|
|
| |
| |
Editorial
12/2004 |
|
The urban century
For a long time, urban development was not considered an entirely correct goal for development policy. Michael Lipton’s book dealing with the “Urban Bias” of decision makers played a crucial role in making this happen. After independence, many governments of former colonies had indeed invested too many resources in making their capital a fancy metropolis. Moreover, keeping food cheap was considered a precaution against urban rebellions and, therefore, big landholders were pampered with subsidies while governments paid little respect to the hardships of small farmers. There was also a penchant for investing in large scale industries, many of which ultimately proved unviable.
Obviously, however, intelligent development strategies for rural areas also contributed to urban well-being. Any progress made in cities seemed to trigger more migration from the hinterland. Infrastructure always seemed to remain inadequate – as did the supply of jobs and housing. Given that poverty originates in rural areas, it seemed appropriate to fight it there. Doing so, however, proved to be much more difficult than just raising slogans. One reason for this was domestic politics in poor countries. Land ownership is normally fiercely defended and land reform, promising as it might be, often came to naught.
Indeed, urban centres provide opportunities that agricultural regions cannot offer. Survival in the slums of Mumbai, Mombassa or Mexico certainly implies hardships. But most people actually do survive. Upward mobility is more likely in cities than in the countryside; the makeshift slum shack need not be the end of a life’s journey. More importantly, however, it has again and again been possible to improve the conditions in the slums, for instance, by developing the infrastructure. Achieving such goals primarily depends on one thing: the ability of the population to organise (interview with civil rights activist, James Annorbah-Sarpei, page 456).
Options for improving the living conditions do not have to cost a lot of money. On the contrary: intelligent solutions are often cheap. This applies to architecture, for example. Instead of emulating energy- and cost-intensive models such as Chicago’s high-rise buildings or the land use of Los Angeles’ sprawl, it would make sense to develop a building culture that fits the local climate. Appropriate technologies offer promising options for Rio de Janeiro, for example (Michael Laar, page 460).
Since the 1990s, the development community has gradually corrected its long running “rural bias”. The UN conference Habitat II in 1996 in Istanbul made a significant contribution. The follow-up event will take place in 2006 in Vancouver. The issue of urban development, which German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) will be emphasising next year, is becoming ever more urgent. InWEnt is also increasingly committed to dealing with pertinent questions (Michael Funcke-Bartz, page 476).
There can be no doubt that the 21st century will turn out as the urban century. For the first time in history, more people live in urban settings than in villages. However, street kids in Lagos and dingy workshops in Manila are at least as typical of our urbanised era as the fancy facades of the Champs Elysees in Paris, of Oxford Street in London or Mönckebergstraße in Hamburg. The classic notion of the cosmopolitan city with its casual, relaxed flair is worn out. Urbanisation means dirt, noise and stress. Fast growing cities are in developing countries.
Because of globalisation, this explosive process is gaining even more significance. Finance, information, research and other systemic social activities rely on international networks. They inhabit virtual worlds that will shape our future. These cyber-systems, however, are anchored in real cities, where they must compete for space and resources with other local and global interests. Like globalisation itself, urbanisation cannot really be controlled or even planned. During the chaotic growth process, however, precedents are set that define which kind of action will be seen as normal and acceptable in the long run (Rüdiger Korff, page 452). This is how, for most practical purposes, institutions emerge.
Their effects reach far beyond the city limits. The norms and conventions that arise in the agglomerations influence the political culture of entire nations. Recent research shows, however, that the analytical dichotomy of urban and rural life does not really capture the empirical reality. There are families who live in split households utilising city and village environments in their survival strategy. Some do so for generations (Einhard Schmidt-Kallert and Volker Kreibich, page 464).
Ultimately, this example only proves an old insight in a surprising and impressive manner. Cities and countryside need each other. Therefore, the plea not to neglect urban growth and its pressing problems does not mean rural policies could be given up. Good country roads can improve life in the city just as the village population also benefits from reliably operating institutions that, for pragmatic reasons, can only come into being in cities. In the end, it is the balance that matters – as Michael Lipton already wrote in the introduction to his “Urban Bias” book in 1977.
Dr. Hans Dembowski
Editor in Chief D+C
euz.editor@fsd.de
|
|
|
