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.