.jpg)
“Cities are seen as the drivers of economic growth”,
however, …
…cities are also where much of the poverty is located.
Even in cities that have seen strong economic growth and which have relatively
low poverty rates overall there remain concentrations of deprivation,
suggesting that the benefits of growth are not necessarily enjoyed by everyone
in society.
In February 2014, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation launched
a report produced by the Work Foundation, the Institute for Employment Research
and the London School of economics on the relation between Poverty, Growth in
UK Cities. Underneath that very national investigation, the occasion occurs for
me to revise some evidences about Poverty in Cities, wherever it develops in
inner-cities or peripheral slums.
The urban poverty is a complex paradox, because since the
Industrial Revolutions, the rural exodus and later the emergence of Megaregion, Cities are expected to be
wealthy and secure societies.
/ Big cities, megacities and megalopolis…
First, I wanted to revise some different concepts of
urban system or urban societies that emerged during the last century. For
instance, a megalopolis is typically
defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas. The term first
appeared in 1915, in Patrick Geddes’ Cities in Evolution; Years later Oswald
Spengler used it in his 1918 book, The Decline of the West; then Lewis
Mumford in his 1938 book, The Culture of Cities. Mumford was
interpreting overdevelopment and social decline. A megacity means a
metropolitan area or so-called conurbation with a total population in excess of
ten million people. In 2013, the Population Reference Bureau referred 24
megacities. The largest are the metropolitan areas of Tokyo, Delhi, Mexico
City, New York and Shanghai (more than 20 million inhabitants).
In 1800, only 3% of the world's population lived in
cities, while this number rose to 47% by the end of the twentieth century. In
1950, there were 83 cities with populations exceeding one million; by 2007,
this number had risen to 468. The UN forecasts that today's urban population of
3.2 billion will rise to nearly 5 billion by 2030, when three out of five
people will live in cities. This increase will be most dramatic on
the least-urbanized continents, Asia and Africa.
…slums and shanty
towns
On the wrong side of Cities transformation, one billion
people, almost one-seventh of the world's population, live in what is called shanty
towns or overpopulated
slums with
high rates of unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, and lack of basic health
care.
Many, though not all of the urban poor, live in
slums. The estimates are at around one
third of the urban population in developing countries — nearly one billion
people living in slums (UN-HABITAT, 2006).
In Africa, the proportion of urban residents living in slums is astounding
at 72 percent. The slum estimates are
calculated based on the definition agreed upon at the Expert Group Meeting
(2002), UN-HABITAT, which is ‘a group of individuals living under the same roof
in an urban area with at least one of the following four basic shelter
deprivations: lack of access to improved water supply; lack of access to
improved sanitation; overcrowding (three or more persons per room); and
dwellings made of non- durable material.
If a home has one or all four of these conditions, they would be
classified as a slum household. Access
to secure tenure is seen to be a fifth indicator, but this type of data is
difficult to obtain and is thus not included.
While there are some major deficiencies with this approach to measuring
slums such as the lack of a spatial dimension, and inability to capture improvements
of individual deficiencies over time, these estimates provide a basis for
understanding the scope of shelter deprivation in urban areas globally.
By 2030, over 2 billion people in the world will be
living in such conditions. Over 90% of the urban population of Ethiopia, Malawi
and Uganda, three of the world's most rural countries, already live in slums. By
2025, according to the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asia alone will have
at least 10 megacities, including Mumbai, India (33 million), Shanghai, China
(27 million), Karachi, Pakistan (26.5 million), Dhaka, Bangladesh (26 million)
and Jakarta, Indonesia (24.9 million people). Lagos, Nigeria has grown from
300,000 in 1950 to an estimated 12.5 million today, and the Nigerian government
estimates that the city will have expanded to 25 million residents by 2015.
Those statistics show how precarious the evolution of
cities are. That complexity is due to the fact that Cities is expected to bring
economic growth and social opportunities. Societies from decades have built
cities to gather all forces and energies. But, some have been left, stepped aside.
/ Urban poverty and urban poor
Urbanization contributes to sustained economic growth
which is mean to be critical to poverty reduction. Cities provide greater job
prospects, the availability of services. However, big city life also presents
conditions of overcrowded living, congestion, unemployment, lack of social and
community networks, inequalities, and social problems such as crime and
violence.
