|
Article Excerpt
"The battle for sustainable development will almost certainly be decided in cities.... We need cities in good shape, wisely using their resources in an innovative and sustainable way, cities for all, for us today and for future generations." (1)
Introduction I. The Internationalization of Cities A. The City and the Promise of Community B. Leaving the State Behind--The Forging of Local-International Relations 1. Decentralization--In Search of Democratization 2. Globalization, Subsidiarity and the City C. Privatization and the City D. Conclusion II. The Localization of Sustainable Development A. The Geography of Sustainable Development B. Short History of Local Sustainable Development--Local Agenda 21 C. Sustainable Development, Community and Public Participation III. The Convergence of Two Trends: Cities Embrace Sustainable Development A. Sustainable Development and the City B. Sustainable Cities? IV. Problems of the City-Sustainable Development Conjunction A. Privatization and the City B. Scales of Sustainable Development C. Equity and the Limits of Public Participation V. The Particular Case of Climate Change and Cities Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
In the past few years, two seemingly unrelated trends have combined to turn the "city" (2) into the privileged international locus of sustainable development: the internationalization of cities and the localization of sustainable development. In this Article, I explore the conjunction of these two trends and argue that while on the one hand, there is something attractive about the willing engagement of cities in addressing sustainable development (and climate change), there are also inherent dangers in allowing the cities to take on the primary function of defining sustainable development.
In a series of articles published in 2006, legal scholars David Barron, Yishai Blank, and Gerald Frug identified and theorized a new phenomenon: the emergence of cities and transnational associations of cities as a new type of actor on the international stage. (3) As these authors have shown, cities, pursuing greater autonomy from the state, have sought in a variety of ways to become active players on the international stage. One strategy they have pursued is to band together to form international "non-governmental" organizations such as United Cities and Local Governments ("UCLG"), (4) in order to gain visibility and voice in a variety of international fora. Basing their arguments on the democratic potential of cities and on the claim that city government is the level of government closest to the people and therefore most responsive to their needs, such groups have advocated for greater decentralization and autonomy for cities. (5) The cities' assertion of the desirability of greater autonomy has been well received by the international community, (6) which has embraced the city as an alternative interlocutor to the state. Together, cities and international organizations have promoted adoption of the principle of subsidiarity, borrowed from its European context, while, in parallel they have sought to encourage the funneling of international resources, including foreign direct investment, directly to cities, both of which tend to empower the city vis-a-vis the state. (7) Because cities, unlike traditional non-governmental organizations ("NGOs"), are able to lay claim to representative legitimacy, they have emerged as a favored actor within the umbrella of international civil society representatives. (8) Paradoxically, however, in the new world order, cities--despite their democratic credentials--are increasingly losing their strong public government function as traditional public services are privatized and cities begin to resemble private corporations. (9) As cities seek greater autonomy from the state and more visibility on the international stage, they have perhaps unwittingly become a key conduit for the modern trend away from "government" towards "governance;" (10) a movement strongly encouraged by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank, (11) and one that places them in an ideal position on the stage of sustainable development. (12)
The second trend is the localization of sustainable development--an increasing emphasis on sustainable development as a process that takes root in and through local implementation. The definitional ambiguity at the heart of the concept of sustainable development has been much commented upon. (13) However, one aspect of this ambiguity has perhaps not received sufficient attention: the tension between the global and the local. (14) The concept of sustainable development was born of the realization that the goals of environmental protection and economic and social development could not be achieved in isolation, and that while at times a trade-off would be needed between the values of economy, environment and equity, the way forward required a complex integration of policy-making at every level of government. (15) Sustainable development emerged from an international context which assumed the need for global cooperation, yet emphasized the primacy of state commitments and programs. From its inception, however, the concept of sustainable development was strongly associated with the demand for public participation. (16) Given the common perception that the terrain most amenable to effective public participation is that of local decision-making, sustainable development has increasingly come to be considered a local matter.
