The question of decentralization

The following text consists of a number of emails between Alexander Vollbrecht and me.

Hi Alex,

Before I went to the Philippines, I read somewhere that Davao (a southern city) is the second biggest city in the world measured by land area. I thought that was a remarkable fact. One look at Google Earth gave me a green checkered image, indicating a high level of agricultural integration. And indeed, as it turns out here the best agricultural products come from Davao.

The 'urban and development housing act 1992’ is the most important national guideline document in developing urban and regional plans. The main concern is social housing and development of dwellings for the deprived. These topics are strongly related to our research here. The only real political statement about space can be found in the next clause:

Sec.  38. Urban-rural Interdependence. — To minimize rural to urban migration and pursue urban decentralization, the local government units shall coordinate with the National Economic and Development Authority and other government agencies in the formulation of national development programs that will stimulate economic growth and promote socioeconomic development in the countryside.

Decentralisation, but why (since in Europe the tendency is the opposite)?

First I have to note that there is a nostalgia for the countryside, but this explanation seems to be a little naive.

Seccondly, in the tropics, and in the Philippines especially, the class separation is much more apparent then in other places I have been. You don’t need a lot to survive and that means there is an underdeveloped and very poor lower class. As a result wages are very low and for every job three people are hired. The gap between the people that have been able to develop somewhat is quite large and so these people are used to being served.

Is the act of decentralization a way of keeping this class separation in tact? But as far as I can see, it are the leftist movements who promote decentralization. This is in concurrence with what I read and hear and with the rest of the document mentioned earlier. This is what Henri Lefebvre states in ‘The Urban Revolution’:

How can we overcome the town-country dichotomy? Through the disappearance of large cities, by scattering businesses throughout the countryside. The antiurban urbanist movement made its debut shortly after the October revolution, according to Anatole Kopp. Although it resulted in projects remarkable for their architecture, it failed as an urban project. Soviet cities continue to grow in terms of size, productivity, and political importance to this day. In other words, in spite of the efforts of utopian thinkers at the exact moment when they thought they were being most realist and rational, the urban revolution in socialist countries proceeded without a conception of the urban that differed in any significant way from what was found in capitalist countries. Their political projects follow a distinctly anti-city line. And this is true even today, in Cuba and elsewhere.

Is it then, like this text suggests, a question of negligence. Clinging to old ideals? That would somehow explain why most cities here have such a messy character and consist of large parts of agriculture. And it would explain why the current guidelines are all the way back from ’92...

Still, I have the feeling that something else is the case. Maybe it does have a relationship with the class struggle? Or is it possible that the finished scenario is totally de-urbanised: a complete acceptance of both urban and non-urban functions in a integrated countryside, as the case of Davao suggests.

Alex, I have the feeling that you are able to help me with these questions, so I would really appriciate your answer.

Kind regards,

Berend

Dear Berend, having returned from London and New York, I now read your interesting observation which directly spawns a series of reflections...

The dichotomy between ‘urban and rural’ as proposed and contested by numerous scholars in the past century, yet its interrelation with economic progress and development has not been clearly understood. The position from Lefebvre proposing that we see the ‘the urban' not merely within an ‘urban-rural-nature’ divide, but to embrace it as an ‘urban field’ upon which various degrees of urbanization processes crystallize, is one that I too encourage (as it does not create artificial boundaries). The surface of the world is undergoing various forms of transformation and the continuous interrelationship between different forms of production (including agricultural) are all part of the same urban system (in various space-time scales). I too am under the belief that an interdependent urban form wherein centralized and decentralized processes intertwine offers the highest form of ‘affordance’ (understand this term as generating a space that can afford, or accommodate, as much diverse undertakings as possible).

After being asked to propose a development plan for a village of 70 families in Perica (Marowijne region in west Suriname) in 2005, who were living in a predominantly green environment in the Amazon, every intervention proposed would gradually take them from a ‘natural’ environment into an ‘urban’ environment. In an attempt to transcend this outcome, we proposed that we seek for a development scenario that would strive to create a ‘natural urban ecology’, striving to take the best that each environment offers. This meaning, that one would need to understand the productive value of various form of livelihoods and engagement. If you understand ‘development’ as that which is only oriented at economical and technological progression, this may (and often does) undermine/inhibit other forms of production (e.g. social, cultural and spiritual). Thus we strived to engender a holistic form of development that includes (thus not exclude) the multiplicity in a well balanced manner. We proposed that this can only be done if any (and all) proposed strategies ‘invest first in people and planet, with pleasure and profit as a result’ (this is also the vision of Cross Border Relations as lectured by Roy Silos during our preparation month). What we often find in our Western cities, is that development has tended to prioritize profit and pleasure first, with detrimental consequences for people (culture) and planet (nature). Those absorbing the Marxist viewpoint, which can be found in many leftist, socialist or communist perspectives, fail to include the required economic progression needed to create a sustainable and progressive milieu. Economic advancement, measured through material gain (finance, assets, etc) often out ways the advancement of the hidden fields (social, cultural, spiritual) and is usually preferred. Only when systems near states of crisis does a revisiting of its attitudes take place.

