live in cities, the bulk in the developing world.
An increasing proportion of the world's population is living in cities with more than 1 million inhabitants, and during the last 50 years the number of such cities has increased from 80 to 365.
By 2015, 153 of these large cities will be in Asia, which will also host 15 of the world's 27 "mega-cities", or cities with more than 10 million inhabitants.
Europe, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean are already largely urbanized regions, with 75 per cent of their populations residing in cities.
Although still largely rural, Africa and Asia face an explosive demographic shift in the next 20 years as their populations become more urbanized.
|
The social and economic cores and peripheries of the global information age and the global economy are not only continents apart, but can also be found geographically adjacent to each other within individual cities. In many cities, the disparities between the affluent and the dispossessed is exemplified by the coexistence of thriving business districts, affluent neighbourhoods and slums or derelict inner-city quarters. The elite in many developing countries has more in common with the elite in developed countries than it has with its own citizens. They speak one global language and deal in one global currency. Their lifestyles merge in homogenized shopping malls and impeccable suburban housing estates.
But for others, living conditions are not only worsening but also becoming unlivable. In many countries, real incomes have fallen, and the number of poor households has grown. Real estate costs in certain cities have skyrocketed, pushing middle and lower income groups to the fringes of the city. For a growing proportion of urban dwellers, the incomes generated by city labour markets cannot cover the housing costs determined by the urban land market. This has led to the birth of enclaves of poverty on the urban periphery and in the inner-city, showing a hitherto unseen pattern of spatial segregation.
An increasing proportion of the poor-an estimated 500-800 million people-live in urban areas of developing countries. If lack of access to basic services is included in the definition of poverty, it is estimated that nearly 1 billion people in cities of the developing world are poor. The urbanization of poverty is accompanied by a growing feminization of poverty. Women head an estimated 20 to 25 per cent of households worldwide. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, where nearly 50 per cent of households are woman-headed, the incidence of poverty among urban women has increased.
However, the reality emerging from the world's slums reveals that while the poor have little influence over global economic forces, they are taking an increasingly active role as agents of their own development. When banks do not lend to them, they save and lend to each other; where no housing is available, they build their own shelter; where no education is provided, they teach each other. The poor are also getting more organized. Federations of slum dwellers in some countries, for instance, have managed to influence national and international policies by presenting a formidable political force and participating in cooperative national frameworks.
New ways of governance are required to manage and mitigate the risks associated with globalization. The combined forces of urbanization and globalization have thrust additional responsibilities on city governments, which find themselves suddenly having to deal with the economic development of their local constituents, vis-à-vis the international community, while at the same time having to shoulder the burden of ensuring social justice and equity within cities.
|
The world is no longer a community of States, but an increasingly borderless network of interconnected cities where power is being shared more evenly and governance is becoming more democratic. Civil society and their organizations are consolidating their views and hopes for a more just and humane model of global development. Cities are often sites of the extreme exploitation of masses of people, but they are also sites of new types of politics in which the poor and excluded can engage in different forms of political participation. The critical mass of people in cities and their proximity to urban-based political and social institutions and information networks helps citizens' groups to hammer out agendas and facilitates the organization of social movements.
Cities localize democratic processes in ways that global and national institutions cannot. People there can and do demand a share of the urban development pie. Cities augment national political processes, deepening democracy and making it more accessible and equitable. Globalization has also made possible the ascendance of a large variety of non-state actors in the international arena, signalling the birth of a truly international civil society.
Far from exerting a deterministic, homogenizing effect, global processes allow for local differentiation, particularly at the city level. In cities, we are seeing localized responses to global forces and, in many, people are overwhelmed by changes in their traditional cultural, spiritual and social values and norms, and by the introduction of a cult of consumerism intrinsic to the process of globalization. In response, they are stressing their own identity, their own culture and values, and the importance of their neighbourhoods, vicinities or towns. Globalization has created an apparent paradox where polity-the condition of civil order-is simultaneously becoming more global and more local. Globalization and localization, or "glocalization"-the hybrid economic, political and cultural structures and processes associated with the growing interdependence of local and global dimensions-creates the possibility of a new type of grass-roots politics that localizes in the network of global cities.
|
Local governments have to play a strategic role in facilitating decision-making and mediating the divergent needs of business and organized elements of civil society. Where local government has decentralized powers, and civil society is buoyant and organized, urban development can be a positive force in the life of every urban citizen.
