Xia Li
“Cities were always like people, showing their varying personalities to the traveler. Depending on the city and on the traveler, there might begin a mutual love, or dislike, friendship, or enmity. Where one city will rise a certain individual to glory, it will destroy another who is not suited to its personality. Only through travel can we know where belong or not, where we are loved and where we are rejected.”
-Roman Payne, Cities & Countries
it is well accepted that urban areas are “engines of growth”, with data conforming that more than half of the GDP of both developed countries and developing countries comes from urban-based economic activities — manufacturing, commerce, finance and other service (Cohen, 1994). Cities have traditionally been — and will continue to be — centers for high productivity, innovation, creativity and social capital. However, the benefits of this growth machine are not equally distributed to each one living in cities. The ones who get the most benefits from urban development consider the city as a heaven and will keep grab maximum profits through the growth coalition, while the ones who suffer from the political, economic and social problems both created and exacerbated by the rate of urban growth may think of cities as a hell. In this precis, I will discuss the two sides of the city as a growth machine and examine the positive and negative effects of the new localism as well as explore the possible reasons of its failure.
Logan and Molotch (1987) argue urban growth has effects on fiscal health, employment, job and income mobility, social problems, environment and public satisfaction. The urban paradoxes are mainly displayed in these aspects. From the economic perspective, the efficiency benefits, known as economies of agglomeration, provided by cities, result in extraordinary gains in productivity and competitiveness. Nevertheless, urban areas as the engines of economic development, has also become the engines of migration, and thus the engine of slum formation or segregation. The productivity gap between urban and rural areas and inequality in terms of income results in a large number of population migrating from rural to urban areas. As cities are incapable to absorb the influx of massive rural population, the increased population end up with living in slums or poor communities where are shortage of basic services and infrastructures (UN Habitat, 2011). From the social perspective, cities are not only engines of growth, but are also the locale of increasing poverty. As Logan and Molotch point out, “local growth may be only a matter of making the local rich even richer” (p 93), urban growth to some extent has negative effect on economically disadvantaged citizens because of their vulnerable position in labor market and the lack of access to basic infrastructure services and less of investment in human capital (Cohen, 1994).
Besides increasing poverty, urban inequality has been worsened alone with urban development. In fact, urban inequality remains considerably higher than rural inequality (UN Habitat, 2015). Through the egalitarianism of exchange, class divisions widen because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Harvard (2003) reminds us the old saying that “nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal”. No matter how many new opportunities have been created from urban growth, it is always the privileged ones (better skills, networks and social capital) first seize these new opportunities and leave the low-end jobs to the disadvantaged.
From an environmental perspective, it is argued that dense urban agglomerations are beneficial to the health of the people living in them because, health services are available and easily accessible in urban areas, and on the other hand, residents of dense cities tend to walk or cycle for their daily transportation needs. The affluent health sources and high level of physical activities improve urban residents’ health. Yet, a paradox appears that urban residents are likely to face more health problems due to the airborne pollution and lack of exposure to greenery and open space which are not available on the same scale to rural residents.
Admittedly, there are costs and benefits of growth, the main participants in urban politics – the politicians, the local business people or the elite groups and the public – reach a consensus that growth is an important part of the local political process. There is a range of the roles and activities of the participants in urban politics according to the local context and environment. Raco and Mike et al. (2016) utilize the example of development in the South Bank in London to show that “cities such as London anti-political development machines, or assemblages of public- and private-sector organizations, have co-evolved alongside localist discourses and now dominate the politics of major developments in English cities” (p 218). The new development machines show modern forms of expert-led governance within which technical knowledge replaces political deliberations. The new localist reforms have achieved great progress in (1) embracing inclusion, local engagement and empowerment; (2) guaranteeing and delivering “highest quality” of development proposals; (3) providing quality, robust advice and outputs (4) showing a commitment to participation that goes beyond simplistic rhetoric; (5) allowing private consultancies to better understand and work with the complex spaces of urban politics (229-231).
Besides the positive influences, however, the expert-led development machines also show some undesired effects to local politics. The foremost critique is from the local residents’ complaining of their true roles and values in the process. Arnstein’s (1969) eight rungs on a ladder of Citizen Participation can be suitably applied here to understand the level of the residents’ participation in the planning process of South Bank. The representatives of local residents’ complained that they were treated akin to a “discussion group” and have no “direct line” to policy makers and the developers. Furthermore, some community actors perceived the development machine only wanted ‘positive’ answers to show they had consulted and established some local results, without truly sharing the decision power with locales. Thus we can assume only the lower rungs of the ladder - manipulation, informing, and consultation of citizen participation were displayed in the new localist reforms. Some other weakness, such as blurring lines of accountability and responsibility, ignorance of local evidence and false information, misconduct of experts also show the challenges and risks of the new reform.
