BRICS and our cities

Few would have been aware of the third BRICS Urbanisation Forum held in Visakhapatnam in mid-September, where representatives of five major emerging economies, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, got together to deliberate on the theme “Urban Transition in BRICS”. In fact, leaders of 11 countries, including the heads of the BRICS nations, would again come together for the eighth BRICS summit in Goa on October 15. At a time when urbanisation is progressing fast in the country, with its concomitant problems of inadequate basic infrastructure and mobility issues, there are lessons to be learnt about how these countries have reached high urbanisation levels – 84 per cent in Brazil, 73 per cent in Russia, 64 per cent in South Africa and 56 per cent in China – while addressing the complexities of change.

A study from the early 2000s showed the relative importance of local governments in developing countries on the basis of the two indicators: Share of consolidated public sector expenditures and local expenditures as a percentage of GDP. China had over 51 per cent of public expenditure and close to 11 per cent of GDP on these two parameters, whereas India was one of the lowest, with three per cent and 0.75 per cent, respectively. Brazil and South Africa also were ahead.

For local spending responsibilities, China grants most extensive expenditure responsibilities to local governments. In Brazil, education and health accounts for nearly half of local government expenditures. For India and South Africa, municipal services and municipal administration tend to dominate such expenditures.

When it comes to recognition of third-level of governance, patterns in these countries are interesting. South Africa included a chapter on local government in its 1994 Constitution. Local governments got organised into three categories: One, metropolitan governments for the largest cities; two, primary municipalities; and three, district municipalities. The average population within a South African municipality was about 150,000, much larger than India’s average of about 2,900. South Africa’s Constitution stands apart when it lays down inter-governmental relations. Using the notion of “spheres”, rather than tiers, of government, reflecting the over-arching principle that national, provincial and local governments are equal and autonomous. Also, the Constitution stressed the relationship between spheres should be cooperative rather than hierarchical. There is emphasis on the principle of “subsidiarity”, meaning a function should ideally be performed by the level best suited to do it.

Brazil also has large number of urban bodies — totalling 5,570 municipalities. It is a much-decentralised federation: States and municipalities together used to account for more than one-third of tax revenue collection, two-fifth of total government spending and almost 35 per cent of the public sector’s net debt stock. Population distribution among varied substantially with big cities such as Sao Paulo having more than 10,000,000 people, while and at the other end, were cities with even less than 10,000 denizens. The Constitution gave municipalities the same status as the intermediate government, sharing the same rights and duties as of states.

While discussions have taken place in Vizag on a variety of topics so critical in urbanisation I think large number of cities in India and in the BRICS nations would benefit if there were a more detailed exchange of experiences and approaches among groups of cities with similar characteristics. There are so many unique initiatives in India: From making cities open-defecation-free, promoting nonmotorised transport, cleaning up garbage and so on. It will be in everybody’s interest to know of such different approaches. There could be an ongoing arrangement for sharing of actions and experiences.

Limited reference to two country-specific developments will help highlight the criticality of the changes on the urban scene. Decentralisation and local government-led urbanisation have become two main characteristics in China. Region-based urbanisation is now preferred to city-based urbanisation. This is a point we also need to consider because of the way urban bodies are structured, geographic limits and jurisdictional limitations tend to overlook what could be achieved better if a regional approach, transcending the notified limits of an urban entity, could be adopted. In June 2006, China had more than 3,500 county-level new towns and new development zones. This is a serious point.

Brazil also reports its intense urbanisation in recent decades had produced a twofold urbanisation process, a myriad of urban forms beyond cities and towns now requiring new definitions, different from traditional categories of city/country and urban/rural. Brazil is an example of the complexity that characterises current urbanisation trends in various countries.

Complexities of managing a huge array of city development issues are adding to the challenges of governance in our country. Whether we have the willingness to empower cities to be able to perform better and at the same time be accountable is one of the key issues before us. We also need to take note of the fact that the conventional method of placing governance systems in position in our urban bodies needs a relook. All this will go along with what strategies for urbanisation states want to follow. But such detailing of a strategy is not an easy task. It has to take into account the economic strengths and advantages of commonalities of approach, keeping the larger benefits of the people in view.