Beyond confrontation?

How do community resources help promote engaged citizenship? How do Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) help the poor access the resources they need to improve their lives? How, if at all, do CSOs collaborate with local government institutions or other state agencies? When they do collaborate what is achieved and who benefits?

Research shows that CSO involvement in urban governance and development is not in question. CSOs do assist the urban poor to participate, either in terms of levering resources for self-help or promoting and supporting advocacy. Findings suggest that:

* A wealth of local community and trade associations exist. In most cities there is some collaboration between the state and CSOs.

* Overt and formal local state-society Iinteraction is weakest in Kumasi and Mombasa where government–CSO links are either hostile or non-existent. Yet in Kumasi traditional authorities can influence urban governance and poor people can influence their chief.

* Wide ranging formal and informal negotiations take place between local politicians and community leaders, for example, exchanging political support in return for resources such service provision and access to more secure land.

Yet, how sustainable, transparent or democratic are such informal networks and linkages? How far do CSOs truly represent the poorest people? What impact do CSOs have on poverty? Although there have been some successes, Filipino CSOs in Cebu emphasise that most activity to date has been more about inclusion in governance than about pro-poor decision making. So too in Cebu, Johannesburg and Santiago, NGOs spend too much time on service contracts with government and too little time on developing innovative programmes to help tap the capacity of the urban poor to tackle poverty.

There is a tension between urban governance founded on legitimate, effective community level organisations but with limited reach, and scaled-out federations or scaled-up NGOs capable of extending the reach of grassroots organisations. However, such initiatives need to overcome subtle forms of state resistance. Bureaucratic inertia, vested interests of construction companies - state or private – and localised political interests are all factors limiting the scope and impact of inclusive decision making.

The poorest and most vulnerable communities and people do not benefit equally from improvements and are excluded from urban governance processes for a variety of reasons:

* physical isolation (Diepsloot, Johannesburg)

* living in ‘difficult to develop’ locations (Yeoville, Johannesburg; Kumasi)

* gender (Bangalore; Meadowlands, Johannesburg)

* exclusion from political influence (Colombo, Bangalore, Santiago)

* inability to invest financially in programmes on offer (Cebu)

Policy implications include:

* Civil society inclusion in urban governance needs continued support from NGOs and grassroots organizations despite recognised limitations.

* Federating and networking may help increase the effectiveness of civil society groups in their interaction with the state through better knowledge, information, and solidarity.

* Informal agreements between local organisations and the state can be as useful as formal interaction and should be explored and understood rather than dismissed.

* Formal and informal groups and associations provide direct support to self-help activities which need recognition and support from development institutions.

* Access to resources and assets differs: it cannot be assumed that the inclusion of grassroots organisations will address the needs of all members of a community or indeed the poorest. A conscious commitment to include the poorest people's needs and a willingness to support organisations based on interest rather than residential space is important: a tenants group within a settlement is more likely to improve the situation of tenants than a residents’ association.

Source(s):
Full document: Insights#38 - 'City Politics. A voice for the poor' http://www.id21.org/insights/insights38/index.html
'Urban Governance, Partnership and Poverty: ESCOR-funded Research in Ten Cities', University of Birmingham, by Nick Devas et al 1998-2001 http://www.bham.ac.uk/IDD/activities/urban/urbgov.htm

Funded by: Department for International Development (Escor)

Date: 1 November 2001

Further Information:
Jo Beall
Development Studies Institute
London School of Economics
London WC2A 2AE, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7955 7563
Email: j.beall@lse.ac.uk

Development Studies Institute, LSE, UK http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/destin/

Diana Mitlin
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
3 Endsleigh Street
London WC1H 0DD, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7388 2117
Email: Diana.Mitlin@iied.org

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). UK http://www.iied.org/

Other related links:

'Kid’s stuff? Lessons in participation from Bangalore' http://www.id21.org/society/s3add1g1.html

Refer to the Urban Governance Initiative TUGI for further research http://www.tugi.apdip.net/default.htm

World Bank Urban Development focuses on key urban governance issues http://www.worldbank.org/urban/

'Growing up in the cities' from UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/most/guic/guicmain.htm

'Urban Governance, Partnership and Poverty', research from ESCOR http://www.bham.ac.uk/IDD/activities/urban/urbgov.htm