The conjunction of these two trends, the internationalization of cities and the localization of sustainable development has transformed the city into a privileged locus of sustainable development. Cities, and in particular associations of cities, have found in sustainable development an attractive avenue for making themselves indispensable partners in the international arena. Meanwhile, the cities' strategy has found an echo among a host of international organizations, engaged in one way or another in the pursuit of sustainable development. The United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the European Union, have all endorsed the proposition that cities are at the center of sustainable development, as both problem and solution. (17) The happy coincidence that the year 2008 marked the moment at which "Homo sapiens has become Homo urbanus" (18)--the moment at which half of the world's population could be claimed to be living in cities (19)--placed the cities in a seemingly unassailable position. As the world's attention has turned from the cumbersome complexity of sustainable development to the more pressing (and in some sense more promising) concern with finding a "solution" to climate change, the world's cities have been left holding the torch of hope.
In this Article, I identify and explore some of the problems and limitations implicit in this approach from the point of view of achieving global sustainable development that addresses the needs of the world's most vulnerable populations. That cities North and South are disproportionate contributors to global ecological dysfunction and, not coincidentally, the sites of a significant proportion of economically productive activity is not in dispute. It is beyond doubt that cities--with their economies of scale, relative concentration of wealth, people, businesses, and educational institutions--have much to contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development and to the response to climate change. Less clear is whether cities alone can deliver. The problems can be roughly divided into three categories. First, there is the problem with cities--in particular, the problem that cities are becoming increasingly privatized which erodes their public function and tends to diminish any sense of community. Second, there is the problem of the scale(s) of sustainable development--in particular, the problem of the extra-territorial responsibility implied by the recognition of the ecological footprint of Northern cities. Third, there is the problem of politics, community, and the practices of public participation--in particular, the need to recognize that since it requires trade-offs, sustainable development is a political decision, and that the communities of interest will be determined by the understanding of sustainable development employed.
In pointing to these limitations I do not mean to imply that cities should not be at the forefront of the pursuit of sustainable development or in seeking meaningful responses to climate change. Rather, I hope that identifying the problems inherent in leaving sustainable development up to the cities, will not only help cities improve their sustainable development policies, but will give the international community pause about the wisdom of seeking to bypass the state in the pursuit of sustainable development.
In Part I of this Article, I address a recent trend I have characterized as the internationalization of cities. Part I begins with a discussion of the traditional view of the state-city relationship as a purely domestic matter in which the balance between local autonomy and state power is periodically redrawn. Drawing on the recent work of legal scholars Frug, Barron, and Blank, I explore the development of an international localist agenda for greater local autonomy promoted by international associations of cities such as UCLG whose sphere of activity is the international. The cities' agenda, I argue, has been well received by international organizations pursuing a liberal internationalist agenda because of a coincidence of values and interests. Cities, relying on a long standing tradition of being the site of self-governing community, and asserting their status as the level of government closest to the people, have convinced the international community that they offer an alternative site of democratization beyond the state. Part I next focuses on decentralization and the principle of subsidiarity as two mechanisms developed by the international community to promote democratization and demonstrates how these serve the cities' localist agenda. Finally, Part I turns to the subject of privatization, a central tenet of the neoliberal internationalist agenda. Here I suggest that cities, starved for financial resources, have in general welcomed the trend towards privatization of city services and sought to encourage increased foreign investment. I further argue that privatization fits well with the overall liberal internationalist turn from government to an emphasis on governance. I conclude this section with the suggestion that in their pursuit of greater autonomy from the state, cities have ironically become creatures of the international.
In Part II, I discuss the localization of sustainable development beginning with an introduction to the concept of sustainable development, emphasizing that sustainable development requires the complex integration of economic, social, and environmental factors in decision making for policy, planning, and management at all levels of government. I then cover the much noted ambiguity of the concept, and argue that it is in part due to the fact that at root sustainable development requires trade-offs between these three important values, and that this requires a political decision in a given context. I further note that from its inception sustainable development had a dual preoccupation with the global and the local. Yet, I argue, in the move to implementation, sustainable development has become an increasingly localized objective, a transition that has been facilitated by the fields' preoccupation with community and public participation.
In Part III, I address the heart of the article, the convergence of the two trends as cities embrace sustainable development as a signature concern of their international localist agenda. In this Part, I begin to raise the question of what this embrace means for the definition and pursuit of sustainable development.