Notwithstanding the so-called "hollowing out of the State", central governments remain important, even essential, actors in the governance of cities. They still hold crucial powers, not only in terms of financial resources, but also in terms of long-term urban agendas, strategic planning and sustainable development. The State has a legitimate intervention role in the process of decentralization, first, in matters of national interest, and second, in local matters when they impact wider interests or when local actors prove to be incapable or dysfunctional.
National government must act as a watchdog, safeguarding the interests of weak or vulnerable sections of society. The State must also retain a major role in giving coherence to local actions and in mediating between local and international actors. While national governments must facilitate the functioning of global markets and forces, they must also take responsibility for social cohesion, justice, equity and conflict resolution in cities. In the long run, governments have the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that globalization and urbanization are positive forces of development.
|
Decentralization. The devolution of power from central to local governments ensures that decisions regarding the development and management of infrastructure and services rest with the level of government that is closest to the community. Local governments need greater resources, responsibility and political legitimacy if they are to manage and mitigate the adverse effects of globalization.
However, evidence suggests that decentralization in many countries has not been accompanied by a parallel devolution of resources from the national to local level, thereby increasing the level of poverty and inequality in many cities. Corruption within municipalities can also nullify the benefits of decentralization. Appropriate transfer of resources, regulatory arrangements, including checks and balances, transparency, accountability and clearly defined rules and responsibilities must, therefore, accompany decentralization.
Civil society participation in policy-making. In a number of countries, city authorities have changed their policies to provide more scope for greater participation by civil society in municipal plans and actions. There is now growing support for greater involvement of civil society in policy-making at the local and national levels. The reasons are clear. First, as in the case of decentralization, there are governing failures at the national and local levels. The involvement of people is seen as necessary to elaborate and implement policies in ways that are more responsive to local problems and needs. In addition, civil society participation helps legitimize local policy structures of government and, consequently, makes public policies more efficient.
Participation, of course, is not necessarily the same thing as influence and certainly not the same thing as decision-making, but it is an essential element of both. How far participation transforms decision-making processes depends on the existing power relations, which unfortunately globalization has served to reinforce. The organizing capacity of the urban poor and the excluded, however, can make urban governance more inclusive. If the urban poor are organized, they can make better use of emerging political spaces. Improved democratic systems may increase participation, but may not automatically lead to empowerment or poverty reduction if the poor are weakly organized or if accountability mechanisms are absent or underdeveloped.
Multi-level governance and partnerships. Partnerships between various levels of government and between public and private institutions provide a mechanism for resolving the needs-demand gap in provision of basic services. They also enable different sectors to gain access to each other's skills and resources, and provide a mechanism for sharing risks and maximizing returns on investment. In some countries, multi-level governance is mostly restricted to public institutions, while in others, the voluntary sector, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, are frequently included. Through this process, the comparative advantages of different actors are exploited in a mutually supportive way.
However, multi-level governance and partnerships should not be seen as a panacea for all urban ills. Partnerships need sound government intervention, particularly when addressing the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable groups.
Process-driven and territorial-based policies. Today, governance takes place in a more polycentric system of actors, in which the State is less dominant than before. The multiplicity of actors complicates policy-making since no single actor has the exclusive legitimacy to direct societal change. Consensus is no longer a given. This requires alliances, coalitions and compromises. It also requires negotiation, debate and discussion. These new forms of collective action cannot take place at the central level any more. Territorial regulation has replaced national regulation, because of the limited ability of the State to solve problems and address issues at lower levels, and due to the increasing integration of diverse elements that efficient public policies require. This is a major reason for the development of so-called area-based initiatives.
|
|
Rasna Warah is Editor-in-Chief of Habitat Debate.
|
|
