- Email: [email protected]
The changing practice of urban planning
The Changing Practice of Urban Planning* Development
DESMOND McNEILL Planning Unit, University College London,
UK
The purpose of this paper is to explore the changing nature of urban planning practice in the Third World. I shall seek to answer four main questions. First, what changes have there been in recent years? Second, why have these changes occurred? Third, are these changes. on balance, for good or ill‘? And fourth, what will or should happen next? Clearly these are ambitious questions to ask under any circumstances. And within the scope of a short paper such as this it may be regarded as reckless even to make the attempt. But I hope that the paper may at least clarify some of the questions, even if it fails to provide all the answers.
WHAT
CHANGES
HAVE
TAKEN
PLACE?
I do not wish to attempt a history of the development of planning theory here; nor do I feel competent to do so. My main interest is in what appears to be the most recent shift in urban planning practice which has resulted in increasing concern being given to what I call broadly ‘economic’ aspects, and less to what I call, even more broadly, ‘physical’ aspects. More specifically, I suggest that this shift may be discerned with regard to both the ends and means of planners both the objectives that they identify as desirable and the means by which they suggest such objectives may be achieved. Thus, whereas planners largely used to emphasise the spatial aspects of the city, and the pattern of land uses, now they are increasingly concerned with the urban economy and the employment and incomes of the citizens. The living conditions of the people (housing, water supply, services, etc.) remain. under either model, a matter of concern to the planner - so that to this extent the distinction between physical and economic objectives is necessarily blurred. In terms of means rather than ends, the shift has been from tools of implementation such as land-use controls, planning and building regulations, to public sector investment and, to a lesser extent, pricing and taxation policies. The main resource on which attention has been focused has been the public sector budget. while the other resource - arguably more crucial - of urban land has received less attention. In order to develop the argument further, I find it useful to call on the recently-published book by John Taylor and David Williams, Urban Planning
* This paper was presented at a one day seminar entitled “The Changing Practice of Urban Planning: the World Bank and Other Influences” which was held at the Development Planning Unit. Bartlett School ot Architecture and Planning. University College London, on 12 July 1983.
117
three paradigms of urban Practice in Dc~duping Cmntries, ’ which distinguishes planning practice. The earliest paradigm they identify as emerging from colonial administr~~tion. This was simply an extension of the ‘house-keeping’ function. concerned with the regular activities of maintenance and expansion of city infrastructure. school and community services. The second paradigm concentrated on the formulation of long-range master plans. resulting in “a kind of photograph of how a city’s basic land use and circulation pattern may look at some future point in time. This paradigm. which stems from architectural and engineering traditions going back nearly a century has the following characteristics: ( 1) long-range emphasis: (2) product is process: (3) strong physical emphasis; (4) non-strategic quality; (5) lack of interaction with the users”.’ As the authors note. this physical ‘master plan’ approach has found increasing disfavour in most developed countries (MDCs), but was exported into many lessdeveloped countries (LDCs) during the 1950s and early 1960s. where it IS still being used. But there has been a shift in many LDC cities to the third paradigm. which is in some ways diametrically opposed. This approach (which I have labelled the economic) has: short-term emphasis; (2) use of the budget as investment; (3) de-emphasis of physical (land-use) (1)
planning.
It is the shift from the second to the third of these paradigms with which this paper is conccrncd. It is of course not easy to demonstrate categorically that such a shift is actually taking place. I suggest that the best empirical evidence regarding the objcctivcs of urban planning may be found by studying the terms of reference of planning consultants and the laws which are enacted to establish the urban planning the agencies. In order to identify the means used to achieve these objectives. best approach is to read the consultants’ reports and to study the activities in Clearly. one cannot expect which urban planning agencies are engaged. complete homogeneity. Even within a single country, such as India. one finds a considerable contrast between the activities of, say, the four development authorities of Calcutta. Delhi, Bombay and Madras. This arises. in large measure, because of the very varying roles and powers of the local government administration in each city - so that the development authorities range from little more than coordinating bodies, through public works agencies. to ma,jor urban redevelopment agencies, depending in part on how their relationship with the land authority has developed over time. Nevertheless, these authorities do. I suggest. provide evidence of the shift I have been describing. This point can perhaps best be illustrated by quoting from two documents relating to the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. These also illustrate another issue which I wish to explore - namely the role of the World Bank. “The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority was created in 1972 have been and became a statutory authority in 1974. Its objectives enumerated as follows:
‘to prepare and implement plans for the orderly development of the Metropolis. The above objectives are being achieved through: (a) enforcement of the Master Plan approved by Government; (b) planning for development of infrastructure and services and coordinating the work of implementation of various agencies working within the MMDA; and (c) direct implementation of certain projects undertaken by it’.“3 and
‘. . . . in 1976, the MMDA and a World Bank team agreed that the role of the MMDA was ‘to strengthen metropolitan planning, administration, finance, and related institutions, so as to enable the Madras Metropolitan Area to service and gainfully employ its rapidly growing population over the long term, with particular emphasis on the poorer segments of the population’.“’ If the evidence for a change of objectives is broadly accepted. what of the change in the means to achieve these objectives? Here I think that the Philippines provide a good illustration. The Capital Investment Folio project in Manila is an attempt to coordinate and rationalise public sector activity 111the metropolitan area, not by the preparation of a master plan and the imposition of land-use controls, but rather by controlling - or at least influencing - the allocation of public sector investment funds in the city. Thus the instrument of policy is not land-use or planning regulations, but rather the budget. Another instance can be seen in Indonesia. In Jakarta, the situation is in some ways similar, although there is no Metropolitan Development Authority. The client for the initial World Bank-financed studies for Greater Jakarta was the Ministry of Public Works. It is true that this is the Ministry responsible for urban and regional planning, but it is also the most important ‘line ministry’ concerned with infrastructural investment in urban areas. And if proposals emanating from these planning studies were to be put into effect, it was not the urban and regional planning department which found itself with the most important role, but BAPPENAS, the national economic develcpment planning agency. The World Bank has been influential in bringing about these changes. partly by having a direct influence on the institutional framework (e.g. the replacement of a Town and Country Planning Organisation by an Urban Development Authority) and partly in other ways, as I shall now discuss.
WHY HAVE THESE
CHANGES
OCCURRED?
If we accept, in broad terms, my central hypothesis, then the next question is to ask why this change has taken place. First, why has there been a change in priorities from concerns with orderliness, balance, open space to the generation of employment and incomes ? Two reasons come to mind. The first k that in a situation of extreme poverty, it is survival that is necessarily the first priority of the individual and, therefore, concern with providing jobs and incomes is simply the result of planners adjusting their own priorities to reflect those of their true clients - the citizens - most of whom are poor. The strength of this argument is underlined by what has been happening recently in Britain. Planners in Liverpool no longer regard orderly land-use as first priority; their task is to find jobs for the people of Liverpool, at almost any price. The Enterprise Zones. free are a very vivid illustration of the of many planning and other regulations, priority now attached to economic concerns - at the expense, if necessary. of all others. And the reason is, I suggest, simply economic recession. ’ Adminiswation Report, 1977-lY78. p. 243, Government of Tamii Nadu, Madras. 1970. ’ Appruid of‘ the Madras Urhon D~vclopmerzt Projrcr, Aide Mcmoire, Mimeo. 15 May 1076.