In Part IV, I identify a series of specific problems that are raised by the city-sustainable development conjunction. I return to the subject of the privatization of cities, discussed in Part I and argue that whatever its financial and developmental benefits, the privatization of city services tends to erode the public function of municipal government, stripping it of its primary claim to being the level of government closest to the people; contributes to the fragmentation of the city which tends to destroy any collective sense of community, and is poorly designed to address the needs of the most vulnerable part of the population. The second problem I discuss is that of the scale of sustainable development. Drawing on Rees's concept of the ecological footprint of cities, I argue that cities are ill equipped and poorly placed to take into account their externalization of environmental and social costs on lands and peoples located well beyond city boundaries. In the absence of a national or international mandate, cities are bound to consider local interests only when they engage in the trade-offs required by the pursuit of sustainable development. The third problem I identify in this Part is the degree to which the city-sustainable development conjunction can serve the goal of equity through the much vaunted emphasis on public participation. I argue that while the shift to governance seems to increase the space of public participation for civil society, the formal recognition of private economic actors as stakeholders in the decision-making process is likely to prove far more decisive.
In Part V, I turn to the particular case of climate change and cities. Cities and their associations, I argue, have found a natural home for their localist agenda in the international fight against climate change. The commitment of cities to a meaningful city led response to climate change is to be generally commended. However, in this Part, I focus primarily on a series of concerns that will need to be addressed by cities and the international community if the city-climate change conjunction is to lead to progress on the sustainable development front. First, is the extent to which responding to climate change has come to be treated as co-extensive with sustainable development. The problem as always is one of diversion of resources. To the extent that climate change seems more pressing than sustainable development, and to the extent that the fight against climate change becomes localized, then it is to be expected that the bulk of financial resources available for the purpose of combating climate change will be targeted at addressing adaptation measures in wealthy northern cities to prevent against future and uncertain risks rather than devoted to addressing the sustainable development crisis in the world today. Other concerns addressed in this section parallel the critique of the city-sustainable development conjunction.
In Part VI, I conclude that in identifying the problems inherent in leaving sustainable development up to cities, this article intends both to help cities improve their sustainable development policies and to give the international community pause about the wisdom of seeking to bypass the state in the pursuit of sustainable development. Properly understood, sustainable development requires a multi scalar, multi-level definition. The choice need not be between decentralized, autonomous cities and a powerful state that excludes city power and self-determination. Rather than imagine the state as necessarily unwieldy, closed off, inflexible and unresponsive, we should emphasize the role of the state in providing a generous space for the exercise of local autonomy and remember that community and community interest are always in the process of construction.
I. THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CITIES
From a legal perspective, the city has traditionally been constructed from within a national legal order. (20) As Jerry Frug has detailed in his seminal work on American local government law, two competing ideas of the city have always co-existed: first, the city as the creature of the state, subservient to the state, dependent on the state, and exercising delegated powers (the bureaucratic model); and second, the city as a quasi-sovereign, a space of limited but real autonomy, from within which city citizens can pursue their collective vision of the "commonwealth," with minimal state interference (the democratic model). (21) At different points in history, and in different places, one or the other of these legal models has been dominant, but rarely, if ever, has the tension between the two collapsed. Two competing narratives about the state-city relationship have evolved out of this tension. The first, speaks of the city's role as protector of citizen interests against the encroachments of oppressive state power. (22) The second, presents the state in the role of protector of minority interests against abuse of power by city majorities. (23) As in any multi-dimensional system of government, each level of government periodically seeks to aggrandize its particular power at the expense of the other. Furthermore, even when the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the two levels of government is set by a state's constitutional order, it is not necessarily fixed. Rather, this "balance" is always under review and subject to negotiation/re-negotiation based on specific issues, context, and history. The temporary accommodation of these tensions, the settling of the balance of powers, and responsibilities between the city and the state has, however, traditionally been considered a purely domestic matter, not a proper matter of concern to the international community.
