Samantha Cocco-Klein, 17 October 2016
Introduction
Over one billion children live in cities and towns; a number set to rise as the world urbanizes[i]. By 2030, the majority of urban residents around the world will be under the age of 18[ii]. This shift, both demographic and geographic, means that international efforts to reduce child poverty will need to move away from a traditional focus on rural areas and increasingly consider urban inequities. For child advocates, the question now is ‘how to influence urban policy and decision-making so that reducing inequities and poverty experienced by children and families is higher on the urban agenda’.
A recent event organized by Equity for Children at the New School took-up this question and came up with three core recommendations: 1 ) Reframing urban discussions to include children as key stakeholders, 2) using reliable and timely data to drive inclusion, and 3) thinking and working politically, fostering relationships with urban decision-makers and communities. The recommendations reflect experiences of a diverse set of practitioners, including foundations, multi-lateral institutions, academia and civil society organizations from Latin America and New York City.[iii] The questions this paper seeks to answer are, “How well do the recommendations align with existing theories on urban politics and policy-making? And do the recommendations acknowledge the opportunities and pitfalls identified in theories on local decision-making?”
Theories on urban politics and policy-making
Theories and thinking on urban politics and policy-making have been described by Oliver, Ha and Callen (2012) as divided between two camps; with one group focused on the coalitions formed by different interest groups, and the other concentrated on the value of local participation, particularly by marginalized groups. With the first theory there is an assumption that city politics are “dominated by coalitions organized around maximizing returns on property investments, specific groups viewing local politics through the prism of race or ethnicity, and machine politicians holding office through patronage.” (Oliver, Ha & Callen, 2012) A driving force within these coalitions is the ‘growth machine’, a near universal agreement among elites on prioritizing growth. This interest is not limited to business leaders and real estate developers, but includes large non-profits, local media, labor unions and utility companies who all stand to benefit from bigger cities. (Logan & Molotch, 1987)
This importance of coalitions and their interests is reflected in Equity for Children’s first recommendation, to reframe conversations to include children as stakeholders. Noting the tendency for children’s issues to be considered as a separate agenda, the goal is to include them in the larger, urban agenda. To do this, Equity for Children argues, requires an understanding of mayoral priorities, from infrastructure to the economy. If the growth agenda is dominant, then it entails situating children’s well-being within that agenda. This is apparent in the examples provided by the practitioners, who noted that improving access to quality early childhood care can be marketed to city decision-makers as a way to improve employment and residential stability of parents, in other words, to create a good business climate and keep the city growing. The potential liabilities of situating a child agenda within a ‘growth agenda’, however pragmatic it may seem, is that the provision of social services, such as health and education, is not determined by the level of demand or children’s needs, but by the level of service that fits the local growth strategy. Moreover, the growth of cities does not necessarily translate into improved opportunities for marginalized families or lower poverty rates; better paying new jobs often go to newcomers, and rapid growth contributes to higher costs of living. (Logan & Molotch, 1987)
Interests other than growth can be at play within governing coalitions, including patronage systems and racial or ethnic groups seeking greater representation. (Oliver, Ha & Callen, 2012) Equity for Children’s recommendations do not explicitly speak to these interests, and most child rights practitioners and international development organizations give them wide berth so as to avoid any perception of bias towards one group or lending a hand to corruption. However, for the rapidly growing cities of the Global South, these interests are likely to be just as present as the growth consensus. Interesting questions remain on how children’s well-being and poverty reduction are handled by local patronage-style systems or politics based on ethnic groups.
Turning to the second camp of theory on urban politics, which deals with the civic participation, there are arguments that local politics are “the best venue for citizens to empower themselves and fully realize democracies transcendent possibilities”. (Oliver, Ha & Callen, 2012) The theory argues that when poor and disadvantaged citizens become involved, they make governance more meaningful and responsive to their concerns. This viewpoint is articulated in Equity for Children’s third recommendation, to develop multi-directional relationships to enhance inclusion. Central to the recommendation is fostering direct participation by children, families and community-service providers in identifying their needs and integrating these into urban decision-making. As an example, Young Citizens Score Cards, developed by the Children’s Environments Research Group (CERG) provide a way for children and caregivers to score their cities and identify ways to improve them. The scorecards have been used in 27 countries.
At first glance, increasing participation appears to be a sound way to improve consideration of children’s well-being and needs. However, as the literature notes, genuine participation is rare. In a seminal study on citizen participation, Sherry Arnstein (1969) highlights “the critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process.” This pitfall is recognized by the child rights advocates. One of the speakers at the event, Dr. Roger Hart, Director of CERG, has adapted Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation’ to children’s participation, and it is used widely by child rights organizations[iv]. What the participation advocates fail to address is the mixed evidence on whether the ‘participatory’ models of democracy meaningfully change city politics - or improve the ability of marginalized residents to participate in political processes. Do initiatives by child rights advocates to foster participation by children and their families actually lead to a stronger voice in city affairs and greater resources being directed to children? Or as argued by Oliver, Ha and Callen (2012) could they be better served by patronage systems that direct resources to marginalized groups and have longer staying power?
