Globalisation and the peri-urban interface (Michael Mattingly)

Michael Mattingly and Ramin Keivani (DPU PhD 1993) have published an important paper - The Interface of Globalization and Peripheral Land in the Cities of the South: Implications for Urban Governance and Local Economic Development - in the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (Vol.31.2, June 2007) calling for more research of the impact of globalisation on land peripheral to large cities of the south.

International firms compete with local inhabitants and businesses over land in a struggle that can offer new opportunities to satisfy local needs. However, the potential for destruction of the economic activities and the residences of poor people is substantial because the contest involving them is very unequal. Urban governance and institutional processes surrounding the use, servicing and allocation of land can be strongly influenced by the globalisation process. For example, national, state or provincial governments have set up parastatal organizations with substantial funding and significant decision-making powers over infrastructure development and land use with which to attract international investment. Their actions often exclude local municipalities and the local population from the decision-making process, while leaving them to cope with the loss of livelihoods and homes, plus the maintenance of large facilities that serve the international firms.

Soloman Benjamin has identified an excellent example in the Bangalore Agenda Task Force (BATF), which was created by Karnataka State to report on the condition of Bangalore's infrastructure in line with the state government’s global ambitions^*. However, it soon took responsibility for shaping the city's planning toward these ends. Ultimately, the BATF coordinated the programmes of the major service providers of the city and oversaw the development works undertaken. As chairman of the BATF, the CEO of India’s largest and most important IT company INFOSYS, played a direct role in managing the city, reporting to the highest political offices of Karnataka State. Although it used models of good governance, the creation of BATF without locally elected representation and with the ability to override local bodies effectively gave power to international firms and the State Government to take possession of the physical and economic territory of smaller firms and of farmers, as well as to concentrate public infrastructure investment on serving lands wanted by the global firms.

This situation may have been different if local elected councils, both urban and rural, had been better able to direct land management and infrastructure provision. Consequently, the article asks if a better alternative might be an approach in which local government provides clear leadership, greater coordination of different governance layers and the inclusion of local actors. To answer this question, a good deal more needs to be learned about the issues raised, particularly:

• The impact of globalisation on urban governance in developing cities, including changing power relations, administrative restructuring, internal conflicts and competition;
• The impact of globalisation on the local economy in peripheral and informal neighbourhoods;
• The relationship of these local economies to the overall urban economy;
• Globalisation and contested claims on urban space, particularly in respect of peripheral land in developing countries;
• The effects of this competition on the livelihoods of low-income people — these effects are problems and opportunities that may call for interventions in response;
• Institutional processes and support mechanisms surrounding land tenure, use, development, exchange and consumption that determine the ability of local inhabitants to use their land and property assets for income-generating activities;
• The structural factors that are important determinants of what government, civil society and business institutions can do as part of any intervention.

________________

^*For instance, Benjamin, S. (2000) Governance, economic settings and poverty in Bangalore. Environment and Urbanization, 12.1, 35–58.