The general consensus regarding the purely domestic character of the city-state relationship has been recently put into question by a series of developments that collectively have led to what we may call the internationalization of cities. Of greatest interest for our purposes is not the growth of the relative handful of megacities, with their claims to an international existence beyond the state (and beyond international institutions) through their participation in non-state based global networks (including transnational flows of information, services, resources, and people), (24) though these have certainly contributed to the breakdown of the traditional view. Of greater interest is the sudden proliferation of transnational alliances and networks of cities seeking a voice at the international table. (25) Such alliances and networks pursue local agendas through international strategies and promote a unified vision of proper city-state relationship in which, not surprisingly, city powers and resources would grow vis-a-vis the state. (26)
Among the most successful of these transnational city associations so far is UCLG, which includes over a thousand cities across ninety-five countries as direct members of the organization, in addition to a hundred and twelve so called "national associations," each representing all the cities and local governments in a single country. (27) One of the primary goals of UCLG is to internationalize its localist agenda through a strategy of increasing co-operation with international organizations, including the United Nations, its agencies and programs, such as UN-HABITAT (28) and the World Bank, (29) and to position itself as the unified voice of cities worldwide. Indeed, UCLG was virtually consecrated as the voice of cities worldwide, when the 2004 Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations-Civil Society Relations (the "Cardoso Report"), submitted to UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, recommended specifically that "the United Nations should regard United Cities and Local Governments as an advisory body on governance matters." (30) In keeping with its new "civil society" NGO-like role, promoting the interests of its members, UCLG sees itself explicitly as connecting its members directly to the international domain without the intermediary of the state. Indeed, among the premises for the world organization's raison d'etre listed in UCLG's 2004 Constitution is "that the traditional role of the State is profoundly affected by [economic, technological, demographic, environmental, social and economic trends] ... and that states cannot centrally manage and control the complex integrated cities and towns of today and tomorrow." (31) In other words, at least according to UCLG, the state is passe and has little to offer the cities. In contrast, the UCLG Constitution presents "local government" as "vital" and a "force" for inter alia sustainable development, good governance, Human Rights (civil, political, social and economic), peace and solidarity. (32) The tone and tenor of UCLG's various declarations and other official statements are consistent with this post-state position. Indeed, in most instances the state is mentioned only in order to reiterate UCLG's demand that the states must grant a greater degree of power and resources to local governments so that they can better fulfill their mission: a mission, which implicitly, the state is unable to fulfill. (33)
The success of UCLG and other city associations in introducing a localist agenda into the international domain can be attributed primarily to a recent coincidence of values and interests between cities and international organizations. Furthermore, cities have been particularly effective at presenting their cases in terms that reflect back the dominant international agenda. Among the values that unite the localist and internationalist agendas are an emphasis on the virtues of community and its potential to drive democratization through increased public participation in decision making. In a fragmented world, in which national space seems rife with competition and conflict, cities have managed to present themselves as the natural geography of community formation. Cities have sought not merely recognition and support of their aims by international organizations but also direct access to international financial resources. (34) They have thus sought to displace the state as exclusive interlocutor. In doing so, their purposes have been promoted by the fact that the preferred vehicles employed by the international organizations to support community formation and democratization include decentralization and the principle of subsidiarity, (35) both of which, at least in theory, tend to encourage a move towards greater power at lower levels of government. In addition, cities have managed to tag their localist agenda onto a related internationalist trend: the turn from a traditional conception of government to that of governance. (36) The turn to governance has opened the door to an officially recognized and countenanced decision-making and regulatory role for private economic actors and civil society. Cities, financially strapped and seeking to increase their autonomy have welcomed this development. They have been adept at presenting themselves as the truest locus of government and as the harbingers, through privatization and the development of public-private partnerships, of a new wave of governance. In this respect, cities, in seeking autonomy from the state, have ironically become the creatures of the international arena..