So it is perhaps not surprisin, ~7that. in Third World cities. the generation ot employment anti incomes is increasingly seen as first priority; and the more traditional concerns of urban planners (trained. \‘cry largely. in tht: richei countries of the West) arc allowed to take second place. What remains ;I priority is the improvement of basic scrviccs - housing. water supply, etc. But the second reason for the shift in priorities from physical to economic is the view that the only long-term solution to the in;dequac\~ of housing and infrastructure is to raise incomes to ;I Icvcl Lvhich will enable pedplc to afford than. (‘ross-subsidised pricing systems and low-cost technologies are all very well. but the ultimate solution to the inadequacy of urban infrastruclurc must be to stimulate the urban economy so that either the cite. authority c;In extract the necessary taxes to pav for urban al-vices. or people cki afford to pa> for them through user changes: and build their own houses to an acccptablc standard. In this sense. the generation of jobs may be seen. in part. as an end in itself. and in part a means to an end - thllt of impro\~ing Ihc li\,ing conditions of the city’s population. There are no doubt other reasons also why the obJectives of urban planners have changed. But ;I very important explanation is to be found 1,: cYanlining the means. The single most crucial factor underlying the whole shift from physical to economic has been the failure of imptemcntation. Traditional master plans, bvith ;I strong spatial/l~ind-use bias. have simply had no significant cffcct on action. There is no need here to rcpcat all the stories of master plan documents cluttering up library shclvcs, and zoning maps adornin g the walls of planning offices. while all over the city people continue to build in defiance of, or perhaps mart: commonly. in ignorance of. master plans carefully prcp:lred for the ycat 2000. It is this woeful ccap between planning and action which is the single most important reason for the demise of the traditional master plan. Whether or not the objectives of such plans wcrc laudable. this type of planning is necessarily being abandoned because of its patent failure to achicvc results. But there is another important reason which, I suggest. is cloxcly linked with the influence of the World Bank. The World Bank urban pro,jects dcpartmcnt set up in the early 1970s was influenced in large nicasure bv the activities of the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation. The planning activities in (‘alcutta, funded by the Ford Foundation. provide ;I good example of the shift in urban planning practice which is the subject of this paper. The studies wcrc stress was laid largely concerned with the economy of the city. :ind conxidcrxhlc used. .A on implementation. with Action Planning’ central to the nicthodolo~y number of specific actions were identified anti initiated. consisting laryelv ot public sector investment in infrastructure. The urban projects department of the World Bank was set up. as its name implies, to concentrate its activities in the cities of the Third World. l’hc task ot aid agencies is to spend money, and the problem they frequently face is to find The World ways of doing so which satisfy their exactin, ~1L,Lppraisal requirements. and sometimes seems to cpitomise the aid agency hung!, Bank is no exception, for large ‘bankable’ projects. Innumerable master plans. often prepared by too frequently led to nothing. while some aid agencies foreign consultants, and most notably the World Bank were willing and cager to finance specific projects in urban areas, gencrall~ involvin! the provision of urban infrastructure such as water supply, but also. with the shift in attitudes to public sector housing policy. projects of sites-and-services or slum and squatter upgrading. Largely by virtue of the projects that they were willing to finance. the World Bank was able to exert influcncc over the institutional form of the planning
authority. and therefore also the activities of planners. Earlier in this paper I quoted two brief descriptions of the role of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. It is certainly of significance that the second was written by the World Bank. In the 1970s they were active in encouraging the formation of new or drastically altered planning authorities in several major cities in the Third World, and advising on the role and activities of such agencies. These urban development authorities embodied, or were intended to embody. many of the changes described in this paper - i.e. their objectives were more concerned with the city economy; and the means of achieving these objectives were largely through the public sector budget, at national and local levels. The involvement of the World Bank in the planning of cities in the Third World has often grown out of a specific project. Thus in Lahore. Pakistan, for example, a water supply project was being prepared, but the need became evident for more information about the future spatial development of the city. What was the expected rate of growth of population? Where would they be located? What would be their water requirements? As a result, the Bank commissioned a study to prepare an urban plan which would, itzrev alit, provide the necessary information for the specific project. In both Jakarta and Manila, the Bank’s involvement grew out of a proposed which could not be adequately appraised without a clearer urban project, indication of the context within which the future growth of each city would take place. It was therefore thought necessary to employ consultants to study and advise on the overall strategy for future development. Thus, the World Bank, with its emphasis on economic concerns. and its task of identifying specific projects for investment, shares responsibility for the shift in urban planning practice with which this paper is concerned.
ARE THESE CHANGES
FOR GOOD OR ILL?
I now wish to make an assessment of whether these changes have been. on balance, for good or ill. I will argue that they have been. in one major respect, but then go on to make a number of specific overwhelmingly beneficial, criticisms, albeit of less significance. Before doing so, let me qualify my remarks by noting that the shift in practice has been somewhat less marked than might be implied by the earlier quotations regarding the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. In this city. as in several others (such as Colombo, Sri Lanka) the stated task of the urban planning agency has been changed. and its institutional form considerably modified, but the staff of the planning agency remain largely unaltered. Despite the major shift in the nature of the planning authority, the staff allotted the task are thus often the same people, drawn from the town and country planning tradition. Some may respond well to this new challenge; many, however, find it extremely hard to do so. The planning machine is expected to produce a different output, but the constituent parts of the machine remain unchanged. The contrast between the earlier and later paradigms is therefore often less marked than what follows may suggest. The major merit of the shift in urban planning practice has been that it has actually resulted in action. However coherent, well-prepared and convincing may have been the innumerable master plans of the traditional form. they did not, in general, result in anything very much being done as a consequence. And the test of planning must be the action that follows from it. Land-use planning has not achieved its objectives in Third World cities and whatever may be the limitations of the later paradigm it has the overwhelming merit that something is being achieved. Clearly, then, one has to ask precisely: what does get done? and
is it better than doing nothin&.7’) There are. 1 think. ;I number 01‘ significant criticisms which can be made of the new paradigm. and the rest of this section will be concerned with them. But the fact that these criticisms arc more numerous and more lengthy should not be taken to imply that this change is. on baIance, a change for the worse. The danger of the new approach is that it can, ;uid sometimes does. easily deteriorate into simply budgeting for urban infrastructure. The planning authority becomes mcrcly :I public works agency, with no vision or purpose beyond building infr~tstru~tur~ in response to the stated r~~~lir~I~l~I~ts of’ some or all of the population. Just as there is a difference betwucn a good national clcvclopmcnt plan and ~1 shopping list of projects, so also there is ;L difference bctwcen urban development planning and simply budgeting for urban infrastructure. In terms of the total investment of financial resources, the physical infrastructure of a city will generally, and necessarily, account for the major part of the public scctor’c activities in the city. But an urban development aut&ity must be more than just a public works agency. in a number of respects. First. it must take full account of the spatial dimension of planning. Far more than a national plan. an urban plan must be concerned with space. The merit of a city is its capacity to provide efficient access. and this is a function of the location of activities in the city and the diversity of ~)~cup~~ti~~rlof the citt’s space, Land at a city scale is a scarce resource to a far greater extent than is land at a national scale. and urban planners must be aware of the phvsical implications of thei] investment decisions -- not simply in terms of pollution and cn~,ironmcnt;il damage, but in terms of the efficient LIW of the scarce resource: land. To take again an example from Jakarta: studies rcccntiy undcrtakcn drew attention to a major factor which had to be taken into ~~~~~~~;~it in pl~l~~~~i~~g the luturc spatial development of the city. This is the problem ol’ flooding in the low-lying areas in the north. Whatever action the public sector takes, such as construction of the access road to the new airport. it is essential to discourage the dcvclopment of industry or housing in this zone. The costs of providing aciec~~~ate l’loocl control and drainage in this area would. it is estimated, exceed the benefits to ht gained by utilising the land for urban development. Such considerations are in danger of being overlook4 if projects arc appraised on an individual basis. Indeed, conventional appraisal methods are illadapted to urban infrastructure pro,jects. The application of cost-benefit analysis to an inter-urban highway may perhaps be defensible. The benefits of vchlcic oper~~tiIi~ cost savings and time savings may l~gitin~~~telv bc considcrcd as constituting the main justification for a road improvement. ;o bc set against the construction and maintenance costs. But. in an urban context. the situation becomes far more complex. The effect of the road on the city will be far more than can be assessed by such simple calculations. Although the complcsit; 01‘the relationship between transport and urban dcvclopment is better understood than in the past, we arc still very far short of being able to apply project ~~~~pr~lis~~i methods to assess the merits and dcmcrits of altcrnativc proposals. In the city, externalities are not just an additional factor to be considered in the cost-bcn&t analysis - they typically dominate the whole calculation. It may be useful to know the financial viability of urban projects - insofar as user changes arc levied - but conventional economic appraisal has rather little to offer the planner seeking guidance on alternative il~~~~strn~lits. Some tentative steps have been taken to develop a more rigorous project appraisal methodology which can take due account of the spatial dimension of urban projects. but these fall far short of what is required. Unless and until better methods cm bc developed, there remains the danger that the conventional aspntial techniques will continue to be used, leading to the selection of projects which may. perhaps.
