An Introduction to the
Understanding Asian Cities Synthesis

A forward by Arif Hasan,
September 15, 2005

The decision for creating the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) was taken in 1987.  Its founding members were professionals and NGOs working with poor communities in Asian cities.  The organisation was formalised in 1989 in Bangkok.  Conditions at the local and international level at that time were very different from what they are today.  The ACHR senior members have been very conscious of this reality and as a result have, over the years, stressed the need for understanding the changes that have taken place in the last decade and a half in Asian cities.

As a result, it was decided in the first quarter of 2003 to carry out a research on a number of Asian cities, so as to identify the process of socio-economic, physical and institutional change that has taken place since the ACHR was founded; the actors involved in this change; and the effect of this change on disadvantaged communities and interest groups.  Eight Asian cities and eight researchers were identified for the purpose of this research.  The case study cities are:  Muntinlupa (a municipality in Metro Manila), Beijing, Hanoi, Phnom Penh, Chiang Mai, Surabaya, Pune and Karachi.  The objectives of this research and the terms of reference for it are given on here, along with the names of the researchers.  All of the researchers did not strictly follow the terms of reference. However, an enormous amount of material, running into hundreds of pages, regarding these cities has been generated and is available with the ACHR secretariat.  The research and logistics related to the Asian cities project have been funded by the German funding agency Misereor.    

During the period of the research, a number of meetings were held for discussions between the researchers.  An introductory meeting was held in Bangkok in June 2003, followed by additional meetings in Bangkok and Hanoi.  At these meetings, researchers presented the findings of their research and identified differences and similarities between these cities.  A final meeting was held in Bangkok in October 2004.  David Satterthwaite, from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in UK, was requested to facilitate this final meeting and to prepare a synthesis of the findings of the eight city case studies.  This synthesis forms the subject of this publication. 

The research has identified many differences between the eight cities.  However, there are a number of strong similarities which are the result not only of how these cities have evolved historically but also of the major changes that have taken place in the world in the 1990s.  These changes are the result of structural adjustment, the WTO regime and the dominance of the culture and institutions of globalisation in the development policies (or lack of them) at the national level.

The most important finding of the report is that "urban development in Asia is largely driven by the concentration of local, national and increasingly, international profit-seeking enterprises in and around particular urban centres" and that "cities may concentrate wealth both in terms of new investment and of high-income residents but there is no automatic process by which this contributes to the costs of needed infrastructure and services".  

However, the city case studies also bring out a number of positive changes and trends that have taken place or are taking place now.  Some of the more important changes are given below :

1.    Definitions of what is urban are determined by political considerations that seek to support the political and economic status-quo, in favour of more powerful sections of society.

 

1.    Over the last two decades, urban poor organisations have emerged in most Asian cities.  
These organisations are backed by professionals and/or NGOs.  Where they are powerful, governments are forced to negotiate with them.  Their involvement in the planning and decision-making process is increasing.

2.     Globalisation has led to direct foreign investment in Asian cities, along with the development of a more aggressive business sector at the national level.  
This has resulted in the establishment of corporate sector industries, increased tourism and a rapid increase in the middle classes. Consequently, there is a demand for strategically located land for industrial, commercial and middle class residential purposes.  As a result, poor communities are being evicted from land that they occupy in or near the city centres and are being relocated, formally or informally, to land on the city fringes, far away from their places of work, education, recreation and from better health facilities.  This process has also meant an increase in land prices due to which the lower middle income groups have also been adversely affected.

3.     Due to relocation, transport costs and travel time to and from work have increased considerably.  
This has resulted in economic stress and social disintegration as earning members have less time to interact with the family.

2.     Civil society organisations have successfully come together in a number of cities
so as to put pressure on governments for the development of more equitable development policies and/or to oppose insensitive government projects.

4.     Due to an absence of alternatives for housing, old informal settlements have densified, and as such, living conditions in them have deteriorated in spite of the fact that many of them have acquired water supply and road paving.

3.    There are now a number of government-NGO-community projects and programmes.  
It is true that the lessons from these programmes have yet to become policies in most countries, but the lessons learnt from them have been understood and appreciated by politicians and city planners whose attitudes to the disadvantaged urban populations have changed considerably since 1987 when the ACHR was formed.

5.     An increase in the number of automobiles in Asian cities has created severe traffic problems and this in turn increases time taken in travel, stress and environment related diseases.  New transport systems (such as light rail) that have been or are being implemented do not serve the vast majority of the commuting public and in most cases are far too expensive for the poor to afford.

6.    As a result of structural adjustment conditionalities and the culture of globalisation, there are proposals for the privatisation of public sector utilities and land assets. 
In some cities the process has already taken place.  There are indications that this process is detrimental to the interests of the poor and disadvantaged groups.  An important issue that has surfaced is the question of how the interests of the poor can be protected in the implementation of the privatisation process.

4.    In all the case study cities, there has been a process of decentralisation. 
This has opened up new opportunities for decision-making at the local level and for the involvement of local communities and interest groups in the decision-making process.  In some cases, this has also meant a weakening of the community process in the face of formal institutions at the local level.  In this regard, this synthesis paper asks two important questions: Does decentralisation give city governments more power and resources and thus capacity to act?  and  If city government does get more capacity to act does this actually bring benefits to urban poor groups?

7.     The culture of globalisation and structural adjustment has also meant the removal or curtailing of government subsidies for the social sectors. 
This has directly affected poor communities who have to pay more for education and health.  In addition, private sector involvement in education, both at school and university levels, has expanded, creating two systems of education:  one for the rich and the other for the poor.  This is a major change from the pre-1990s era and can have serious political and social consequences for the future, especially since the largest section of the population of Asian cities is young, increasingly better-educated and with aspirations that cannot be fulfilled by unjust political and social systems. 

8.     As a result of these changes, there has been an enormous increase in real estate development.  
This has led to the strengthening of the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and developers, due to which building bye laws and zoning regulations have become easier to violate, and due to which the natural and cultural heritage assets of Asian cities are in danger or are in the process of being wiped out.

9.     There are multiple agencies that are involved in the development, management and maintenance of Asian cities.  In most cases, these agencies have no coordination between them.  In addition, in most cities there are central government interests that often override local interests and considerations.

Download the
32 page synthesis
HERE

The ACHR partners have to discuss the issues that the case study synthesis paper has raised.  They have to see how the negative aspects that the case studies have identified can be minimised and how the positive aspects can be supported and promoted.   In Asian countries, there are now enough examples from which one can learn and which relate to both the positive and negative aspects identified above.  How can one increase this learning process?  The ACHR partners are important people and institutions in their countries both at the city and national level.  They have like-minded friends in academia and in multilateral and bilateral development agencies, and the ACHR itself is respected in the development world.  This was not so in 1987.  The ACHR needs to reflect on how all these positive aspects can be brought together to promote not just projects and programmes but policies that can create a more equitable society in Asia.