Renewing and revitalizing the cities<\/p>\n
Sri-Edi Swasono, Economist, Jakarta<\/p>\n
We are witnessing cities in Indonesia becoming more and more
\nhaphazard in nature. Additionally, these cities lack specific
\ncharacteristics and do not have a clear role nor function toward
\nimproving the welfare of residents. Life in cities has become
\nincreasingly tough and claims more sacrifices from humans in
\ntheir standard of living.<\/p>\n
The large gap between the \"haves\" and \"have-nots\" is the trait
\nof many cities in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
This is not particular to Indonesia, as it is also a prevalent
\ncondition of many cities in Asia and third-world nations.
\nHow do we transform these cities into comfortable, friendly and
\nculturally unique locations that are the pride of all citizens,
\nor places that they are not ashamed to identify with. This is not
\na simple nor easily resolved question.<\/p>\n
Cities have often been developed without sound city planning,
\nin terms of their physical planning (architectural planning etc.)
\nnor in terms of their socio-economic and socio-cultural
\ndimensions. Even if such planning was determined, in reality
\ncities have grown deviating from their planned framework. Cities
\nhave become the symbol and real form of economic polarization,
\nthat subsequently turned into social polarization, with its
\nalarming consequences to the solidity of social integration.<\/p>\n
This, however, does not imply that urban planning should stop,
\nnor should we give up. We must continue our endeavors to
\ntransform and revitalize the roles and functions of our cities,
\nso that cities can truly become places that are friendly,
\nenjoyably and inspiring to their citizens to live in peace and to
\npursue happiness.<\/p>\n
National development encompasses the establishment of an
\nadvanced and just society. For Indonesia, in terms of socio-
\neconomic factors, we are committed to implementing national
\ndevelopment on the basis of the spirit of mutualism and
\nbrotherhood, as the foundation for the realization of social
\njustice. This is stipulated in Indonesia's Constitution.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, while national development should have
\nbenefited all parties, it has become a process that has created
\nsocio-economic and socio-cultural divergencies. National
\ndevelopment should have been a process for the empowerment of the
\npoor but has often turned into a process which fails to empower
\nthe poor and weak. The poor and weak have become the marginalized
\nand then \"the evicted\". In short, a process of impoverishment is
\nconcurrent with city developments and renewals.<\/p>\n
The development that (unintentionally) brought about economic
\npolarization, was then transformed into social polarization. The
\nrich then became exclusive by developing luxurious satellite
\ncities with lavish facilities, such as exclusive and luxurious
\nhospitals, shopping centers and in fact schools as well.<\/p>\n
Cities are becoming prone to social antagonism and conflicts.
\nThe alienated poor are becoming more marginalized and are in fact
\ndeemed (and condemned) as the actual problem and burden of the
\ncities.<\/p>\n
The privileged rich have access to political and economic
\ndecision making, that has positioned them as the powerful
\ndecisive elite in socio-economic, socio-political, and socio-
\ncultural life. This has exacerbated social gaps, and further
\nenforces the exploitative process of transfer of wealth and
\nownership from the poor and weak to the rich rent-seekers. The
\nupper-class control decision making within urban governments.<\/p>\n
Does this imply that those that are poor and weak have lost
\ntheir role in areas? The grass roots economy (that includes the
\ninformal sector) provides low-cost livelihoods for poor laborers
\nof rich corporations. The low cost of living of the poor has made
\nthem able to survive, and they have attained a relatively high
\npurchasing-power-parity from their low wages.<\/p>\n
Would this not mean that the grass roots economy, including
\nthe informal sector, such as street vendors and the traditional
\nsmall-holders market has basically \"subsidized\" the abundant
\ncorporations that employ low cost labors. The low cost economy at
\nthe grass roots level has become the foundation of the economic
\nstrength for the macro economy.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, government officials of urban areas have tended
\nto be biased against the poor, resulting in the poor being
\nevicted without alternative solutions for shelter. The economic
\ndemocracy of Indonesia is not ideologically impartial to the
\nweak, even the weak should be given privileges so as to enable
\nthem to articulate their strategic role in providing a living for
\nthe urban poor.<\/p>\n
Urban governments will indeed be continually plagued by the
\nproblems of poor people, of people that do not have jobs and the
\nskills that will enable them to live productively in urban areas.
\nI am referring to the urbanization that has been problematic
\nsince the birth of theories of development, and that has not as
\nyet been resolved.<\/p>\n
One of the main critical causes of urbanization is the
\ndepressing life in rural areas, that has given rise to the
\nneon-light attraction of big cities, as misleadingly represented
\non our television screens.<\/p>\n
In the meantime the cities have an exploitative nature and
\nrole toward rural areas. The terms of trade of rural produce have
\nconstantly declined in the past 30 years. The cities are in a
\npowerful position to determine a low price for the produce of
\nrural areas, whereas the rural people have become submissive
\nwithout any bargaining power in accepting the (urban) unfair
\npricing of their produce.<\/p>\n
The rural people do not have adequate bargaining power for
\ndemanding a just-economic-transaction from urban people. This is
\none of the most vivid illustrations of the process of
\nimpoverishment of the poor and weak.<\/p>\n
Urban development is not independent from development of rural
\nareas. The National Development Planning of the Republic of
\nIndonesia strategically deploys an integral approach to
\ndevelopment. A balanced development between urban and rural areas
\nis institutionally designed. There must be an equivalent
\ninterdependence between the rural area and urban areas.<\/p>\n
The question that then arises is: How can the urban areas
\nempower the rural areas in the interest of harmonious life in the
\ncities, and vice-versa. The problem is that cities need to be
\ndesigned so that they can also function to revitalize themselves,
\nthereby concomitantly also revitalizing rural areas in an
\neffective manner. There will be no cities that are peaceful,
\ncomfortable and just if there is no mutualism and brotherhood
\nbetween the rich and the poor, and between the urban areas and
\nrural areas.<\/p>\n
The article is based on a paper presented at the Conference on
\nTransforming Asia Cities, held by Delft University of Technology
\nin Delft, the Netherlands, in cooperation with the Erasmus Huis
\nin Jakarta recently.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/renewing-and-revitalizing-the-cities-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}