each make sense individually, but by virtue of their complex interrelations, form a composite package which is not in the least cost-effective. In sum, a project approach to urban development planning is in danger of ignoring, or taking insufficient account of, the spatial dimension - a situation which is not helped by the set of techniques and associated methodology conventionally adopted for appraising investment projects. A second danger is that the project approach may give scant attention to policy measures which could complement or even replace projects as an alternative means of achieving the same end. Concern with the investment budget as the instrument of planning, and the influence of aid agencies seeking projects, can lead to a situation in which capital expenditure is regarded as the obvious - and perhaps even the only - way of achieving a desired objective. A few examples will illustrate the point. If a city is suffering from a shortage of water the immediate ‘project response is to increase the capacity of the system. It is likely, however, that two alternative policy measures could serve the same end. Since wastage from leaking pipes, overflowing storage tanks and illegal connections can amount to as much as 50%~ of total production, measures to reduce losses can result in increases of up to 100% capacity, without any capital investment whatever. Alternatively. the introduction of a new tariff system, with either higher or possibly progressive charges, may result in a reduction in luxury use (e.g. for watering gardens) and a redistribution of the limited volume available to those most in need. In the transport sector, the intended benefits of investment in road widening may be achieved instead by appropriate traffic management schemes, such as one-way systems or bus lanes, or discouraging the use of cars in the central area by pricing systems or physical limitation of parking space. In the field of housing. instead of building new houses. much more may be achieved, for example, by amendments to the land tenure system which would enable and encourage individuals to undertake construction themselves. These are only a few examples of how policy measures, rather than capital projects, can be used to achieve the same objectives. But planners who regard the resources available to them in terms only of the capital development budget, and who see action only in terms of projects, are in danger of ignoring these alternatives. This argument applies perhaps most strongly of all in reference to the oftenquoted planning objective of improving the distribution of benefits and ensuring the well-being of the urban poor. Pricing and taxation policies are of critical importance in determining the incidence of costs and benefits. There are a number of types of investment - notably in piped sewerage and roads - which disproportionately benefit the higher-income groups. Taxes and user charges offer perhaps the most important opportunity for altering the incidence of costs and benefits in favour of the urban poor. The third issue I would like to raise relates to the main economic objective ot urban development planning - the stimulation of the urban economy so as to generate employment and incomes for the citizens. I suggest that the means to achieve this end are still inadequately understood. because insufficient is often known about the economy of cities for which urban plans are produced - even those studies supported by the World Bank. More attention is paid to economic issues in, for example, the studies of Jakarta and Madras, than was the case in earlier master plans of a more physical/land-use variety, but even so, the level of analysis can often be rather limited. Perhaps the informal sector is surveyed on a sample basis, and a breakdown of formal employment by industrial categories is obtained - but this is very far short of the sort of analysis of the urban economy which is required if the planners are to recommend policies or projects which will significantly improve the situation. Investment in infrastructure. such as
electricity or roads. may well be of importance in increasing the efficiency of the city as an economic entity, but this is rarely seen as its primary purpose; and projects and pro~r~~rnln~s tor boosting economic activity all too often take rather simplistic forms, such as the construction of serviced units for small-scale industry. or the provision of credit to small enterprises. Such initiatives mav be helpful, but they are generally not grounded in a sound analysis and understanding of the economic base of the city. It is frequently the case that the most important decisions affecting the future of the urban economy arc not iIlfl~l~n~ed by the urban planners - who mav indeed be unaware of them. FotcxampIe, WI a national scale. the rate of growth of cities r-nay be si~nifi~~~Iitiy influenced by the terms of trade between agriculture and industry, a factor which some urban planners would not even r~~alyse. let alone seek to influence. At tho level of the individual city. the attraction of industry is ;I factor of crucial importance, yet the involvement of the Ministry of Industries is rarely seen as csscntial to the activities of urban planners. ‘I‘hc history of the rclativc growth or decline of individual cities in many countries reveals- that the most important explanatory filCtOi3 are generally of an economic nature. often stemming from technologi&l change. The urban planner may not be able to have a significant impact on such changes at a national level, but should be aware at least of the possible effect of them on the city economy. and plan accordingly. “I’he impact of ~oiltiliIleris~ltion on the economy of port cities has bcon. and will in future bc. verv significant. Perhaps information technology. or the dcveiopment ol tel&ommunications may be of significance in future years. Yet urban plans fol Third World cities are too often based on a rather static and even simplistic analysis of the nature of the urban economy. ilnd policy proposals are often limited to such things as improving support facilities and providing technical tr~~inili~. A fourth, and rather different point deserves mention. I have spoken of the failure of physical means to achieve the physical or spatial ends of planners. More consideration should be given, I suggest. to the use of economic means to achieve physical/spatial objectives. A few examples will make the point. One way of encour~i~in~ the development of residential suburbs in a particular location would be to provide a heavily subsidised public transport service to that would be to area alone. Instead of zoning land for industrial use, an alternative levy very discriminatory user charges for electricity, water, etc., with much lower rates applicable in certain specific areas of the city; industry could locate elsewhere if it wishes, but the costs would be penal. and more than sufficient to compensate for the ‘externalities’ imposed on the n~i~hb~~urh~~~~din the form of noise or air pollution. In those rare cities in which planning regulations are effectively enforced, consideration might even be given to chargmg what the rather than withholding permits market will bear for planning permission, altogether in some areas and giving huge windfall profits to developers in other areas. Some of these ideas may be inoperable. but the general principle will be ~Ippli~~~t~lein certain cases - the use of pricing and taxati,,iisubsidy to bring The approach is already widely used on a about desired spatial objectives. regional scale in many countries to seek to influence the regional distribution of economic activities. It can be applied also within cities, so as to influence the spatial distribution of activities on an urban scale. WHAT
NEXT?