Many of the problems of urban poverty are rooted in a
complexity of resource and capacity constraints, inadequate Government policies
at both the central and local level, and a lack of planning for urban growth
and management. During the period of 1993-2002, the incidence of urban poverty
has not changed much globally using the $1/day line, and has shown a decline
for the $2/day line following the trends of overall declines in poverty. The
urban poor faces challenges of low skills, low wages, unemployment and
under-employment, a lack of social insurance and unsatisfactory working
conditions. Unemployment is typically higher for the urban poor, as is
underemployment. The majority of the urban poor work in the informal sector that
ranges from 30 to 70 percent of GDP in developing countries. While the informal sector provides employment
for many that cannot enter the formal labor market, it is also operating
outside the legal system, and is more vulnerable to economic fluctuations.
The living conditions of the urban poor can be dismal. Poor
urban residents face many of the same challenges in daily life as the rural
poor, with the added burden of overcrowded and often unsanitary living
conditions. Urbanization can be enormous in terms of investments in housing,
water and sanitation, transportation, power, and telecommunications. Such
investments are estimated to cost nearly 5 per cent of those countries’ GDP
(Foster, Gomez-Lobo, and Halpern, 2000).
There are several factors related to urban living,
particularly in slums, that can result in negative health outcomes (acute
respiratory diseases, diarrheal disease and a wide array of other infectious
diseases (e.g., tuberculosis, hepatitis, dengue fever, pneumonia, cholera and
malaria)) (Montgomery and Hewett, 2004).
The spatial location pattern of low income settlements shows
a general trend — a majority of the urban poor live on lands that are
undesirable to others. This is a result
of urban sprawl, land and housing constraints, inefficient land markets, and
poor public transport systems. While
some live in poorer quality low income settlements within the city to be
located near to job opportunities and markets, many others choose to live in
peri urban areas on affordable sites, where access to labor markets is much
more difficult. The location and
transport patterns of the urban poor illustrate a complex tradeoff among
residential location, travel distance and travel mode (World Bank, 2002).
Living in a peripheral urban location, particularly
without adequate access to transport services, can mean exclusion from a range
of urban facilities, services, and jobs, exacerbating problems of social
exclusion which are discussed further below. For some in Latin American cities
such as Lima, and Rio de Janeiro, the poor live some 30 or 40 kilometers out of
the employment centers resulting in an average commuting time of 3 hours per
day for the poorest group in Rio (World Bank, 2002a).
/ Policies and programs for urban poverty reduction
In early 2000, the World Bank’s Urban Strategy of 2000 “Cities
in Transition” calls for:
-
Strengthening local governments to implement programs and
policies aimed at poverty reduction within cities.
-
Expanding support to projects aimed at improving service
delivery for the urban poor, integrated urban upgrading, land regularization,
and policies aimed at slum prevention.
-
Increasing support for analytical work on urbanization
and urban poverty to fill in the knowledge gaps and provide the basis for
informing better designed programs and policies.
-
Promoting equity and reducing exclusion.
-
Improving the Bank’s effectiveness.
A variety of programs aimed at reducing urban poverty:
1)
those aimed at improving living conditions through public
housing schemes, sites and services schemes, providing access to credit and
housing finance, rent control, land titling, infrastructure improvements and
utility subsidies;
Among the
programs aimed at the urban poor, overall, slum upgrading is probably the most
common. Slum upgrading programs
typically focus on the provision of infrastructure (water and sanitation, waste
management, electricity, roads), while broader programs also include interventions
aimed at improving tenure security, social infrastructure, housing quality,
access to credit, and access to social programs (health and education,
day-care, vocational training and community management).
2)
programs aimed at improving the income of the poor such
as job training, micro-enterprise development, and the provision of childcare;
3)
Safety net programs targeted to the most vulnerable such
as cash transfers, food stamps, feeding programs, fee waivers, subsidies, and
public works programs.
/ The 8 plagues of Inner cities’ poverty
Yet, in the late 2000’s, the issue of inner-city
poverty was more complex and more difficult to resolve than even the most
complicated single-issue debate. In a 1998 Paper published in the review “City scape: Journal of Policy Development
and Research”, Teitz and Chapple from University of Berkeley explained the
eight causes of Inner Cities Poverty. This paper is mostly based on
investigation in US Cities, but I assume that the results can be transferred to
other contexts. Whatever the debate about the nature and the causes of poverty
in inner-cities, almost all observers would agree that inner-city poverty is
multidimensional, extraordinarily complex, and difficult to under- stand.
Various disciplines and policy frameworks give rise to very different notions
of poverty and of its sources. To economists, it is an issue of labor markets,
productivity, incentives, human capital, and choice. Sociologists and
anthropologists tend to emphasize social status and relations, behavior, and
culture. For social psychologists, the issues may include self-image, group
membership, and attitudes. For political scientists, the questions may focus on
group power and access to collective resources. City planners and urbanists see
the effects of urban structure, isolation, and transportation access.
In brief, the eight hypotheses on inner-city poverty
are:
1.
