There is an increasing consensus that neo-liberal economics has failed to produce equal opportunities for all people living in most cities and that the existing urban institutions are part of the problem rather than the solution. The grass root activists and civil society has sharpened their critique on these institutions as representative of the status quo with an inherent resistance to adopt participatory development pathways.
The demand for environmental and climatic justice have also led to greater focus on inclusive and just cities as articulated in New Urban Agenda (NUA) adopted in 2016. Urban institutions are stressed to learn from civil society organizations to embed environmental justice principles in their development programs.
Unfortunately, the so-called democratic governments in Pakistan have never tried to reform and empower the urban institutions on a participatory model. Instead, in the largest province of Punjab, the present government has further entrenched the power of bureaucracy or technocrats by creating a long list of service delivery companies. These companies are performing the traditional municipal functions at a much higher cost without much efficiency and effectiveness. No wonder that most recently, many of these companies are mired in corruption scandals due to lack of transparency, accountability and public participation and oversight. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the next government in 2018 will shut many of them down, as happens with every change of government in Pakistan.
When most of the progressive world is talking about their ‘right to the city’ and reimaging city futures that are more socially inclusive, economically viable and ecologically sound; our national and provincial institutions are busy in grabbing more power for themselves and allowing urban institutions to run amok.
In theory, Pakistan is part of the world forum that adopted NUA in Quito last year. The country is bound to erect a systematic change in the culture and work ethic of urban institutions to achieve the objective of inclusive cities. Experts agree that such a change can happen smoothly without overthrowing the existing capitalist systems or forming new urban institutions if a positive relationship between civil society and urban institutionsis established and some basic anomalies are removed from their traditional interaction.
The first anomaly is their communication approach i.e. the academia and grass root organizations are in the habit of communicating with government institutions through a supply driven approach. The quality of interaction has not improved generally although the breadth and frequency of communication has increased manifold with technology. Secondly, the city managers go for affirmative action and need ground evidence to support their actions. The academia on the other hand suggest transformations based on their research, which is an on-going process. Third, both the research organizations and urban institutions do not have much understanding of the mechanisms, contexts and constraints under which each of them work and ‘there is a gap in understanding the potential role of engaged research-practice relationships in catalyzing urban transformations’.
In Punjab the government has further entrenched the power of bureaucracy or technocrats by creating a long list of service delivery companies. These companies are performing the traditional municipal functions at a much higher cost without much efficiency or efficacy. No wonder that many of these companies are mired in corruption scandals due to lack of transparency, accountability, public participation, and oversight. It is highly likely that the next government in 2018 will shut many of them down, as happens with every change of government in Pakistan
Faced with similar problems, some cities in the world have experimented with innovative concepts and approaches. One of them is the concept of ‘co-production’, which has helped some cities in Europe and Africa to avoid the unnecessary antagonism between urban governance institutions and civil society organizations. In the UK, the Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh have applied this approach to practice and embed environmental justice through real time research-policy engagement, especially in social care institutions such as healthcare for commissioning, planning, and delivery of services.
Co-production is a “pathway to develop spaces for learning and cross-institutional reflection between academia and policy, in the spirit of more sustainable urban transformations”. This entails developing shared learning channels and forums and more informal and physical ways of communication. According to Anna Coote of New Economics Foundation, “Co-production can help realize the idea of Big Society. It can strengthen social networks, improve wellbeing, prevent needs arising, transform public services and make them more sustainable”.
The purpose is to adopt more pragmatist and action oriented approaches to urban policy making through critique, engagement and reconstruction. The main value of co-production is participative enquiry and initiation of institutional transformation process from within. “With the continuing urban population growth trends, there is an urgent need to consider how governments, working collaboratively with communities, meet the burgeoning demand for housing and basic services and create the institutions necessary for sustainable urban development”, writes Wayne Shand of the University of Manchester.
Based on co-production model, European Union is funding a number of projects in the continental cities to promote circular economy and reduce the generation of waste in the currently prevalent production and consumption processes. Likewise, many European cities are trying co-production based experimental governance systems like Urban Living Labs for ensuring sustainable use of resources, circular mobility and energy efficiency with the purpose of reducing urban disparities.
Pakistani cities should therefore think of applying co-production and its derivatives in their governance systems and transform their local institutions as per ‘right to the city’ principles. They must draw new rules of engagement between urban institutions and civil society organizations, create new governance spaces and communication channels with service users and above all overcome their notorious cultural averseness to risk taking.
The writer works as Team Leader, Sustainable Cities Initiative at LEAD Pakistan, Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected].
Published in Daily Times, December 16th 2017.