Having briefly outlined some of the merits and demerits of this shift in planning practice, let me now turn to my last question: what next’? Where does urban planning practice go from here? Where should it go and where is it likely to go’? Clearly the two approaches contrasted in this paper represent an over-
simplification in two respects. First, like all paradigms, they exaggerate the Secondly, they take insufficient differences between the two approaches. account of other approaches which may be feasible, either instead of, or in conjunction with, what I have called very broadly the physical and the economic approaches. Perhaps the most glaring omission in the discussion so far is the lack of mention of social concerns - either as means or as ends. The objective of the urban planner should not be simply to increase employment and incomes, and improve the physical environment of the city. As well as the material well-being of the people, the planner should also be concerned with social development and individual fulfilment. This does not simply mean the provision of schools or citizens’ advice bureaux - it concerns the human development of the individual and the community. But this may be seen as a means as well as, or instead of, an end. Community participation is sometimes encouraged by planning authorities, or favoured by aid agencies, as a method of mobilising human resources to achieve objectives such as the construction of houses or communal facilities. The role of the planner in such an activity could be of various kinds, such as the advocacy planning role sometimes adopted in the USA. Somewhat incongruous situations can of course arise when an agency actively stimulates communities to organise and give voice to their demands, against the same agency, which is, at least in part, responsible for satisfying them. The planner, as well as the agency itself, may be resistant to ‘bottom-up’ planning which, if it is to be meaningful, implies that the planner becomes the servant of the citizen - a reversal of role which in practice may be strenuously resisted. It is therefore not clear how far or in precisely what direction this type of planning and action can go. But it is certain that the social and community aspects of urban planning are still generally underdeveloped. Perhaps the next major shift will be in this direction. Another possible direction for urban planning practice is to become more actively involved in land development and redevelopment, as entrepreneur, making profits and ploughing these back into the city. There is no doubt that urban development is big business, and the magnitude of land value increases, even without provision of infrastructure, can be enormous. (In Colombo. for example, the total increase in value of all the urban land in the metropolitan area over an 18 month period in the late 1970s was more than the total national income for a year.) But, in general, the profits from land development accrue mainly to the private sector. In a number of countries, attempts are being made to capture these land value increases, whether through taxation, land acquistion, land readjustment schemes or whatever. The ownership of land is very different from the power to control its use (at least when the latter is as weak as it is in many Third World cities). Therefore another possible way forward is for urban planning agencies to become concerned not so much with the use of land as with its potential for earning revenue. The monopoly powers of the public sector in the provision of infrastructure, and the legal powers of land acquisition often enjoyed by planning authorities, should in theory be sufficient to ensure that the government has more than enough revenue for the city. In reality. the profits generally accrue to the private sector. A third possible direction for the future is one that has already been mentioned but has, as yet, not been put to great effect. The urban planning agency may concentrate entirely on stimulating the growth of the urban economy. Just as national planners are concerned chiefly with the national economy, so urban planners too might see their main or sole priority as the generation of employment and incomes for the city population. There are two is the vacuum of main problems with this. The first, already mentioned, knowledge. Very little is known about the economies of individual cities (data are not only limited but also presented in categories which are unhelpful for
either analysis or policy prescription). Moreover. we know rclativcly littlc about what should be done in order to stimulate economic activity. What is needed? Is it national level taxation or investment politics? or the provision of clcctric power anti water? or technical training and education? or credit 2nd assistance with marketing? The etnployment component of urban plans or projects SL’CI~X all too often to take the form of provision of factory space. Lvithout ;ln adcquatc understanding of why or how such space will be l’illcd. But there is a second major problem uhich is the ambivalent attitucic of urban planners towards the economic growth of urban arcas. Thus. in a number of Third World countries - again. Indonesia is 21 useful examplct - it is ttfficial government policy that no major new industries may bc located within sonic specified distance from the c~lpitul. Since these directives arc \‘cry largclc ignored, it may perhaps not matter in practice. But it is surely, instructive to observe the reaction in Britain to the beginning of population decl~rw in London. 2nd to contpart the objectives of the recently born London Lhcklancis Dovclopmcnt Corporation with the now-cicfunct Location of Offiocs Bureau. It is perhaps possible to prevent ;I Third World citv from growins. bv strenuousI\ stamping out the major sources of cmploynient. But such a cite will certainI!, not _ prosper nor be able to afford to service Its population. Thus, it is not clezr precisely what a11urban planning authority would do it’ its first priority wcrc the sti~~~~~l~~t~~)~~ of economic growth in the city, nor whether it is realistic to expect any planning agency in the Third World today opcnlv to pursue such ;I police. The fourth directlon in which urban planning practice might move is the one which has received most attention in this paper - what might be tcrmecl the public works approach. in which the power of the l~l~~tlIii[i~a2ct-q extends ~t\‘cr the public sector iriv~st~~~~nt budget. and the major objective is to provide basic services to the citv population. To distinguish tiiesc four different approaches is not to suggest that the\ neccl be mutually exclusive. For cxaniple. it is quite possible - inded cicsir~~ble that a planning agency whose primary concern is to stimulate economic growth should also bc involvcti in planning urban in~r~~strLi~tt~1.~.or L~li~l~rt~lkiIi~ land r~~i~v~l~~pl~~~Ilt schcmcs as ;t l~r~~t.it-Ill~~kin~exercise. But I suggest that the nature of urban planning practice has been dctcrmineci mainly bv \vhat is possible rather than what may bc desiritble. and in looking to the future I am thcrcforc particularly concerned with how fcasiblc each of these \:;Irious approaches may. bc. Thus. the social development option ma\.; well bc limitccl b\ pdirical ~oristl-~~liits. ‘1%~ land ~i~v~l~~l~li~~litoption will bc c&rcmely ~li~~i~ult t;t follow in view of the strong resistance of landowners. The economic dcvelopment approach will be hampered by the lack of understanding of the urban economy. and the ambivalence of planners towards the cncouragcment ot industry-in or near m;lior cities. Control over the invcstmcnt budget is the most effccti\;c power that n&t urban development agencies in the ‘l’hirci World ;trc likely to possess (if they have any power :tt all). And it is thcrd’orc the public works modct which is most likely to bc the one that is followcci. at Icast in the short term. If we arc to take ;I realistic view of the future. we must accept that ;I planning a~cnc~ without power has little prospect of producing anything more than p;ipcr. md that the most cft’cctive source of power is control over financial rcsourccs. Unless an agcncv can genemte its own funds from land wresting control over the budget from line agencies.
~~~~~l~)~~Ii~~I~t. this nicans
Assuming that this can he achievtzd. is it the best we can hope for? I t’ear that in the short run it mav be so, but 1 would prefer to end this paper with M~IIIC statement of whcrc & should go next. rather than Ix~~cly forecasting where wc are likclv ~lli\~ittili~l~ to find ourselves.
I accept that the ends of urban planning practice will necessarily be limited by the means. And 1 have already suggested elsewhere that urban planners must start not from what objectives are desirable, but rather what instruments of suggest that we have two tasks: public sector action are available.” I therefore the first is to make the maximum use of the limited powers available. The public sector investment budget is the most important starting point, but I would make a plea for what I call an ‘enlightened public works approach’: not simply budgeting for urban infrastructure, but doing so within an overall strategy for the long-term spatial. economic and social development of the city’s population, and making maximum USC of all the instruments already available including the active participation of the community, the use of pricing and taxation policies, and the generation of financial resources through land development. The second task, which should be pursued in parallel, is to develop and strengthen the instruments of public sector action, so that the planning agency is not limited simply to the expenditure of capital funds in order to achieve its ends, but has available a range of different instruments with which to achieve its purpose. I spoke earlier of Action Planning - an approach to urban planning in the Third World which seeks to overcome the limitations of traditional master plans by putting the Action back into Planning. Perhaps the emphasis on projects has taken us too far the other way and we now need to put the Planning back into Action. Let us hope that we have now learnt enough about both to achieve a more suitable balance. so that if we have indeed gone full circle, we at least emerge better informed instead of just plain dizzy.