I believe that a fully integrated system, wherein a holistic humanistic (e.g. socialist) concern is upheld whilst offering possibilities for individual (e.g capitalist) growth would be a utopian (and even viable) model. In the case of Philippines it seems that the majority has been offered a way of life (to survive), but not necessarily a way of life to progress. At CBR we refer to a well-balanced progression as ‘prosperity’, which is fostered through differentiation. If a city, or urban fabric utilizes a singular spatial model for development, this eventually leads to stagnant phase – regardless of which model is used. As such, you can start to deduce that areas that are highly centralized can foster high speeds of exchange, development and progress, yet often complimented with various consequences (high socio-economic inequity, environmental deprivation, etc); whereas areas that use pure decentralised spatial models foster limited exchange and often slow development and limited progress (as in the case of Philippines). ‘Opening up’ the centralised spaces in our city cores (e.g. urban agriculture) is one type of response to this, and one can imagine that ‘centralizing’ (e.g. densifying) decentralized open spaces may offer new layers of opportunity that compliment current ongoing spatial economies (how and in which way to do this is complex challenge and cannot be created through a simply program driven approach). I should also mention here that the current model which gives value to different types of economies is also a conditioning factor (city economy versus rural economy). As they say, the subsidized agriculture of Europe plays a big role in the agricultural production and its value in developing countries (e.g. A cow in the Netherlands earns more then a farmer in Africa.)

Other aspects I also wanted to share, after having spoken to some of the groups, coming from our experience working on development issues in Suriname, is the conditions that come about under politically instable environments, namely that it contaminates the entire ‘culture of development’. Inhabitants seem to develop purely short term and highly opportunistic attitudes. Any form of long term perspectives had been systematically broken down through years (sometimes generations) of disappointments and unclarity due to shifting political interests and directions. This is one of the hardest bottlenecks to surpass when striving to generate sustainable long term strategies together with local inhabitants. This is a key issue that you all should watch out for when hosting brainstorm sessions in which you invite inhabitants to share ideas as to how they themselves propose alternative strategies for development following future or past disasters. Simply asking someone how they see their future in 10 years is often too naïve (as they may not even be thinking that far ahead), and may lead to a superficial response. On the phone I’ve proposed to some of you that although we won’t be making full proposals to enhance the development from disaster work at this stage of the research, you should of course use your time there to stage creative brainstorm sessions/workshops to properly document ideas that come from the people themselves (whether from an inhabitant, municipal worker or local NGO). It has come to my attention from the last set of conferences I’ve been to that there is a growing interest to learn more from local knowledge (the ‘genius loci’ of an area) in response to disaster situations. I would like to ask all of you to look into this as well.

Hugs from an incredibly sunny NL!

Alexander

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your answer, it does clear up a number of things for me.

First of all I recognise the concept of the 'urban field' with accompanying crystallisation processes. This seems a very workable concept and indeed does not create any (artificial) boundaries. Would it however be possible to think of a medieval town without thinking of the contradiction between town and country? In this specific case the processes that take place (farming and selling) are very much intertwined, but the spatial character is so strongly opposed...

In a village in the jungle this opposition would be similar, as you have pointed out. I like the idea to strive for the natural urban ecology, integrating spiritual traditions. I believe this holistic concept resembles the sustainable development triangle: people, nature, economy. That always helps me to define sustainable...

I think that it would be interesting to look at strategies to densify and bring developments to the resettlement area's and simultaneously contributing to the city as a whole... As for the last paragraph, that really describes the case here in the Philippines very well. When talking about development, people can not go without mentioning the government and the corruption involved in it. It is hard to imagine how frustrated the people are with that, when you haven't really experienced it yourself. But often I think it is also a way of ignoring responsibilities. But will will definitely find a way to incorporate some local knowledge into our research.

Thanks again, keep well,

Berend