Renewing and revitalizing the cities

Renewing and revitalizing the cities

Sri-Edi Swasono, Economist, Jakarta

We are witnessing cities in Indonesia becoming more and more
haphazard in nature. Additionally, these cities lack specific
characteristics and do not have a clear role nor function toward
improving the welfare of residents. Life in cities has become
increasingly tough and claims more sacrifices from humans in
their standard of living.

The large gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is the trait
of many cities in Indonesia.

This is not particular to Indonesia, as it is also a prevalent
condition of many cities in Asia and third-world nations.
How do we transform these cities into comfortable, friendly and
culturally unique locations that are the pride of all citizens,
or places that they are not ashamed to identify with. This is not
a simple nor easily resolved question.

Cities have often been developed without sound city planning,
in terms of their physical planning (architectural planning etc.)
nor in terms of their socio-economic and socio-cultural
dimensions. Even if such planning was determined, in reality
cities have grown deviating from their planned framework. Cities
have become the symbol and real form of economic polarization,
that subsequently turned into social polarization, with its
alarming consequences to the solidity of social integration.

This, however, does not imply that urban planning should stop,
nor should we give up. We must continue our endeavors to
transform and revitalize the roles and functions of our cities,
so that cities can truly become places that are friendly,
enjoyably and inspiring to their citizens to live in peace and to
pursue happiness.

National development encompasses the establishment of an
advanced and just society. For Indonesia, in terms of socio-
economic factors, we are committed to implementing national
development on the basis of the spirit of mutualism and
brotherhood, as the foundation for the realization of social
justice. This is stipulated in Indonesia's Constitution.

Unfortunately, while national development should have
benefited all parties, it has become a process that has created
socio-economic and socio-cultural divergencies. National
development should have been a process for the empowerment of the
poor but has often turned into a process which fails to empower
the poor and weak. The poor and weak have become the marginalized
and then "the evicted". In short, a process of impoverishment is
concurrent with city developments and renewals.

The development that (unintentionally) brought about economic
polarization, was then transformed into social polarization. The
rich then became exclusive by developing luxurious satellite
cities with lavish facilities, such as exclusive and luxurious
hospitals, shopping centers and in fact schools as well.

Cities are becoming prone to social antagonism and conflicts.
The alienated poor are becoming more marginalized and are in fact
deemed (and condemned) as the actual problem and burden of the
cities.

The privileged rich have access to political and economic
decision making, that has positioned them as the powerful
decisive elite in socio-economic, socio-political, and socio-
cultural life. This has exacerbated social gaps, and further
enforces the exploitative process of transfer of wealth and
ownership from the poor and weak to the rich rent-seekers. The
upper-class control decision making within urban governments.

Does this imply that those that are poor and weak have lost
their role in areas? The grass roots economy (that includes the
informal sector) provides low-cost livelihoods for poor laborers
of rich corporations. The low cost of living of the poor has made
them able to survive, and they have attained a relatively high
purchasing-power-parity from their low wages.

Would this not mean that the grass roots economy, including
the informal sector, such as street vendors and the traditional
small-holders market has basically "subsidized" the abundant
corporations that employ low cost labors. The low cost economy at
the grass roots level has become the foundation of the economic
strength for the macro economy.

Unfortunately, government officials of urban areas have tended
to be biased against the poor, resulting in the poor being
evicted without alternative solutions for shelter. The economic
democracy of Indonesia is not ideologically impartial to the
weak, even the weak should be given privileges so as to enable
them to articulate their strategic role in providing a living for
the urban poor.

Urban governments will indeed be continually plagued by the
problems of poor people, of people that do not have jobs and the
skills that will enable them to live productively in urban areas.
I am referring to the urbanization that has been problematic
since the birth of theories of development, and that has not as
yet been resolved.

One of the main critical causes of urbanization is the
depressing life in rural areas, that has given rise to the
neon-light attraction of big cities, as misleadingly represented
on our television screens.

In the meantime the cities have an exploitative nature and
role toward rural areas. The terms of trade of rural produce have
constantly declined in the past 30 years. The cities are in a
powerful position to determine a low price for the produce of
rural areas, whereas the rural people have become submissive
without any bargaining power in accepting the (urban) unfair
pricing of their produce.

The rural people do not have adequate bargaining power for
demanding a just-economic-transaction from urban people. This is
one of the most vivid illustrations of the process of
impoverishment of the poor and weak.

Urban development is not independent from development of rural
areas. The National Development Planning of the Republic of
Indonesia strategically deploys an integral approach to
development. A balanced development between urban and rural areas
is institutionally designed. There must be an equivalent
interdependence between the rural area and urban areas.

The question that then arises is: How can the urban areas
empower the rural areas in the interest of harmonious life in the
cities, and vice-versa. The problem is that cities need to be
designed so that they can also function to revitalize themselves,
thereby concomitantly also revitalizing rural areas in an
effective manner. There will be no cities that are peaceful,
comfortable and just if there is no mutualism and brotherhood
between the rich and the poor, and between the urban areas and
rural areas.

The article is based on a paper presented at the Conference on
Transforming Asia Cities, held by Delft University of Technology
in Delft, the Netherlands, in cooperation with the Erasmus Huis
in Jakarta recently.