DESMOND McNEILL Planning Unit, University College London,
UK
The purpose of this paper is to explore the changing nature of urban planning practice in the Third World. I shall seek to answer four main questions. First, what changes have there been in recent years? Second, why have these changes occurred? Third, are these changes. on balance, for good or ill‘? And fourth, what will or should happen next? Clearly these are ambitious questions to ask under any circumstances. And within the scope of a short paper such as this it may be regarded as reckless even to make the attempt. But I hope that the paper may at least clarify some of the questions, even if it fails to provide all the answers.
WHAT
CHANGES
HAVE
TAKEN
PLACE?
I do not wish to attempt a history of the development of planning theory here; nor do I feel competent to do so. My main interest is in what appears to be the most recent shift in urban planning practice which has resulted in increasing concern being given to what I call broadly ‘economic’ aspects, and less to what I call, even more broadly, ‘physical’ aspects. More specifically, I suggest that this shift may be discerned with regard to both the ends and means of planners both the objectives that they identify as desirable and the means by which they suggest such objectives may be achieved. Thus, whereas planners largely used to emphasise the spatial aspects of the city, and the pattern of land uses, now they are increasingly concerned with the urban economy and the employment and incomes of the citizens. The living conditions of the people (housing, water supply, services, etc.) remain. under either model, a matter of concern to the planner - so that to this extent the distinction between physical and economic objectives is necessarily blurred. In terms of means rather than ends, the shift has been from tools of implementation such as land-use controls, planning and building regulations, to public sector investment and, to a lesser extent, pricing and taxation policies. The main resource on which attention has been focused has been the public sector budget. while the other resource - arguably more crucial - of urban land has received less attention. In order to develop the argument further, I find it useful to call on the recently-published book by John Taylor and David Williams, Urban Planning
* This paper was presented at a one day seminar entitled “The Changing Practice of Urban Planning: the World Bank and Other Influences” which was held at the Development Planning Unit. Bartlett School ot Architecture and Planning. University College London, on 12 July 1983.
117
three paradigms of urban Practice in Dc~duping Cmntries, ’ which distinguishes planning practice. The earliest paradigm they identify as emerging from colonial administr~~tion. This was simply an extension of the ‘house-keeping’ function. concerned with the regular activities of maintenance and expansion of city infrastructure. school and community services. The second paradigm concentrated on the formulation of long-range master plans. resulting in “a kind of photograph of how a city’s basic land use and circulation pattern may look at some future point in time. This paradigm. which stems from architectural and engineering traditions going back nearly a century has the following characteristics: ( 1) long-range emphasis: (2) product is process: (3) strong physical emphasis; (4) non-strategic quality; (5) lack of interaction with the users”.’ As the authors note. this physical ‘master plan’ approach has found increasing disfavour in most developed countries (MDCs), but was exported into many lessdeveloped countries (LDCs) during the 1950s and early 1960s. where it IS still being used. But there has been a shift in many LDC cities to the third paradigm. which is in some ways diametrically opposed. This approach (which I have labelled the economic) has: short-term emphasis; (2) use of the budget as investment; (3) de-emphasis of physical (land-use) (1)
planning.
It is the shift from the second to the third of these paradigms with which this paper is conccrncd. It is of course not easy to demonstrate categorically that such a shift is actually taking place. I suggest that the best empirical evidence regarding the objcctivcs of urban planning may be found by studying the terms of reference of planning consultants and the laws which are enacted to establish the urban planning the agencies. In order to identify the means used to achieve these objectives. best approach is to read the consultants’ reports and to study the activities in Clearly. one cannot expect which urban planning agencies are engaged. complete homogeneity. Even within a single country, such as India. one finds a considerable contrast between the activities of, say, the four development authorities of Calcutta. Delhi, Bombay and Madras. This arises. in large measure, because of the very varying roles and powers of the local government administration in each city - so that the development authorities range from little more than coordinating bodies, through public works agencies. to ma,jor urban redevelopment agencies, depending in part on how their relationship with the land authority has developed over time. Nevertheless, these authorities do. I suggest. provide evidence of the shift I have been describing. This point can perhaps best be illustrated by quoting from two documents relating to the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. These also illustrate another issue which I wish to explore - namely the role of the World Bank. “The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority was created in 1972 have been and became a statutory authority in 1974. Its objectives enumerated as follows:
‘to prepare and implement plans for the orderly development of the Metropolis. The above objectives are being achieved through: (a) enforcement of the Master Plan approved by Government; (b) planning for development of infrastructure and services and coordinating the work of implementation of various agencies working within the MMDA; and (c) direct implementation of certain projects undertaken by it’.“3 and
‘. . . . in 1976, the MMDA and a World Bank team agreed that the role of the MMDA was ‘to strengthen metropolitan planning, administration, finance, and related institutions, so as to enable the Madras Metropolitan Area to service and gainfully employ its rapidly growing population over the long term, with particular emphasis on the poorer segments of the population’.“’ If the evidence for a change of objectives is broadly accepted. what of the change in the means to achieve these objectives? Here I think that the Philippines provide a good illustration. The Capital Investment Folio project in Manila is an attempt to coordinate and rationalise public sector activity 111the metropolitan area, not by the preparation of a master plan and the imposition of land-use controls, but rather by controlling - or at least influencing - the allocation of public sector investment funds in the city. Thus the instrument of policy is not land-use or planning regulations, but rather the budget. Another instance can be seen in Indonesia. In Jakarta, the situation is in some ways similar, although there is no Metropolitan Development Authority. The client for the initial World Bank-financed studies for Greater Jakarta was the Ministry of Public Works. It is true that this is the Ministry responsible for urban and regional planning, but it is also the most important ‘line ministry’ concerned with infrastructural investment in urban areas. And if proposals emanating from these planning studies were to be put into effect, it was not the urban and regional planning department which found itself with the most important role, but BAPPENAS, the national economic develcpment planning agency. The World Bank has been influential in bringing about these changes. partly by having a direct influence on the institutional framework (e.g. the replacement of a Town and Country Planning Organisation by an Urban Development Authority) and partly in other ways, as I shall now discuss.
WHY HAVE THESE
CHANGES
OCCURRED?
If we accept, in broad terms, my central hypothesis, then the next question is to ask why this change has taken place. First, why has there been a change in priorities from concerns with orderliness, balance, open space to the generation of employment and incomes ? Two reasons come to mind. The first k that in a situation of extreme poverty, it is survival that is necessarily the first priority of the individual and, therefore, concern with providing jobs and incomes is simply the result of planners adjusting their own priorities to reflect those of their true clients - the citizens - most of whom are poor. The strength of this argument is underlined by what has been happening recently in Britain. Planners in Liverpool no longer regard orderly land-use as first priority; their task is to find jobs for the people of Liverpool, at almost any price. The Enterprise Zones. free are a very vivid illustration of the of many planning and other regulations, priority now attached to economic concerns - at the expense, if necessary. of all others. And the reason is, I suggest, simply economic recession. ’ Adminiswation Report, 1977-lY78. p. 243, Government of Tamii Nadu, Madras. 1970. ’ Appruid of‘ the Madras Urhon D~vclopmerzt Projrcr, Aide Mcmoire, Mimeo. 15 May 1076.