Inner-city poverty is the result of profound structural economic shifts that
have eroded the competitive position of the central cities in the industrial
sectors that historically provided employment for the working poor, especially
minorities. In summary, it asserts that inner-city urban poverty is a product
of the loss of employment opportunities that resulted from: ■ Transformation in
the technology and organization of manufacturing. ■ The relative growth of the
service sector. ■ The increasing role of international competition.
2.
Inner-city poverty is a reflection of the inadequate human capital of the labor
force, which results in lower productivity and inability to compete for
employment in emerging sectors that pay adequate wages. However, Populations of
inner cities areas are clearly worse off education, job skills, and work
experience. They exhibit substantially lower levels of educational attainment,
have less work experience, and find work in lower paying jobs.
3.
Inner-city poverty results from the persistence of racial and gender
discrimination in employment, which prevents the population from achieving its
full potential in the labor market. The most common model suggests that
discrimination causes poverty by hindering the movement of qualified workers
into employment and preventing the exodus of inner-city residents into suburban
neighborhoods that have the schools and quality of life to promote upward
mobility.
4.
Inner-city poverty is the product of the complex interaction of culture and
behavior, which has produced a population that is isolated, self-referential,
and detached from the formal economy and labor market. To turn F. Scott
Fitzgerald on his head, it is not only the rich who are different from the rest
of us. For many in this society, it is the poor who are seen as truly different
and, in fact, the “other.” The perception that the poor constitute a separate
society, governed by their own code of values and behavior, is not a new one.
Urban reformers in the 19th century, as they struggled to improve conditions in
industrializing cities, often saw the poor, and especially immigrants, as
needing the transformation of their values as much as improvement in their grim
material conditions (De Forest and Veiller, 1903). Thus it may appear
surprising that among the most powerful arguments about urban pov- erty to
emerge in the 1980s was one that refocused the responsibility for poverty on
the poor themselves.
5.
Inner-city poverty is the outcome of a long, historical process of segregating
poor and minority populations that resulted in a spatial mismatch between
workers and jobs when employment decentralized. The decentralization of
employment and increasing residential segregation work in tandem to limit the
accessibility of jobs for inner-city residents, thereby isolating them and
trapping them in poverty. While firms offering low-skill jobs, particularly in
manufacturing, have left the inner city for the suburbs, their minority work
forces have not followed, because both discrimination in housing markets
precludes their residential mobility and the costs of commuting and acquiring
job search information inhibit access to job opportunities. Furthermore, as the
suburbanization of jobs and the middle class increases segregation, inner-city
residents become isolated from the economic and cultural mainstream.
6.
Inner-city poverty results from migration processes that simultaneously remove
the middle-class and successful members of the community, thereby reducing
social capital, while bringing in new, poorer populations whose competition in
the labor market drives down wages and employment chances of residents. Cities
continuously reconstitute themselves, as the newcomers fill the economic niches
and social structures vacated by the departing residents. While this process of
regeneration may benefit the most mobile individuals, it arguably hurts city
residents who make up the stable core of the population—the residents who will
not, because of community attachment, discrimination, or lack of information
about job and housing opportunities, leave the city. Poverty for these
residents results from both the depletion of resources in their communities, as
the successful members and potential role models depart, and the competition
for jobs in their cities, as more recent immigrants are better able to
capitalize on economic opportunities.
7.
Inner-city poverty reflects an endogenous growth
deficit that results from low levels of entrepreneurship and access to capital,
especially among minority populations.
8.
Inner-city poverty is the unanticipated consequence of public policy that was
intended to alleviate social problems but has, in fact, caused them to worsen
in some respects.
Behind each factor causing urban poverty—whether it be
industrial transformation, human capital, discrimination, the underclass, the
spatial mismatch, migration, or the endogenous growth deficit—stands public
policy. For instance, industrial transformation was facilitated in part by
changing trade policy; human capital deficits were created in part by decreased
public spending on education; and migration patterns were shaped by changing
immigration laws. But perhaps no public policies have been so instrumental in
actually increasing the incidence of urban poverty as Federal programs that
shaped metropolitan development, such as urban renewal and highway
construction, and policies intended to help alleviate poverty, including public
housing and welfare.
Nevertheless, there are a number of policy levers
through which cities can influence the link between economic growth and
poverty. These include:
• strategic co-ordination; local government can play
an important role in local leadership and co-ordinating provision from multiple
providers; • job brokering and matching services, including employer-led
training programmes to link those at risk of poverty with employment; • promoting
a living wage; cities have an important role to play in promoting a living
wage, both with their staff and elsewhere; •
linking major developments with deprived groups, bringing together local
employment and training for those at risk of poverty.
