SPECIAL FEATURE
OFQ : So you are arguing that we should revise our view on urbanization and instead of issuing warning signals sound the fanfares that we can do so much more good in densely populated areas? OH: Yes, that’s exactly what I think and the evidence points towards that you can deliver a lot more. When people say cities are necessarily bad they are often convoluting urbanization with income increases and development, because cities are a nexus where people’s welfare increases, where their incomes increase and where their consumption increases. Thus people end up thinking, okay, that is where all this energy use is happening, this is where all this pollution is being caused. If we pare back on that, then we are paring back on development and welfare increases. And this is a different conversation. OFQ : Wouldn’t that be the end of any kind of infrastructure development? OH: If we are building roads through beautiful savannas in order to connect small and isolated communities, then ultimately we begin to cause issues. If we start to sprawl and do our cities poorly, we invoke and encroach into areas of natural beauty. There are problems with not doing it right. Edward Glaeser, the Harvard economist, always says: “The best thing we can do for nature and the environment as humans, in terms
localized, for instance, a local park by local land and property taxes. Clean air, on the other hand, benefits everyone in a city and thus should be something that’s funded through more city-wide revenues. Aligning the financing side, money in, and the funding side, money out, to the project are crucial. We don’t see that enough in many developed countries. OFQ : Isn’t the key challenge for policy-makers the need to put in place measures which will cost them their jobs? OH: Urban government is often closer to the people and arguably able to listen to them better than national government. My recent findings in research at the University of Oxford show that citizens in Africa think that their urban governments are of higher capacity then their central governments. Proximity to the people is helping how people perceive them and this creates some space for decision makers. Thus, citizens can be better served and lower the likelihood of dissatisfaction.
of preserving it, is to stay the hell away from it.” I think we need to refocus on doing urbanization well and make it into something positive for the environment and the climate. In developing countries the solutions aren’t necessarily all there, but we know to a large degree what has worked and what has not in urbanization. It’s also about learning from each other, adding local context and deploying it in an adequate way. OFQ : Is the funding available, especially to make cities future-proof? OH: We need to look at this from two angles: climate and demography. Many developing countries are exposed to the effects of climate change, but at the same time are experiencing large expansions of their populations. Infrastructure decisions are being taken now, but they lock you in for generations to come, at least 60-100 years, from financial commitments to the actual built environment. Again it is a question of getting the structures right, letting the private sector do what the private sector does best, using grants in the most efficient way and mobilizing public sector funding where appropriate. The most important thing though
is that we are honest with our failures, learn from our mistakes and do better as a community.
“My recent findings show that citizens in Africa think that their urban governments are of higher capacity then their central governments.”
Oliver Harman, Senior Policy Economist, International Growth Centre, LSE
Photo: PeopleImages.com - Yuri A/Shutterstock
21
Powered by FlippingBook