...1997). In the urban context, this has resulted in high levels of urban primacy and recent trends towards the development of tourism and manufacturing industry (Potter 2000). Because of this, urban centres in the Caribbean face a wide variety of infrastructural and planning challenges. Writing specifically of Kingston, but with relevance to cities throughout the region, Clarke (2006a, 247) explains:

It is comparable in its employment and housing problems to adjacent Latin American cities that have experienced structural adjustment over the last twenty to twenty-five years, and to an even wider range of post-colonial cities that are undergoing rapid political or economic transformation, including globalization.

Urbanisation in the region has often occurred more as a result of internal demographic pressures rather than of economic growth, a situation described by Clarke (1989, 21) as representing 'urbanization without industrialization'. This phenomenon has been manifested in a variety of social and environmental challenges facing the towns and cities of the region. Social problems include high levels of poverty and unemployment, inadequate housing stocks, and limited educational opportunities; whilst environmental problems include poor sanitation, severe water pollution, air pollution from vehicle emissions and the use of low-quality fuels, inadequate solid waste collection and disposal, lack of hazardous waste management, and frequent disasters due to natural and other hazards (Williams 1997). These social and infrastructural problems are compounded by institutional challenges related to outdated or inefficient planning mechanisms that hamper effective solutions.

Despite concerns as to the ability of Caribbean public institutions to manage accelerated urban growth, it has been recognised that 'there are some changes in attitudes and innovations in urban policies and management techniques in the region that offer hope of a more effective urban development process in the near term' (Kingsley et al. 1990, i). One of the key strategies that has been adopted by Caribbean governments to address the challenges of urbanisation is the formation of urban development corporations with powers to facilitate urban regeneration in specific areas. Yet, despite the importance of these organisations, major surveys of urbanisation in the wider Caribbean region (e.g. Potter 1989 2000; Portes et al. 1997; Jaffe 2008) fail to make any specific reference to the role of urban development corporations or similar bodies, and mention urban redevelopment and regeneration only briefly.

More broadly, accounts of urbanisation in the global South tend to focus on the destructive and negative aspects of this process, rather than on the constructive activities taken by a variety of actors at different scales to address the challenges faced by towns and cities in an increasingly globalised and neoliberalised world. In this regard, the paper responds to Jennifer Robinson's recent assessment that 'much of the production of knowledge and insight about cities in poorer places has been tied to their poverty and concerned with the things that they lack', thereby impeding 'attempts to imagine creative, distinctive future trajectories for these places' (Robinson 2006, 4). In contrast, Robinson issues a call to assume that all cities 'are vital and dynamic sites where citizens are shaping autonomous and inventive futures' (2006, 6). Although poverty and deprivation are indeed important aspects of the urban experience in the Caribbean, a more comprehensive understanding of urbanisation in the region requires an acknowledgement that urban policy and management--including the ways in which these are implemented through agencies such as urban development corporations--are also major forces shaping urban futures.

This paper examines the history, role and function of urban development corporations in Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, and Trinidad and Tobago. After an assessment of the rise of urban development corporations in global perspective, the paper provides detailed case studies of the Urban Development Corporation (Jamaica), the St John's Development Corporation (Antigua and Barbuda), and the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago. The role and function of these organisations are then assessed according to three main themes: as developers in the public interest; as key actors in the quest for modernity; and as responses to globalisation and neoliberalisation. The paper, therefore, examines the ways in which new institutional frameworks have been used to implement neoliberal urbanisation in the Caribbean, and the broader consequences of this for urban economies and urban residents. These consequences are frequently paradoxical, as although urban development corporations have been able to transcend politics and bureaucracy to effect substantial and necessary changes to urban infrastructure, they have failed to take into account local contextual differences, they neglect urgent social problems, and they frequently operate in profoundly non-democratic ways.

Urban development corporations in global perspective

Urban development corporations have been implemented in a wide variety of settings around the world. They can be seen as directors of urban change, defined by Nas (2005, 3) as 'actors with explicit ideas about city development who are in a position to formulate and influence future urban transformation'. The ideas and visions of directors of urban change may be relatively short or long term, may affect all or part of a city, and may be influenced by either a value-related view of city and society or have a more partial nature concentrating on the built environment.

The first urban development corporations were initiated in the US in the late 1960s with the aims of administering certain federal grant programmes, overseeing development and construction projects, planning public works and services, and implementing and administering an urban action strategy within certain defined urban areas (Buffalo Urban Development Corporation 2006). In Malaysia, the Sabah Urban Development Corporation was formed in 1972 under the State Ministry of Industrial Development, with the role of being the main agency of the Malaysian government responsible for the development of the property and real estate industry (Sabah Urban Development Corporation 2007).

In the UK, urban development corporations were established under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act of 1980. These corporations were given a broad remit to achieve urban regeneration within designated areas over a specified time period. The objectives and powers of British urban development corporations include 'bringing land and buildings into effective use; encouraging the development of existing and new industry and commerce; creating an attractive environment; and ensuring that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area' (English Partnerships 2007). Several new corporations have been formed since 2000, which have taken a more collaborative approach involving a variety of stakeholders, in contrast to the more heavily top-down approach practised by the earlier corporations.

The implementation of urban development corporations in the UK in the 1980s reflected a shift in urban policy to a belief 'that the private sector should be the principal agent of urban change, and that intervention by the state should be reduced' (Lauria 1994, 4), in keeping with the more general privatisation policies of the Thatcher government. However, the legacy of these organisations has been widely debated. Although it has been argued that 'the square footage developed improvement to the public realm and gearing ratios suggest that they have left a significant imprint on the urban landscape', on the other hand 'their displacement effects, poor record on consultation and physical orientation suggest their significance has been more hype than reality' (Sterrett et al. 2005, 373). In addition, questions have been raised as to the impact of urban development corporations on local democracy and equity (Lawless 1988). Key output measures for the British urban development corporations included land reclaimed, serviced and developed; infrastructure; non-housing floorspace; housing developed; private sector investment; and jobs. However, because of the sweeping planning control and land acquisition powers of the UDCs, these agencies are not required to meet the same standards of access to information and often present their accomplishments in both an imprecise and narrow manner (Shaw 1995).

Urban development corporations in the Caribbean

Several Caribbean governments have created urban development corporations as a means of attempting to address the environment and...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from The Geographical Journal
Climate change in the Arctic: current and future vulnerability in two ..., March 01, 2008
Thinking outside the framework: equitable research partnerships for en..., March 01, 2008
Power intermittency, redundancy and tidal phasing around the United Ki..., March 01, 2008
Global Environments through the Quaternary.(Book review), March 01, 2008
Trees: National Champions.(Book review), March 01, 2008

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.