Unfortunately, Raco and Mike do not discuss why these potential weaknesses exist in the expert-led development machines. To my understanding, there are at least three factors that can explain this phenomenon. To begin with, urban politics is in a complex and multilevel space that only expert’ technical knowledge and experiences from private organization management are not sufficient to meet all regulatory requirements of planning system and public needs. Secondly, the ultimate goal of the developer’s strategy was to secure a planning approval they propose and they benefit, so they will try the most to control any conflicts and obstacles that prevent them succeeding, regardless of alternative better proposals there might be. Last and most importantly, as long as there is private sector’ involvement in urban politics, profit maximum will be the priority and center of all related activities and development planning.
David Harvey calls for a socially just city which is more inclusive and anyone living there has a right to change it after our heart’s desire. In face of the accumulated wealth produced in city and its increasing economic, social and environmental problems discussed above, what can be done to resolve these urban paradoxes? It seems the power and magic are held in the key stakeholders in urban politics. The new localism reforms are successful in opening up opportunities for the mobilization of expert knowledge and power to co-produce more effective and efficient policies and programs. The relative weights of the roles of central and local government, private sectors, experts and the public in urban development agenda, however, should be reallocated and reevaluated to make sure the final proposals are truly promoting the core values and benefits of the public, not merely apparently democratic products that are only beneficial the elite groups.
Discussion Question:
1. What are the limitations that prevent citizens from achieving a higher level of participation to affect the outcome of public policy process?
2. What are the trade-offs of urban growth?
3. How to understand and assess the challenges and barriers of public-private partnership in providing public service?
External Readings
1. Michael A. Cohen, “Cities and the Prospects of Nations”, speech to OECD Conference, “Cities and the New Global Economy”, Melbourne, Australia, November 1994
2. Xing Quan Zhang, “The Economic Role of Cities”, (Nairobi: UN Habitat, 2011), pp. 1-45
3. Eduardo Lopez Moreno, Construction of More Equitable Cities: Public Policies for Inclusion in Latin America, (Nairobi: UN Habitat, 2015). Chapter 3, pp. 48-85
-Roman Payne, Cities & Countries
it is well accepted that urban areas are “engines of growth”, with data conforming that more than half of the GDP of both developed countries and developing countries comes from urban-based economic activities — manufacturing, commerce, finance and other service (Cohen, 1994). Cities have traditionally been — and will continue to be — centers for high productivity, innovation, creativity and social capital. However, the benefits of this growth machine are not equally distributed to each one living in cities. The ones who get the most benefits from urban development consider the city as a heaven and will keep grab maximum profits through the growth coalition, while the ones who suffer from the political, economic and social problems both created and exacerbated by the rate of urban growth may think of cities as a hell. In this precis, I will discuss the two sides of the city as a growth machine and examine the positive and negative effects of the new localism as well as explore the possible reasons of its failure.
Logan and Molotch (1987) argue urban growth has effects on fiscal health, employment, job and income mobility, social problems, environment and public satisfaction. The urban paradoxes are mainly displayed in these aspects. From the economic perspective, the efficiency benefits, known as economies of agglomeration, provided by cities, result in extraordinary gains in productivity and competitiveness. Nevertheless, urban areas as the engines of economic development, has also become the engines of migration, and thus the engine of slum formation or segregation. The productivity gap between urban and rural areas and inequality in terms of income results in a large number of population migrating from rural to urban areas. As cities are incapable to absorb the influx of massive rural population, the increased population end up with living in slums or poor communities where are shortage of basic services and infrastructures (UN Habitat, 2011). From the social perspective, cities are not only engines of growth, but are also the locale of increasing poverty. As Logan and Molotch point out, “local growth may be only a matter of making the local rich even richer” (p 93), urban growth to some extent has negative effect on economically disadvantaged citizens because of their vulnerable position in labor market and the lack of access to basic infrastructure services and less of investment in human capital (Cohen, 1994).
Besides increasing poverty, urban inequality has been worsened alone with urban development. In fact, urban inequality remains considerably higher than rural inequality (UN Habitat, 2015). Through the egalitarianism of exchange, class divisions widen because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Harvard (2003) reminds us the old saying that “nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal”. No matter how many new opportunities have been created from urban growth, it is always the privileged ones (better skills, networks and social capital) first seize these new opportunities and leave the low-end jobs to the disadvantaged.