So it is perhaps not surprisin, ~7that. in Third World cities. the generation ot employment anti incomes is increasingly seen as first priority; and the more traditional concerns of urban planners (trained. \‘cry largely. in tht: richei countries of the West) arc allowed to take second place. What remains ;I priority is the improvement of basic scrviccs - housing. water supply, etc. But the second reason for the shift in priorities from physical to economic is the view that the only long-term solution to the in;dequac\~ of housing and infrastructure is to raise incomes to ;I Icvcl Lvhich will enable pedplc to afford than. (‘ross-subsidised pricing systems and low-cost technologies are all very well. but the ultimate solution to the inadequacy of urban infrastruclurc must be to stimulate the urban economy so that either the cite. authority c;In extract the necessary taxes to pav for urban al-vices. or people cki afford to pa> for them through user changes: and build their own houses to an acccptablc standard. In this sense. the generation of jobs may be seen. in part. as an end in itself. and in part a means to an end - thllt of impro\~ing Ihc li\,ing conditions of the city’s population. There are no doubt other reasons also why the obJectives of urban planners have changed. But ;I very important explanation is to be found 1,: cYanlining the means. The single most crucial factor underlying the whole shift from physical to economic has been the failure of imptemcntation. Traditional master plans, bvith ;I strong spatial/l~ind-use bias. have simply had no significant cffcct on action. There is no need here to rcpcat all the stories of master plan documents cluttering up library shclvcs, and zoning maps adornin g the walls of planning offices. while all over the city people continue to build in defiance of, or perhaps mart: commonly. in ignorance of. master plans carefully prcp:lred for the ycat 2000. It is this woeful ccap between planning and action which is the single most important reason for the demise of the traditional master plan. Whether or not the objectives of such plans wcrc laudable. this type of planning is necessarily being abandoned because of its patent failure to achicvc results. But there is another important reason which, I suggest. is cloxcly linked with the influence of the World Bank. The World Bank urban pro,jects dcpartmcnt set up in the early 1970s was influenced in large nicasure bv the activities of the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation. The planning activities in (‘alcutta, funded by the Ford Foundation. provide ;I good example of the shift in urban planning practice which is the subject of this paper. The studies wcrc stress was laid largely concerned with the economy of the city. :ind conxidcrxhlc used. .A on implementation. with Action Planning’ central to the nicthodolo~y number of specific actions were identified anti initiated. consisting laryelv ot public sector investment in infrastructure. The urban projects department of the World Bank was set up. as its name implies, to concentrate its activities in the cities of the Third World. l’hc task ot aid agencies is to spend money, and the problem they frequently face is to find The World ways of doing so which satisfy their exactin, ~1L,Lppraisal requirements. and sometimes seems to cpitomise the aid agency hung!, Bank is no exception, for large ‘bankable’ projects. Innumerable master plans. often prepared by too frequently led to nothing. while some aid agencies foreign consultants, and most notably the World Bank were willing and cager to finance specific projects in urban areas, gencrall~ involvin! the provision of urban infrastructure such as water supply, but also. with the shift in attitudes to public sector housing policy. projects of sites-and-services or slum and squatter upgrading. Largely by virtue of the projects that they were willing to finance. the World Bank was able to exert influcncc over the institutional form of the planning
authority. and therefore also the activities of planners. Earlier in this paper I quoted two brief descriptions of the role of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. It is certainly of significance that the second was written by the World Bank. In the 1970s they were active in encouraging the formation of new or drastically altered planning authorities in several major cities in the Third World, and advising on the role and activities of such agencies. These urban development authorities embodied, or were intended to embody. many of the changes described in this paper - i.e. their objectives were more concerned with the city economy; and the means of achieving these objectives were largely through the public sector budget, at national and local levels. The involvement of the World Bank in the planning of cities in the Third World has often grown out of a specific project. Thus in Lahore. Pakistan, for example, a water supply project was being prepared, but the need became evident for more information about the future spatial development of the city. What was the expected rate of growth of population? Where would they be located? What would be their water requirements? As a result, the Bank commissioned a study to prepare an urban plan which would, itzrev alit, provide the necessary information for the specific project. In both Jakarta and Manila, the Bank’s involvement grew out of a proposed which could not be adequately appraised without a clearer urban project, indication of the context within which the future growth of each city would take place. It was therefore thought necessary to employ consultants to study and advise on the overall strategy for future development. Thus, the World Bank, with its emphasis on economic concerns. and its task of identifying specific projects for investment, shares responsibility for the shift in urban planning practice with which this paper is concerned.
ARE THESE CHANGES
FOR GOOD OR ILL?
I now wish to make an assessment of whether these changes have been. on balance, for good or ill. I will argue that they have been. in one major respect, but then go on to make a number of specific overwhelmingly beneficial, criticisms, albeit of less significance. Before doing so, let me qualify my remarks by noting that the shift in practice has been somewhat less marked than might be implied by the earlier quotations regarding the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. In this city. as in several others (such as Colombo, Sri Lanka) the stated task of the urban planning agency has been changed. and its institutional form considerably modified, but the staff of the planning agency remain largely unaltered. Despite the major shift in the nature of the planning authority, the staff allotted the task are thus often the same people, drawn from the town and country planning tradition. Some may respond well to this new challenge; many, however, find it extremely hard to do so. The planning machine is expected to produce a different output, but the constituent parts of the machine remain unchanged. The contrast between the earlier and later paradigms is therefore often less marked than what follows may suggest. The major merit of the shift in urban planning practice has been that it has actually resulted in action. However coherent, well-prepared and convincing may have been the innumerable master plans of the traditional form. they did not, in general, result in anything very much being done as a consequence. And the test of planning must be the action that follows from it. Land-use planning has not achieved its objectives in Third World cities and whatever may be the limitations of the later paradigm it has the overwhelming merit that something is being achieved. Clearly, then, one has to ask precisely: what does get done? and
is it better than doing nothin&.7’) There are. 1 think. ;I number 01‘ significant criticisms which can be made of the new paradigm. and the rest of this section will be concerned with them. But the fact that these criticisms arc more numerous and more lengthy should not be taken to imply that this change is. on baIance, a change for the worse. The danger of the new approach is that it can, ;uid sometimes does. easily deteriorate into simply budgeting for urban infrastructure. The planning authority becomes mcrcly :I public works agency, with no vision or purpose beyond building infr~tstru~tur~ in response to the stated r~~~lir~I~l~I~ts of’ some or all of the population. Just as there is a difference betwucn a good national clcvclopmcnt plan and ~1 shopping list of projects, so also there is ;L difference bctwcen urban development planning and simply budgeting for urban infrastructure. In terms of the total investment of financial resources, the physical infrastructure of a city will generally, and necessarily, account for the major part of the public scctor’c activities in the city. But an urban development aut&ity must be more than just a public works agency. in a number of respects. First. it must take full account of the spatial dimension of planning. Far more than a national plan. an urban plan must be concerned with space. The merit of a city is its capacity to provide efficient access. and this is a function of the location of activities in the city and the diversity of ~)~cup~~ti~~rlof the citt’s space, Land at a city scale is a scarce resource to a far greater extent than is land at a national scale. and urban planners must be aware of the phvsical implications of thei] investment decisions -- not simply in terms of pollution and cn~,ironmcnt;il damage, but in terms of the efficient LIW of the scarce resource: land. To take again an example from Jakarta: studies rcccntiy undcrtakcn drew attention to a major factor which had to be taken into ~~~~~~~;~it in pl~l~~~~i~~g the luturc spatial development of the city. This is the problem ol’ flooding in the low-lying areas in the north. Whatever action the public sector takes, such as construction of the access road to the new airport. it is essential to discourage the dcvclopment of industry or housing in this zone. The costs of providing aciec~~~ate l’loocl control and drainage in this area would. it is estimated, exceed the benefits to ht gained by utilising the land for urban development. Such considerations are in danger of being overlook4 if projects arc appraised on an individual basis. Indeed, conventional appraisal methods are illadapted to urban infrastructure pro,jects. The application of cost-benefit analysis to an inter-urban highway may perhaps be defensible. The benefits of vchlcic oper~~tiIi~ cost savings and time savings may l~gitin~~~telv bc considcrcd as constituting the main justification for a road improvement. ;o bc set against the construction and maintenance costs. But. in an urban context. the situation becomes far more complex. The effect of the road on the city will be far more than can be assessed by such simple calculations. Although the complcsit; 01‘the relationship between transport and urban dcvclopment is better understood than in the past, we arc still very far short of being able to apply project ~~~~pr~lis~~i methods to assess the merits and dcmcrits of altcrnativc proposals. In the city, externalities are not just an additional factor to be considered in the cost-bcn&t analysis - they typically dominate the whole calculation. It may be useful to know the financial viability of urban projects - insofar as user changes arc levied - but conventional economic appraisal has rather little to offer the planner seeking guidance on alternative il~~~~strn~lits. Some tentative steps have been taken to develop a more rigorous project appraisal methodology which can take due account of the spatial dimension of urban projects. but these fall far short of what is required. Unless and until better methods cm bc developed, there remains the danger that the conventional aspntial techniques will continue to be used, leading to the selection of projects which may. perhaps.
each make sense individually, but by virtue of their complex interrelations, form a composite package which is not in the least cost-effective. In sum, a project approach to urban development planning is in danger of ignoring, or taking insufficient account of, the spatial dimension - a situation which is not helped by the set of techniques and associated methodology conventionally adopted for appraising investment projects. A second danger is that the project approach may give scant attention to policy measures which could complement or even replace projects as an alternative means of achieving the same end. Concern with the investment budget as the instrument of planning, and the influence of aid agencies seeking projects, can lead to a situation in which capital expenditure is regarded as the obvious - and perhaps even the only - way of achieving a desired objective. A few examples will illustrate the point. If a city is suffering from a shortage of water the immediate ‘project response is to increase the capacity of the system. It is likely, however, that two alternative policy measures could serve the same end. Since wastage from leaking pipes, overflowing storage tanks and illegal connections can amount to as much as 50%~ of total production, measures to reduce losses can result in increases of up to 100% capacity, without any capital investment whatever. Alternatively. the introduction of a new tariff system, with either higher or possibly progressive charges, may result in a reduction in luxury use (e.g. for watering gardens) and a redistribution of the limited volume available to those most in need. In the transport sector, the intended benefits of investment in road widening may be achieved instead by appropriate traffic management schemes, such as one-way systems or bus lanes, or discouraging the use of cars in the central area by pricing systems or physical limitation of parking space. In the field of housing. instead of building new houses. much more may be achieved, for example, by amendments to the land tenure system which would enable and encourage individuals to undertake construction themselves. These are only a few examples of how policy measures, rather than capital projects, can be used to achieve the same objectives. But planners who regard the resources available to them in terms only of the capital development budget, and who see action only in terms of projects, are in danger of ignoring these alternatives. This argument applies perhaps most strongly of all in reference to the oftenquoted planning objective of improving the distribution of benefits and ensuring the well-being of the urban poor. Pricing and taxation policies are of critical importance in determining the incidence of costs and benefits. There are a number of types of investment - notably in piped sewerage and roads - which disproportionately benefit the higher-income groups. Taxes and user charges offer perhaps the most important opportunity for altering the incidence of costs and benefits in favour of the urban poor. The third issue I would like to raise relates to the main economic objective ot urban development planning - the stimulation of the urban economy so as to generate employment and incomes for the citizens. I suggest that the means to achieve this end are still inadequately understood. because insufficient is often known about the economy of cities for which urban plans are produced - even those studies supported by the World Bank. More attention is paid to economic issues in, for example, the studies of Jakarta and Madras, than was the case in earlier master plans of a more physical/land-use variety, but even so, the level of analysis can often be rather limited. Perhaps the informal sector is surveyed on a sample basis, and a breakdown of formal employment by industrial categories is obtained - but this is very far short of the sort of analysis of the urban economy which is required if the planners are to recommend policies or projects which will significantly improve the situation. Investment in infrastructure. such as
electricity or roads. may well be of importance in increasing the efficiency of the city as an economic entity, but this is rarely seen as its primary purpose; and projects and pro~r~~rnln~s tor boosting economic activity all too often take rather simplistic forms, such as the construction of serviced units for small-scale industry. or the provision of credit to small enterprises. Such initiatives mav be helpful, but they are generally not grounded in a sound analysis and understanding of the economic base of the city. It is frequently the case that the most important decisions affecting the future of the urban economy arc not iIlfl~l~n~ed by the urban planners - who mav indeed be unaware of them. FotcxampIe, WI a national scale. the rate of growth of cities r-nay be si~nifi~~~Iitiy influenced by the terms of trade between agriculture and industry, a factor which some urban planners would not even r~~alyse. let alone seek to influence. At tho level of the individual city. the attraction of industry is ;I factor of crucial importance, yet the involvement of the Ministry of Industries is rarely seen as csscntial to the activities of urban planners. ‘I‘hc history of the rclativc growth or decline of individual cities in many countries reveals- that the most important explanatory filCtOi3 are generally of an economic nature. often stemming from technologi&l change. The urban planner may not be able to have a significant impact on such changes at a national level, but should be aware at least of the possible effect of them on the city economy. and plan accordingly. “I’he impact of ~oiltiliIleris~ltion on the economy of port cities has bcon. and will in future bc. verv significant. Perhaps information technology. or the dcveiopment ol tel&ommunications may be of significance in future years. Yet urban plans fol Third World cities are too often based on a rather static and even simplistic analysis of the nature of the urban economy. ilnd policy proposals are often limited to such things as improving support facilities and providing technical tr~~inili~. A fourth, and rather different point deserves mention. I have spoken of the failure of physical means to achieve the physical or spatial ends of planners. More consideration should be given, I suggest. to the use of economic means to achieve physical/spatial objectives. A few examples will make the point. One way of encour~i~in~ the development of residential suburbs in a particular location would be to provide a heavily subsidised public transport service to that would be to area alone. Instead of zoning land for industrial use, an alternative levy very discriminatory user charges for electricity, water, etc., with much lower rates applicable in certain specific areas of the city; industry could locate elsewhere if it wishes, but the costs would be penal. and more than sufficient to compensate for the ‘externalities’ imposed on the n~i~hb~~urh~~~~din the form of noise or air pollution. In those rare cities in which planning regulations are effectively enforced, consideration might even be given to chargmg what the rather than withholding permits market will bear for planning permission, altogether in some areas and giving huge windfall profits to developers in other areas. Some of these ideas may be inoperable. but the general principle will be ~Ippli~~~t~lein certain cases - the use of pricing and taxati,,iisubsidy to bring The approach is already widely used on a about desired spatial objectives. regional scale in many countries to seek to influence the regional distribution of economic activities. It can be applied also within cities, so as to influence the spatial distribution of activities on an urban scale. WHAT
NEXT?
Having briefly outlined some of the merits and demerits of this shift in planning practice, let me now turn to my last question: what next’? Where does urban planning practice go from here? Where should it go and where is it likely to go’? Clearly the two approaches contrasted in this paper represent an over-
simplification in two respects. First, like all paradigms, they exaggerate the Secondly, they take insufficient differences between the two approaches. account of other approaches which may be feasible, either instead of, or in conjunction with, what I have called very broadly the physical and the economic approaches. Perhaps the most glaring omission in the discussion so far is the lack of mention of social concerns - either as means or as ends. The objective of the urban planner should not be simply to increase employment and incomes, and improve the physical environment of the city. As well as the material well-being of the people, the planner should also be concerned with social development and individual fulfilment. This does not simply mean the provision of schools or citizens’ advice bureaux - it concerns the human development of the individual and the community. But this may be seen as a means as well as, or instead of, an end. Community participation is sometimes encouraged by planning authorities, or favoured by aid agencies, as a method of mobilising human resources to achieve objectives such as the construction of houses or communal facilities. The role of the planner in such an activity could be of various kinds, such as the advocacy planning role sometimes adopted in the USA. Somewhat incongruous situations can of course arise when an agency actively stimulates communities to organise and give voice to their demands, against the same agency, which is, at least in part, responsible for satisfying them. The planner, as well as the agency itself, may be resistant to ‘bottom-up’ planning which, if it is to be meaningful, implies that the planner becomes the servant of the citizen - a reversal of role which in practice may be strenuously resisted. It is therefore not clear how far or in precisely what direction this type of planning and action can go. But it is certain that the social and community aspects of urban planning are still generally underdeveloped. Perhaps the next major shift will be in this direction. Another possible direction for urban planning practice is to become more actively involved in land development and redevelopment, as entrepreneur, making profits and ploughing these back into the city. There is no doubt that urban development is big business, and the magnitude of land value increases, even without provision of infrastructure, can be enormous. (In Colombo. for example, the total increase in value of all the urban land in the metropolitan area over an 18 month period in the late 1970s was more than the total national income for a year.) But, in general, the profits from land development accrue mainly to the private sector. In a number of countries, attempts are being made to capture these land value increases, whether through taxation, land acquistion, land readjustment schemes or whatever. The ownership of land is very different from the power to control its use (at least when the latter is as weak as it is in many Third World cities). Therefore another possible way forward is for urban planning agencies to become concerned not so much with the use of land as with its potential for earning revenue. The monopoly powers of the public sector in the provision of infrastructure, and the legal powers of land acquisition often enjoyed by planning authorities, should in theory be sufficient to ensure that the government has more than enough revenue for the city. In reality. the profits generally accrue to the private sector. A third possible direction for the future is one that has already been mentioned but has, as yet, not been put to great effect. The urban planning agency may concentrate entirely on stimulating the growth of the urban economy. Just as national planners are concerned chiefly with the national economy, so urban planners too might see their main or sole priority as the generation of employment and incomes for the city population. There are two is the vacuum of main problems with this. The first, already mentioned, knowledge. Very little is known about the economies of individual cities (data are not only limited but also presented in categories which are unhelpful for
either analysis or policy prescription). Moreover. we know rclativcly littlc about what should be done in order to stimulate economic activity. What is needed? Is it national level taxation or investment politics? or the provision of clcctric power anti water? or technical training and education? or credit 2nd assistance with marketing? The etnployment component of urban plans or projects SL’CI~X all too often to take the form of provision of factory space. Lvithout ;ln adcquatc understanding of why or how such space will be l’illcd. But there is a second major problem uhich is the ambivalent attitucic of urban planners towards the economic growth of urban arcas. Thus. in a number of Third World countries - again. Indonesia is 21 useful examplct - it is ttfficial government policy that no major new industries may bc located within sonic specified distance from the c~lpitul. Since these directives arc \‘cry largclc ignored, it may perhaps not matter in practice. But it is surely, instructive to observe the reaction in Britain to the beginning of population decl~rw in London. 2nd to contpart the objectives of the recently born London Lhcklancis Dovclopmcnt Corporation with the now-cicfunct Location of Offiocs Bureau. It is perhaps possible to prevent ;I Third World citv from growins. bv strenuousI\ stamping out the major sources of cmploynient. But such a cite will certainI!, not _ prosper nor be able to afford to service Its population. Thus, it is not clezr precisely what a11urban planning authority would do it’ its first priority wcrc the sti~~~~~l~~t~~)~~ of economic growth in the city, nor whether it is realistic to expect any planning agency in the Third World today opcnlv to pursue such ;I police. The fourth directlon in which urban planning practice might move is the one which has received most attention in this paper - what might be tcrmecl the public works approach. in which the power of the l~l~~tlIii[i~a2ct-q extends ~t\‘cr the public sector iriv~st~~~~nt budget. and the major objective is to provide basic services to the citv population. To distinguish tiiesc four different approaches is not to suggest that the\ neccl be mutually exclusive. For cxaniple. it is quite possible - inded cicsir~~ble that a planning agency whose primary concern is to stimulate economic growth should also bc involvcti in planning urban in~r~~strLi~tt~1.~.or L~li~l~rt~lkiIi~ land r~~i~v~l~~pl~~~Ilt schcmcs as ;t l~r~~t.it-Ill~~kin~exercise. But I suggest that the nature of urban planning practice has been dctcrmineci mainly bv \vhat is possible rather than what may bc desiritble. and in looking to the future I am thcrcforc particularly concerned with how fcasiblc each of these \:;Irious approaches may. bc. Thus. the social development option ma\.; well bc limitccl b\ pdirical ~oristl-~~liits. ‘1%~ land ~i~v~l~~l~li~~litoption will bc c&rcmely ~li~~i~ult t;t follow in view of the strong resistance of landowners. The economic dcvelopment approach will be hampered by the lack of understanding of the urban economy. and the ambivalence of planners towards the cncouragcment ot industry-in or near m;lior cities. Control over the invcstmcnt budget is the most effccti\;c power that n&t urban development agencies in the ‘l’hirci World ;trc likely to possess (if they have any power :tt all). And it is thcrd’orc the public works modct which is most likely to bc the one that is followcci. at Icast in the short term. If we arc to take ;I realistic view of the future. we must accept that ;I planning a~cnc~ without power has little prospect of producing anything more than p;ipcr. md that the most cft’cctive source of power is control over financial rcsourccs. Unless an agcncv can genemte its own funds from land wresting control over the budget from line agencies.
~~~~~l~)~~Ii~~I~t. this nicans
Assuming that this can he achievtzd. is it the best we can hope for? I t’ear that in the short run it mav be so, but 1 would prefer to end this paper with M~IIIC statement of whcrc & should go next. rather than Ix~~cly forecasting where wc are likclv ~lli\~ittili~l~ to find ourselves.
I accept that the ends of urban planning practice will necessarily be limited by the means. And 1 have already suggested elsewhere that urban planners must start not from what objectives are desirable, but rather what instruments of suggest that we have two tasks: public sector action are available.” I therefore the first is to make the maximum use of the limited powers available. The public sector investment budget is the most important starting point, but I would make a plea for what I call an ‘enlightened public works approach’: not simply budgeting for urban infrastructure, but doing so within an overall strategy for the long-term spatial. economic and social development of the city’s population, and making maximum USC of all the instruments already available including the active participation of the community, the use of pricing and taxation policies, and the generation of financial resources through land development. The second task, which should be pursued in parallel, is to develop and strengthen the instruments of public sector action, so that the planning agency is not limited simply to the expenditure of capital funds in order to achieve its ends, but has available a range of different instruments with which to achieve its purpose. I spoke earlier of Action Planning - an approach to urban planning in the Third World which seeks to overcome the limitations of traditional master plans by putting the Action back into Planning. Perhaps the emphasis on projects has taken us too far the other way and we now need to put the Planning back into Action. Let us hope that we have now learnt enough about both to achieve a more suitable balance. so that if we have indeed gone full circle, we at least emerge better informed instead of just plain dizzy.