In criticism of the two camps of coalitions and participation, Oliver, Ha and Callen (2012) argue that these theories are driven primarily by political observations of big, complex cities; in response, they propose a third theory, managerial democracy, which they argue is more appropriate to smaller cities and towns. Building their model around suburban towns in the US, they note there are fewer issues to contend with and a much lower level of resources to distribute. This means that competition in local elections is muted, and with limited resources to redistribute, the focus is on providing public goods and services that serve all. This ‘managerial’ style of decision-making may also be applicable to many cities in developing countries, where most resources are still managed by central governments and the scope for local policy is limited. It is the type of ‘decision-making’ that is best aligned with Equity for Children’s second recommendation, to increase the availability and use of disaggregated data to identify children under-served by existing public services. Here the goal is not radical redistribution, but instead to extend existing health, education and protection services to all children on an equitable basis. It is the traditional basis of most child advocacy work in developing countries, and may be the most applicable to advocacy for children in urban settings.
The criticism of this approach is that equal access may not be enough to overcome profound and chronic inequality. In these cases some form of income redistribution is required. And where there are large discrepancies in incomes and taxes paid then there may be difficulties in sustaining equitable access to quality services. The profound discrepancies in the quality of public schools in New York City are prime example of this. Likewise in developing countries, many basic services, such as water and sanitation, are simply not extended to informal parts of the city, reflecting the limitations of the managerial model.
Concluding thoughts
Equity for Children’s recommendations represent a first step by international child rights advocates to understand ‘how’ children’s inequities can be addressed in urban areas. Driven by experience, they show alignment with different streams of thought on urban politics and policy-making, from fitting children’s needs into a larger, growth-driven urban agenda to fostering civic participation. However, there is still a long way to go before the recommendations and thinking on children in the urban agenda’ fully makes use of existing ideas and evidence from theories on local decision-making.
[i] UNICEF (2012), State of the World’s Children 2012: Children in an Urban World, UNICEF
[ii] Raga, Dougals (2012), Cities of Youth: Cities of Prosperity. UN Habitat
[iii] Equity for Children (2016), Addressing Urban Inequities and childhood: Advancing the agenda for children and cities, Equity for Children, The New School
[iv] Hart, Roger A. (1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Innocenti Essays No. 4, UNICEF International Child Development Centre
Introduction
Over one billion children live in cities and towns; a number set to rise as the world urbanizes[i]. By 2030, the majority of urban residents around the world will be under the age of 18[ii]. This shift, both demographic and geographic, means that international efforts to reduce child poverty will need to move away from a traditional focus on rural areas and increasingly consider urban inequities. For child advocates, the question now is ‘how to influence urban policy and decision-making so that reducing inequities and poverty experienced by children and families is higher on the urban agenda’.
A recent event organized by Equity for Children at the New School took-up this question and came up with three core recommendations: 1 ) Reframing urban discussions to include children as key stakeholders, 2) using reliable and timely data to drive inclusion, and 3) thinking and working politically, fostering relationships with urban decision-makers and communities. The recommendations reflect experiences of a diverse set of practitioners, including foundations, multi-lateral institutions, academia and civil society organizations from Latin America and New York City.[iii] The questions this paper seeks to answer are, “How well do the recommendations align with existing theories on urban politics and policy-making? And do the recommendations acknowledge the opportunities and pitfalls identified in theories on local decision-making?”
Theories on urban politics and policy-making
Theories and thinking on urban politics and policy-making have been described by Oliver, Ha and Callen (2012) as divided between two camps; with one group focused on the coalitions formed by different interest groups, and the other concentrated on the value of local participation, particularly by marginalized groups. With the first theory there is an assumption that city politics are “dominated by coalitions organized around maximizing returns on property investments, specific groups viewing local politics through the prism of race or ethnicity, and machine politicians holding office through patronage.” (Oliver, Ha & Callen, 2012) A driving force within these coalitions is the ‘growth machine’, a near universal agreement among elites on prioritizing growth. This interest is not limited to business leaders and real estate developers, but includes large non-profits, local media, labor unions and utility companies who all stand to benefit from bigger cities. (Logan & Molotch, 1987)
This importance of coalitions and their interests is reflected in Equity for Children’s first recommendation, to reframe conversations to include children as stakeholders. Noting the tendency for children’s issues to be considered as a separate agenda, the goal is to include them in the larger, urban agenda. To do this, Equity for Children argues, requires an understanding of mayoral priorities, from infrastructure to the economy. If the growth agenda is dominant, then it entails situating children’s well-being within that agenda. This is apparent in the examples provided by the practitioners, who noted that improving access to quality early childhood care can be marketed to city decision-makers as a way to improve employment and residential stability of parents, in other words, to create a good business climate and keep the city growing. The potential liabilities of situating a child agenda within a ‘growth agenda’, however pragmatic it may seem, is that the provision of social services, such as health and education, is not determined by the level of demand or children’s needs, but by the level of service that fits the local growth strategy. Moreover, the growth of cities does not necessarily translate into improved opportunities for marginalized families or lower poverty rates; better paying new jobs often go to newcomers, and rapid growth contributes to higher costs of living. (Logan & Molotch, 1987)
Interests other than growth can be at play within governing coalitions, including patronage systems and racial or ethnic groups seeking greater representation. (Oliver, Ha & Callen, 2012) Equity for Children’s recommendations do not explicitly speak to these interests, and most child rights practitioners and international development organizations give them wide berth so as to avoid any perception of bias towards one group or lending a hand to corruption. However, for the rapidly growing cities of the Global South, these interests are likely to be just as present as the growth consensus. Interesting questions remain on how children’s well-being and poverty reduction are handled by local patronage-style systems or politics based on ethnic groups.