From an environmental perspective, it is argued that dense urban agglomerations are beneficial to the health of the people living in them because, health services are available and easily accessible in urban areas, and on the other hand, residents of dense cities tend to walk or cycle for their daily transportation needs. The affluent health sources and high level of physical activities improve urban residents’ health. Yet, a paradox appears that urban residents are likely to face more health problems due to the airborne pollution and lack of exposure to greenery and open space which are not available on the same scale to rural residents.
Admittedly, there are costs and benefits of growth, the main participants in urban politics – the politicians, the local business people or the elite groups and the public – reach a consensus that growth is an important part of the local political process. There is a range of the roles and activities of the participants in urban politics according to the local context and environment. Raco and Mike et al. (2016) utilize the example of development in the South Bank in London to show that “cities such as London anti-political development machines, or assemblages of public- and private-sector organizations, have co-evolved alongside localist discourses and now dominate the politics of major developments in English cities” (p 218). The new development machines show modern forms of expert-led governance within which technical knowledge replaces political deliberations. The new localist reforms have achieved great progress in (1) embracing inclusion, local engagement and empowerment; (2) guaranteeing and delivering “highest quality” of development proposals; (3) providing quality, robust advice and outputs (4) showing a commitment to participation that goes beyond simplistic rhetoric; (5) allowing private consultancies to better understand and work with the complex spaces of urban politics (229-231).
Besides the positive influences, however, the expert-led development machines also show some undesired effects to local politics. The foremost critique is from the local residents’ complaining of their true roles and values in the process. Arnstein’s (1969) eight rungs on a ladder of Citizen Participation can be suitably applied here to understand the level of the residents’ participation in the planning process of South Bank. The representatives of local residents’ complained that they were treated akin to a “discussion group” and have no “direct line” to policy makers and the developers. Furthermore, some community actors perceived the development machine only wanted ‘positive’ answers to show they had consulted and established some local results, without truly sharing the decision power with locales. Thus we can assume only the lower rungs of the ladder - manipulation, informing, and consultation of citizen participation were displayed in the new localist reforms. Some other weakness, such as blurring lines of accountability and responsibility, ignorance of local evidence and false information, misconduct of experts also show the challenges and risks of the new reform.
Unfortunately, Raco and Mike do not discuss why these potential weaknesses exist in the expert-led development machines. To my understanding, there are at least three factors that can explain this phenomenon. To begin with, urban politics is in a complex and multilevel space that only expert’ technical knowledge and experiences from private organization management are not sufficient to meet all regulatory requirements of planning system and public needs. Secondly, the ultimate goal of the developer’s strategy was to secure a planning approval they propose and they benefit, so they will try the most to control any conflicts and obstacles that prevent them succeeding, regardless of alternative better proposals there might be. Last and most importantly, as long as there is private sector’ involvement in urban politics, profit maximum will be the priority and center of all related activities and development planning.
David Harvey calls for a socially just city which is more inclusive and anyone living there has a right to change it after our heart’s desire. In face of the accumulated wealth produced in city and its increasing economic, social and environmental problems discussed above, what can be done to resolve these urban paradoxes? It seems the power and magic are held in the key stakeholders in urban politics. The new localism reforms are successful in opening up opportunities for the mobilization of expert knowledge and power to co-produce more effective and efficient policies and programs. The relative weights of the roles of central and local government, private sectors, experts and the public in urban development agenda, however, should be reallocated and reevaluated to make sure the final proposals are truly promoting the core values and benefits of the public, not merely apparently democratic products that are only beneficial the elite groups.
Discussion Question:
1. What are the limitations that prevent citizens from achieving a higher level of participation to affect the outcome of public policy process?
2. What are the trade-offs of urban growth?
3. How to understand and assess the challenges and barriers of public-private partnership in providing public service?
External Readings
1. Michael A. Cohen, “Cities and the Prospects of Nations”, speech to OECD Conference, “Cities and the New Global Economy”, Melbourne, Australia, November 1994
2. Xing Quan Zhang, “The Economic Role of Cities”, (Nairobi: UN Habitat, 2011), pp. 1-45
3. Eduardo Lopez Moreno, Construction of More Equitable Cities: Public Policies for Inclusion in Latin America, (Nairobi: UN Habitat, 2015). Chapter 3, pp. 48-85