A. The City and the Promise of Community
The city, the polls, has long been associated with notions of community, self-government, and citizenship. Indeed, it is hard to think of the city without invoking the various traditions of the ancient Greek city, (37) the medieval corporate town, the European city-state, or even the New England Township described by de Tocqueville in the 1830's, (38) each with its strong claims to political community, self-rule, territorial jurisdiction, and economic self-determination. To some extent, the relative advantage of cities in this respect was related to scale. Cities and towns were thought to be small enough that citizens could, in theory at least, know one another and have face to face interactions with those elected (or appointed) to govern. Furthermore, at the city level, the issues addressed by government would be of direct consequence to citizens who would therefore be more likely to pay attention and even get involved. Whatever the historical reality, these ideal cities of the past continue to exercise fascination because, history, as Frug might put it, has not been kind to cities. (39) The modern city, while it retains some degree of local government, is generally characterized by relative powerlessness vis-a-vis the state and consequently low levels of public participation in local politics. (40) Paradoxically, however, despite their modern powerlessness, cities have proven quite adept at marshalling the traditional nexus between the local, public participation and the forging of political community to justify their claims on the international.
In spite of the general evidence that few city-dwellers consistently exercise their civic duty to vote for city officials and that a negligible proportion of voters ever participate in city affairs, (41) cities continue to present themselves as privileged spaces of democratization and public participation. (42) Documents put out by international associations of cities and those emerging from international organizations all contain the assertion that local government is the level of government "closest to the people." (43) This ubiquitous reference is used to convey a series of related claims around what we might call the virtue of localism. (44) To be "closest to the people" thus evokes government attuned and responsive to local needs and concerns, and adept at setting priorities. It suggests an intimate relationship between the governing and the governed and the forging of a community of interest, through the construction of a space where the "people" can be most invested in political/policy choices that matter to them. (45) In this way, "local" government becomes a promise of fulfillment of the highest ideals of the participatory rights of self-government and the incubator of the natural democratic impulse. (46) The intimacy invoked by the allusion to government "closest to the people" thus also lays claim to a high degree of legitimacy. In addition, to the extent that urban citizens have come to be viewed not only through the lens of citizenship but as consumers of city services, the closeness of local government serves to reinforce the sense that through its self-government each city is free to establish the package of services/benefits most congruent with the resident-citizen's particular mix of desires and capacities, which in turn produces a city which in theory reflects the community. (47)
Like all other human communities the city is imagined and constructed, and not in any sense natural, necessary or closed. (48) Nonetheless, as we have seen, the city continues to capture and encapsulate a series of overlapping powerful images and promises. The local is where things happen. When UCLG refers to the local as "vital" and a "force," the organization is tapping into a powerful ethos. An ethos with a built-in double edge, for to the extent that the local is where public participation is really possible--where government can be responsive to local needs and provide urban consumers with the right package of services and benefits in order to co-create the ideal community--no other level can hope to compete. (49) By contrast, the national level is painted as a space where community and public participation are weak or non-existent. (50) In contrast to the local, the national is posited as "distant" from the people and unresponsive to community needs. (51)
In theory, the international level is even further removed from the people, and by implication should be viewed as the least responsive and the least legitimate level of government. Paradoxically, however, the strategy of the cities has been to tender their local legitimacy to cure this defect of the international. Cities, in other words, have embraced the international and encouraged international organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank to make a space for and enable the local. Through the local, cities seem to promise that the international can, at last, achieve its aims and promote its deepest values. (52)
B. Leaving the State Behind--The Forging of Local-International Relations
The cities' common localist agenda--the pursuit of city self-determination--has been pursued aggressively in a variety of international venues, from the Council of Europe, to the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank and the OECD. (53) But cities' interest in engaging the international has not been limited to obtaining the moral and political endorsement of their goals by international organizations. Rather, cities have leveraged their claims to city self-determination to pursue the more practical goal of obtaining direct international funding for city based projects. (54) The ability to gain access to significant external financial resources is for cities not only a sign of their growing enfranchisement from state authority but a necessary condition if they are to enjoy the capacity to forge their own destiny.
The cities' ambitions have been met by an almost universal approval among international organizations. Indeed, it is possible to identify a convergence of interests between cities and international organizations and the forging of a common agenda. The main tenets of the common agenda are the promotion of greater local autonomy, decentralization, subsidiarity, and good governance. International organizations have endorsed localist claims and their agenda of increasing relative power vis-a-vis...
|