Turning to the second camp of theory on urban politics, which deals with the civic participation, there are arguments that local politics are “the best venue for citizens to empower themselves and fully realize democracies transcendent possibilities”. (Oliver, Ha & Callen, 2012) The theory argues that when poor and disadvantaged citizens become involved, they make governance more meaningful and responsive to their concerns. This viewpoint is articulated in Equity for Children’s third recommendation, to develop multi-directional relationships to enhance inclusion. Central to the recommendation is fostering direct participation by children, families and community-service providers in identifying their needs and integrating these into urban decision-making. As an example, Young Citizens Score Cards, developed by the Children’s Environments Research Group (CERG) provide a way for children and caregivers to score their cities and identify ways to improve them. The scorecards have been used in 27 countries.
At first glance, increasing participation appears to be a sound way to improve consideration of children’s well-being and needs. However, as the literature notes, genuine participation is rare. In a seminal study on citizen participation, Sherry Arnstein (1969) highlights “the critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process.” This pitfall is recognized by the child rights advocates. One of the speakers at the event, Dr. Roger Hart, Director of CERG, has adapted Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation’ to children’s participation, and it is used widely by child rights organizations[iv]. What the participation advocates fail to address is the mixed evidence on whether the ‘participatory’ models of democracy meaningfully change city politics - or improve the ability of marginalized residents to participate in political processes. Do initiatives by child rights advocates to foster participation by children and their families actually lead to a stronger voice in city affairs and greater resources being directed to children? Or as argued by Oliver, Ha and Callen (2012) could they be better served by patronage systems that direct resources to marginalized groups and have longer staying power?
In criticism of the two camps of coalitions and participation, Oliver, Ha and Callen (2012) argue that these theories are driven primarily by political observations of big, complex cities; in response, they propose a third theory, managerial democracy, which they argue is more appropriate to smaller cities and towns. Building their model around suburban towns in the US, they note there are fewer issues to contend with and a much lower level of resources to distribute. This means that competition in local elections is muted, and with limited resources to redistribute, the focus is on providing public goods and services that serve all. This ‘managerial’ style of decision-making may also be applicable to many cities in developing countries, where most resources are still managed by central governments and the scope for local policy is limited. It is the type of ‘decision-making’ that is best aligned with Equity for Children’s second recommendation, to increase the availability and use of disaggregated data to identify children under-served by existing public services. Here the goal is not radical redistribution, but instead to extend existing health, education and protection services to all children on an equitable basis. It is the traditional basis of most child advocacy work in developing countries, and may be the most applicable to advocacy for children in urban settings.
The criticism of this approach is that equal access may not be enough to overcome profound and chronic inequality. In these cases some form of income redistribution is required. And where there are large discrepancies in incomes and taxes paid then there may be difficulties in sustaining equitable access to quality services. The profound discrepancies in the quality of public schools in New York City are prime example of this. Likewise in developing countries, many basic services, such as water and sanitation, are simply not extended to informal parts of the city, reflecting the limitations of the managerial model.
Concluding thoughts
Equity for Children’s recommendations represent a first step by international child rights advocates to understand ‘how’ children’s inequities can be addressed in urban areas. Driven by experience, they show alignment with different streams of thought on urban politics and policy-making, from fitting children’s needs into a larger, growth-driven urban agenda to fostering civic participation. However, there is still a long way to go before the recommendations and thinking on children in the urban agenda’ fully makes use of existing ideas and evidence from theories on local decision-making.
[i] UNICEF (2012), State of the World’s Children 2012: Children in an Urban World, UNICEF
[ii] Raga, Dougals (2012), Cities of Youth: Cities of Prosperity. UN Habitat
[iii] Equity for Children (2016), Addressing Urban Inequities and childhood: Advancing the agenda for children and cities, Equity for Children, The New School
[iv] Hart, Roger A. (1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Innocenti Essays No. 4, UNICEF International Child Development Centre