/ City driving growth
Cities are now commonly seen as the drivers of the
national economy. A number of factors make possible innovation and greater
productivity, employment and economic growth more generally. The density of
economic activity is obviously an important advantage, allowing firms, workers
and entrepreneurs to reach their objectives. Marshall called them ‘agglomeration
economies’ (Marshall, 1890) First, cities provide access to wide and deep
labour markets. A second, similar factor is the variety of specialised
customers and suppliers for business products, providing similar incentives for
specialisation and helping matching. Finally, cities can enable the sharing of
knowledge. Proximity can help economic actors to learn from each other,
increasing productivity.
Cities are important for linking economic growth and
poverty for a number of related reasons. The first reason is the policy
context: cities are increasingly important aspects of government policy, and
are being given new powers to help drive economic growth. While the powers and
flexibilities cities have are still limited, cities are increasingly important
for policy measures: at a local level, policies relating to employment,
tailored transport policy and co-ordination across a range of actors at a city
level.
Any consideration of how growth can reduce poverty
needs first to consider these drivers of growth. Among the variety of factors
driving growth, four main have been selected (Lee et al. 2014, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation Report “Cities, Growth and
Poverty”)
•
Enterprise provides innovation: successful city economies
tend to be good at creating high-quality, new firms which can drive economic
growth. Innovation – both in high-technology sectors and other parts of the
economy – is also important for successful economies; the quality of new firms
is crucial if firm creation is to lead to growth. The majority of new firms
have relatively short lifespans and create few jobs. These firms are
responsible for the majority of all gross employment creation and have wider
benefits for the cities in which they are located – by shaking up markets,
disseminating innovation and bringing in external clients, high-growth firms
have a multiplier effect on employment beyond job creation within the firm
itself (Mason et al., 2009), and contribute to an environment in which new
start-ups can begin and thrive. Mixed-sectors based on the production, use and
dissemination of knowledge have become increasingly important for economic
growth. Because of this, the key sectoral drivers of economic growth in cities
have tended to be knowledge-based sectors such as finance and business
services. Yet the sectors that are likely to drive growth in employment, rather
than output, are different. Indeed, sectors seeing employment growth, such as
healthcare, are often more likely to create jobs for those at risk of poverty
than those seeing growth in output. Different sectors will have different
implications for poverty.
•
Human capital and skills are the key determinant of long-term urban
performance: Skills at all
levels are important for increasing productivity, and helping cities to grow
and be resilient to economic change; Cities with many skilled workers have a
number of advantages. First, skilled workers have benefited from economic
change over the long-term. Cities with high skill levels have benefited from
rising wages for these groups, and so have seen output growth. Second, skilled
workers may create more jobs. Skilled entrepreneurs are more likely to set up successful,
innovative companies and they are more adaptable to economic change – more able
to change industry, and find new sources of demand for their products. Migration
might also be important for exporting, and foreign-born residents are better
able to export successfully to new markets. Making culturally diverse cities
more entrepreneurial.
•
Physical environment is important in helping cities thrive, particularly good
transport links: The attributes that make cities dynamic range from the
presence of amenities to high-quality transport links, in ensuring cities have
open economies, attracting firms, improving competition and improving the
ability of workers to find appropriate employment.
• Co-ordinated,
focused local leadership is important in removing the barriers to economic
growth and for driving growth: Local government plays a key role in
tailoring services according to local need and coming up with new solutions to
local problems. Political leadership is particularly important for radical
public service innovation– for example, to build new houses.
/. Povert(ies)…
There are different types of poverty, and the impact
of growth will differ according to the exact characteristics of those in
poverty in a city. Therefore, researchers used to focus on how poverty is
linked to changes in the labour market, or the labour market dimensions of
poverty – in particular, out-of-work and in-work poverty. However, it is
obvious that there are other dimensions of poverty.
.png)
To go further:
Neil Lee, Paul Sissons, Ceri Hughes, Anne Green, Gaby
Atfield, Duncan Adam & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2014. Cities, Growth and Poverty: a review of the Evidence. Report. The Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Judy L. Baker. 2008. Urban Poverty: a Global View. Urban Paper. The World Bank Group.
Washington D.C.
Michael B. Teitz, Karen Chapple. 1998 .The Causes of Inner-City Poverty: Eight
Hypotheses in Search of Reality. In :“Cityscape: A Journal of Policy
Development and Research” U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, Public Policy Institute of California, University of California,
Berkeley, Volume 3, Number 3. pp. 33-70
Crédits photographiques
©
Carlos Jasso. Reuters. Source: UnHabitat.
© Danny Boyle Slumdog Millionaire
(FoxSearchLight) Film Clip - The Boys On A Train
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire