structural adjustment, urban systems, and disaster vulnerability in developing countries

Cities, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 291–299, 1998 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0264-2751/98 $19.00+ 0.00

PII: S0264-2751(98)00020-1

Viewpoint

Structural adjustment,urban systems, anddisaster vulnerability indeveloping countriesMohamed Hamza and Roger ZetterSchool of Planning, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus,Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK

Structural adjustment (SA) — or macroeconomic reform — has become a dominant characteristic especiallyin developing countries, where national economies are being reshaped to a common discipline regardlessof local circumstances. Within this context, the paper examines the impact of structural adjustment ondisaster vulnerability in the urban sector, through examining some structural considerations which underpinforms of technical guidance to mitigate disasters. The paper argues that urban areas are not disaster proneby nature; rather that the structural processes which accelerate rapid urbanisation, population movementand population concentrations substantially increase the disaster vulnerability of the mass of low-incomeurban dwellers. Migrants settle on areas either originally unsafe (flood plains, land slides, etc), or createthe potential of man made disaster (environmental degradation, slum fires, health hazards). This problemderives from three interrelated factors. First, structural adjustment policies are the driving force generatingnew coalitions of urban interests responsible for decision making at the national and on the city levels. Apotential implication is the trade-off between production, competition and efficiency and adverse environ-mental consequences in terms of potentially disaster-vulnerable settlements. Such trade-offs, it is argued,cannot be afforded by most developing countries. Second, reinforcing this, is the shift in viewing the cityeconomy in an international context. The future of the city, in a globalising economy, depends on economicimperatives and a new division of labour in which Third World cities provide highly competitive labourmarkets. This questions whether technical and environmental safety concerns, which land use planningmight try to address, have been overtaken by the political, and economic forces in a global context. Third,the transformation in urban systems has led to review of planning processes and methodologies, ie theform and nature of urban planning. This questions how the new tools and mechanisms of planning inter-vention and urban management can respond to issues such as disaster mitigation. In other words, who willbe responsible? The effect of these structural factors influencing urbanisation processes, the paper argues,exacerbates disaster vulnerability in Third World cities. The paper concludes with guidelines as to hownegative impacts of SA policies vis-a`-vis disaster vulnerability could be minimised. 1998 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved

Introduction

To concentrate on preparedness andmitigation of hazards without consider-ing the underlying economic and socialsystems within which they occur canlead to poorly conceived strategies forintervention. Much disaster policy stillputs emphasis on the impact of nature,and this has led to the dominance of

291

technical intervention focused on pre-dicting the hazard or modifying itsimpact. The intent of this kind of inter-vention has always aimed at, accordingto Anderson (1985), “getting thingsback to normal as soon as possible”.Our starting point in this paper is that“normality” could be the condition ofvulnerability which allowed the crisisto become a disaster in the first place.

Normality of the developing worldnowadays is structural adjustment(SA) — or macroeconomic reform — adominant characteristic in this decade,where national economies are beingreshaped to a common disciplineregardless of local circumstances. TheWorld Bank and the IMF are nowpushing the “tigers” model as a solutionto the economic problems of the

Viewpoint: M Hamza and R Zetter

developing world. The complex natureof the linkages between environmentaldegradation associated with policiesaiming at rapid economic growth andhazards in urban areas is gaining recog-nition. This in turn, has led to increasedawareness of the less obvious humanconnections between natural hazardsand disastrous outcomes. Understand-ing of such linkages requires a crosssectoral and interdisciplinary approach.

This paper argues that urban areasare not necessarily disaster prone bynature, but “become” disaster pronebecause of structural processes creatingrapid urbanisation, population move-ment and concentration. The conflict ofeconomic interests is, we contend, oneof the biggest barriers to the mitigationof disasters (Cannon, 1994). This mani-fests itself in the marginalisation ofpeople. Migrants settle on areas eitheroriginally unsafe (flood plains, landslides, etc), or create the potential ofman made disaster (environmentaldegradation, slum fires, health hazards).

Within this context, the paper exam-ines the impact of structural adjustmenton disaster vulnerability in the urbansector, through addressing some struc-tural considerations which underpinforms of technical guidance to miti-gate disasters.

The purpose of this paper is not toelicit remedies for specific problems,but rather to explore urban disaster vul-nerability with a novel conceptualframework. The heart of this exerciseis defining vulnerability in unconven-tional terms in relation to changes tak-ing place in urban systems and socio-spatial patterns. Two main themes,underpinning SA, will be investigatedto establish the link between increasedvulnerability — as we see it — andstructural factors in urban areas. Thecontext of the changing world economyand its impact on the division of labour,defining new roles for cities anddetermining new forms of governance,is the first one. The second and inter-related issue, is the changing nature androle of planning in the context of mar-ket enablement. The effect of both fac-tors, as the paper argues, influencesurbanisation processes and exacerbatedisaster effects. The paper concludeswith guidelines as to how negativeimpacts of SA policies vis-a`-vis disas-ter vulnerability could be minimised.

292

Concepts and definitions

Vulnerability as we see it

Vulnerability assessment requires con-textual analysis of complex and multi-faceted factors. Attention should begiven to expanding definition of riskand vulnerability to allow for theidentification of differential effects onvarious categories of the population(Kelly, 1995). In this paper we arguefor a more people-centred approachrather than a hazard-centred one, whichis adopted just to reduce the intensityor impact of hazards. In other words, itis important to understand how systemsplace different people in differentdegrees of vulnerability.

The vulnerability that we are con-cerned with has to do with choices (orthe lack of them) due to economic,social, and political constraints. Inreviewing previous attempts to definevulnerability in structural terms, Can-non (1994), for example, draws theattention to inequalities in risk andopportunity. He views the inequalitiesas a function of the systems of poweroperating in societies which are ana-lysed in terms of “class, gender andethnicity”. We aim to take this a stepfurther in terms of structural andmacro-level considerations. Choices inthe context of structural adjustmenthave more to do with national andinternational economic and politicalsystems. The definition of vulner-ability, therefore, starts from the pointof being able to make a choice of“where to live”, and the implicationsfor safety and security. The interactionbetween economic and political factorswhich deprive some from this choice iswhat determines who will be vulner-able and when.

Vulnerability in urban areas has gen-erally been equated with poverty.Whilst direct causal relationship maybe true, it is the underlying processeswhich create poverty which contributeto determining the degree of vulner-ability. It is the processes that we areconcerned with.

On the other hand, and as far asurban areas are concerned, Anderson(1992) explains vulnerability of metro-politan areas in terms of three charac-teristics: those which result from theconcentrations of people and activitiesin defined and limited space; those

which result from the sheer numbers ofpeople and activities; and those whichresult from proximity to human-madehazards.

We argue that this is an explanationof the symptoms, rather than the rootcauses. Whether it is the vulnerabilityof individuals, or the collective vulner-ability of urban areas, it is the structuralprocess which creates these character-istics, rather than the characteristics perse. For example, concentrations ofpeople and activities on safe sites is nota source of vulnerability. But, theunequal distribution of resources, themarginalisation of segments of thepopulation and informal activities, andtheir exclusion from planned and ser-viced areas, is what forces people onunsafe sites; and then vulnerability is aconsequence. There is a necessity,therefore, to look at the changes inurban systems which create suchcharacteristics, before we start to estab-lish any correlation with vulnerability.

Urban systems and socio-spatialpatternsThe processes of accelerated growth,exacerbated by import substitution stra-tegies, in developing countries have ledto rapid urbanisation. Such processesinvolved redistribution of the labourforce between sectors, and conse-quently a redistribution in space(Harris, 1983). Population mobility iscontinuously being redefineddepending largely on the outcome ofsuch processes. Skeldon (1990) arguesthat: “patterns of population mobilityare intimately related to the overall pro-cess of development and any expla-nation of mobility becomes in a sensean explanation of development. Thelogic of uneven development causesmigration”.

Accepting this notion, it also seemsthat receiving areas in developingcountries (ie the cities), although theybenefit from increased labour andattract businesses and investment, arerarely prepared to meet the costsinvolved. This was reflected in thechange in population distribution inmetropolitan areas. Urban populationand urban land uses relocate andreformulate largely by decentralisation.The common tendency was for popu-lation to decline in the central areas andto grow fast on the periphery. The


direct consequence for such pattern isan intensified competition for landwhich priced low-income groups out ofthe legal market in many cities of theThird World.

Such deconcentration patterns ofindustrial and residential developmenthave emerged extensively aroundmajor cities such as Buenos Aires,Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Seoul andKuala Lampur (Gilbert, 1993). Withspatial growth in some areas comesdensification and centralisation inothers, which increases the risk asso-ciated with disasters (Cohen, 1991). InRio, for example, about 1.6 millionpeople have settled rapidly on unsafeland. Unplannedfavelas have locatedon hillsides, in and around garbagedumps, and in flood-prone lowlandareas along river banks (Munasingheetal., 1991). In Sa˜o Paulo, 400 areas havebeen identified as being at risk fromflooding, and an estimated 75 000people are periodically affected, while25 000 run at a high risk from landslides (Leitmann, 1991). One third ofgreater Sa˜o Paulo dwellers live in areaswithout any services to collect solidwaste, and only about half have accessto sewage systems (Preece, 1992).

These changes in urban systems, ifviewed from a disaster vulnerabilityperspective, create polarisation andspatial segregation of groups which inturn determine different degrees of vul-nerability. The challenge in thisrespect, as UNDRO (1977) states in itsmonograph on land-use aspects of dis-aster prevention and mitigation, is thedifficulty to alter socio-spatial patternsonce they are established and consoli-dated. Spontaneous growth has beenthe norm in many developing countries,and spatial policies have a very poorrecord in achieving their purposes.

Consequently there is the need toinvestigate the factors contributing toboth intensified polarisation and segre-gation, as well as the failure of spatialpolicies in the developing world. Thefollowing section is an attempt toapproach these issue in a way, that wefeel have been relatively overlooked.We argue that structural adjustment,the processes that it creates, and devel-opment strategies associated with itspolicies contribute largely, on one handto changes in urban systems, and, onthe other hand, to shaping planning

293

intervention efforts. Both, play a majorrole in the vulnerability question.

Why structural adjustment?Evidence on the overall effects of SAis mixed. In general, it seems the objec-tives have not been met. Liberalisedmarket forces have failed to providelow-income groups with higherincomes as a result of high pro-ductivity, savings, investment andexports (Burgesset al., 1994). On thecontrary, evidence suggests that SApolicies have led to a serious deterio-ration in living standards. Nor has SApromoted sustainable use of a coun-try’s resources.

The urban poor have been the hard-est hit and constitute the most vulner-able group in the process of macro-economic reform and structural adjust-ment. Currency devaluation, agricul-tural price liberalisation, cuts in basicsubsidies for water, energy, fuel, trans-port and shelter, and cuts in publicsocial expenditure, are just a few of theausterity measures associated with SApolicies. The impact which extendedbeyond low-income groups to includeeven middle-income, took the form ofthreatening job security, and wagesfailed to keep pace with inflation(Rakodi, 1993). The net result has beena severe erosion of living standards inurban areas. We argue that this is anunderlying factor in increased vulner-ability as we previously defined it.

Second, if the scope is widened toview SA processes in a global context,the link with vulnerability could befurther clarified. Because of the declinein the comparative advantage ofdeveloped countries in key sectors inmanufacturing, manufacturers continueto search for off-shore opportunities tosurvive the high competition. Theylocate where there are low-cost labour,less restrictive regulations of pro-duction, low land and facility costs, taxadvantages etc. Developing countriesprovided exactly what MNCs wherelooking for and in some cases evenmore. Motivated and driven by rapidgrowth strategies, and an inevitable SAand reform agenda, the developingcountries realised that they had a com-parative advantage in energy-intensivemanufactured exports (Harris, 1996).However, this form of production

imposes a maximum strain on the natu-ral environment. A potential impli-cation is the trade-off between pro-duction, competition and efficiency andnegative environmental consequenceswith the creation of potentially disaster-vulnerable settlements. Such trade-offs,it is argued, cannot be afforded by mostdeveloping countries.

The combined pressure of growthand economic development, and erodedliving standards on the other handpushed cities into an environment ofgreater social and economic turbulence(Pugh, 1995). In other words SA ishaving a direct impact on cities. Citiesare now changing faster than theirphysical fabric can respond, as arguedby Townroe (1996), and Harris andFabricus (1996). The result is urbansystems and land use patterns ill suitedfor the scale of growth and dynamicrestructuring of economic activity.

The problem is underpined by thereformulation of the role of the cityeconomy in an international context.The future of the city, in a globalisingeconomy, depends on economicimperatives and a new division of lab-our in which Third World cities pro-vide highly competitive labour markets.This questions whether technical andenvironmental safety concerns havebeen overtaken by the political, andeconomic forces in a global context.These transformations in urban systemshave, in turn, led to review of planningprocesses and methodologies in linewith market enablement policies, ie theform and nature of urban planning.This questions how the new tools andmechanisms of planning interventionand urban management can respond toissues such as disaster mitigation. Inother words, who will be responsible,and what are the appropriate land useand land allocation strategies from thepoint of view of mitigating disaster vul-nerability?

The impact of all these pressures iscreating a form of “organisational” vul-nerability at city and the national lev-els. This in turn is resulting in increasedvulnerability of urban areas to disas-ters. Forces, coalitions of interests, andimplications of SA policies seem to bethe driving force generating andexacerbating this type of vulnerability.It is only by examining the dynamicsoutlined above that we can begin to


understand some of the structural fac-tors underlying metropolitan vulner-ability to disaster.

The context of the worldeconomy from a disastervulnerability perspective

The old order was characterised bysemi-closed national economies, with adominant and directing role by nationalgovernments, employing a public sec-tor, and adopting master plans for citieswith emphasis on mandatory controlsembodied in what was thought to be aphysical order which changed onlyslowly and in ways which could be pre-dicted (Harris, 1994). This conven-tional perspective was already redun-dant before SA policies became thenorm (Zetter, 1996).

Structural adjustment is radicallyreinforcing the reshaping of the dom-estic economies to fit increasinglydemanding and changing external cir-cumstances, which in turn furtherreinforces changes in the urban sys-tems.

Changing division of labour

The shift from import-substitutingindustrialisation to export orientationhas had a profound effect. Manufactur-ing processes have been disaggregatedin order that different parts of the finalproduct could be made in differentcountries. With the comparative advan-tage demonstrated in the developingworld, of cheap labour and productionincentives, there appears to be a long-term trend of redistributing the world’slabour-intensive manufacturing to thedeveloping countries.

This has had an effect on spatialform, and in shifting activities amongsectors. The example of Bombay pro-vides evidence. Harris (1995) indicatesthat medium and large scale industriesin the city have been shifting along themain highways beyond the boundariesof the city. What is of concern to usis that population rapidly followed thisrelocation. The 1991 census shows thatwhile Greater Bombay’s populationincreased by a fifth in the precedingdecade (and the island’s populationdeclined absolutely, from 3.3 to 3.2million), some of the peripheral areasincreased rapidly. Areas such as

294

Kalyan increased by 645%, Mira Bhay-anda by 584% and Thane by 157%.The ramification of such growth onalready inadequate infrastructure, nowtested to the limit, leaves one majorquestion. Although industrial activitiesmay have located on safe sites, evi-dence suggests that the mass exodus oflabour was accommodated not on pre-planned settlements but vulnerableunplanned areas.

On the other hand, as manufacturingmoved out of the cities, new servicesmoved in and in full force. Manufactur-ing moved out leaving non-industrial-ised activities which were the moreskill intensive and the more innovatory,thus creating another wave of in-migration. The sheer volume of move-ment makes urban in-migration one ofthe most evident problems ofdeveloping countries. It has been esti-mated that, for example, between 1970and 1980 net migration added about300 000 to greater Sa˜o Paulo each yearfrom cities and villages throughoutBrazil (Martine, 1989, cited in Rob-erts, 1995).

The problem was exacerbated by thefact that such services were equally lab-our intensive. One striking example isdata loading and processing, servingthe developed world, and relocating inareas where it can exploit computertechnology and the availability of low-cost literate workers. This, of course,favoured the developing countries. Tomention a few, British police recordsare currently being loaded in the Philip-pines (under contract to a specialisedAustralian firm); the loading of Canad-ian medical records and some US airlines’ ticketing services have been relo-cated to the Caribbean; one of the larg-est Japanese real estate companies isnow processing its land records andtransactions in Shenzhen in southernChina. Swiss Airlines is transferring itsaccounts department to Bombay, andSingapore Airlines is considering trans-ferring its accounting department toIndia.

We argue here that the “unbundling”of manufacturing activities and servicescould be considered as a prime sourceof urban labour vulnerability. The rea-son is the rapid “informalisation” ofeconomies which reduces risks andincreases profits for the formal sectorof the economy. On the other hand, and

as a consequence of SA and economicreform there is also a growth in infor-mal sector employment due to theincreasing limited capacity of the for-mal sector to generate employment.The informal sector too, needs to cutcosts and provide highly competitiveservices, is only achieved by an inten-sive exploitation of labour. Accordingto Roberts (1995) the prevailingcharacteristic of the labour market ismore and more workers who have littlejob security, fluctuating incomes, andlittle access to services and facilitiesprovided by the state’s formal appar-atus.

With Sen (1986, 1988, 1989)’s con-clusion that structural change leads toredefining the opportunities inentitlements, we can argue that therepercussions flow all the way downfrom changes induced by the trans-formation of the world economy to theconditions of employment of the labourforce in Third World cities. Increasedinformalisation increases vulnerability(as previously defined) as far as opport-unity and access to resources such ashousing land and locations. The impli-cations on the living environment anddisaster vulnerability will be sub-sequently discussed.

Changing roles of citiesIn the new international economic con-text at the end of the 20th century neweconomic roles for cities emerge trans-form, and fragment. A combination ofnew technologies and new global pol-icy regimes add pressures for these newroles to be expanded.

Two major new roles, as Townroe(1996) indicates, have implications asfar as disaster vulnerability is con-cerned. The first new role is the defenceof the gains made. This requires invest-ment and improved labour skills tosecure rising labour productivity andfalling labour costs. Cities will, there-fore, have to facilitate access to capital(both domestic and foreign) and to newtechnologies. The second role is fos-tering new lines of economic activity,in the externally traded sectors inmanufacturing and services.

This process of reshaping sets theagenda for urban development, chang-ing the economic composition of outputand inducing further rapid growth. Inlooking at cities, we are thus concerned


not just with the scale of threat posedby changes in the economic environ-ment, but, fundamentally, why cities, inthe developing world, cannot cope withgrowth and change processes.

Two factors are relevant here. First,city managers are now seeking toassess more closely the comparativeadvantages of their city in a new globalframe (Harris, 1994). We argue thatthis sets up different priorities, andquestions to what extent, when econ-omic survival is the main aim, safetymeasures, risk assessment, environ-mental considerations are significantelements in the decision making andplanning processes.

Second, economic fragmentation andrestructuring increases the complexityof city governance and management. Inmany cities new coalitions of urbaninterests have emerged to assumeresponsibility for the future of the city,including, as well as the city auth-orities, the chambers of commerce andother business associations, craftassociations, and trade unions, univer-sities, NGOs, political parties. It iswithin this context that groups that arenot adequately represented in thesecoalitions will tend to be more vulner-able. The marginalised and the poor areoften not actors in policy making whichaffects their lives. Indeed, either spatialand urban policies will most likely beirrelevant to the poor and marginalised,since they live outside the formal sys-tem and legal framework (Parker,1995), or the interests of elite and capi-tal are best served by planning policiesand machinery that are as deregulatedas possible. These outcomes alreadyhave dramatic impacts on the vulner-ability of low-income groups in relationto where they settle and the form ofthese settlements.

Beyond the vulnerability of individ-uals or groups in the society, cities as awhole engender their own vulnerability(Kreimer and Munasinghe, 1992). Thephysical characteristics of the mega-cit-ies themselves are a consequence ofchanging roles. Taking the example ofthe uncontrolled spatial expansion ofMexico City over the last 20 years,areas that used to be on the peripheryof the city — and less at risk if urbansystems broke down — are now incor-porated in the city. The enormous sizeand speed of growth creates city wide

295

vulnerability of urban pollution, majorbreakdowns in overburdened infra-structure, and a variety of widely dis-tributed health hazards arising frompoor living conditions and inadequateservices.

The question of land use planningunderlies vulnerability in this contextsince the pace of growth has surpassedany possible attempt at control or man-agement. This raises our third elementof who is responsible for setting upcodes, based on what criteria, and tofulfil which aims and objectives?

Changing forms of governanceWhat are the challenges that cities inthe developing world face as theyexplore new forms of governance?What are they likely to face in thefuture? Would these challenges meanthat the roles of the various stake hold-ers will change? How will this relate toissues such as vulnerability to disas-ters? Perhaps implicit in all these ques-tions is who plans and manages cities?

There are several reasons as to whygovernance in general is a key issueand new forms are problematic. Thefirst reason, as outlined above, is thatcities are disaggregating and presentinga more complex formula of manage-ment. The second reason is the over-whelming shift that decentralisation issupposed to create from central to localgovernment. There is a consensusamong observers, such as Samaniego(1996); Burgesset al. (1994); Cohen(1991), that there is a decentralisationin expenditure responsibilities, partly asresponse to central government star-vation of local government revenues,autonomy and technical capabilities.However, decentralisation is not neces-sarily being accompanied by a fiscalrevolution, or granting fiscal powers tolocal government. There is a growingconcern that responsibilities have beentransferred but not the resources toexercise them. The direct implicationon disaster related issues is thatenvironmental policies, for example onthe local level, are being tackledthrough inadequate planning and regu-latory tools by understaffed and finan-cially impoverished municipal agenc-ies.

In the context of the changing roleand new challenges facing cities, Harrisand Fabricus (1996)’s examination of

the impact of SA on cities highlightsthe tension which cities in thedeveloping world face. The difficultchallenge for governance is how tosecure economic transformation in theface of the new international compe-tition while managing the continuingextensive pressure for growth imposedby rising population (World Bank,1991a, 1992; Pugh, 1995). In otherwords, the dilemma is how can citymanagers support the producers’ inter-ests and seek to facilitate change tomeet opportunity and to raise the pro-ductivity of land, labour and capital;while at the same time defending theconsumers’ interests in the face ofdeclining incomes, less access to ser-vices, an overall degradation of thenatural environment, and specificallyreduced investment for disaster miti-gation and planning responses.

The shift from centralised regulatoryplanning to the more flexible marketoriented development planning, leavesopen the question of how disasterrelated issues will fit into this paradigmwhile there is tension between pro-ducers’ and consumers’ interests. Thereform of local government finances,from increased privatisation of servicesto increased local taxes, and in somecases increased local authorities debts,have implications on the type of plan-ning practised in this context.

Mitchell (1995)’s optimism that themost promising circumstances forachieving improvements in hazardsreduction appears to be when hazardsissues overlap with other urban issues,and that in such cases joint constitu-encies help to keep hazard-reductionhigh on the public agenda, is counteredby the argument that urban governancetechnologies, resources and capabilitiesare under enormous pressure. Given thenew agenda of producer priorities, willany group accept an implicit obligationto deal with disasters as they effecturban consumers — the mass of theurban poor. In other words who willbe responsible?

Nevertheless, while market forcesare pushing more towards the tensionsand challenges outlined above, Harris(1994) still thinks that many localgovernments continue to see them-selves as “guardians of civilisationagainst forces of anarchy”. In this con-text there may be some hope that disas-


ter mitigation agendas remain currentin a climate of urban vulnerability.What is left to be examined now is thecombined impact of market forces anddynamics created by SA on urbanis-ation and how this highlights the linkwith increased disaster vulnerability.

Urbanisation, planning andincreased vulnerabilityThere is little evidence to suggest thatrapid rates of urbanisation are slowingdown in the developing world. Urban-isation rates are both a cause and effectto the changes discussed in the pre-vious section. We turn the attentionnow to the impact of the phenomenonitself, and how with the changes ininternational economy, cities, in thedeveloping world, are reacting differ-ently in terms of planning intervention.

As urbanisation continues, the num-ber of mega-cities continues to grow.By the year 2000, cities of over 8million in population will be mainly inthe developing world — about 28,Steedman (1995). Rates and levels ofurbanisation vary. Population of LatinAmerican are 70% urban, between 25–27% of low-income Africa and Asia,and 37% of East Asia as well. Withincountries, the range of variation is alsoconsiderable. Two countries — Chinaand India — have a combined rela-tively low urban proportion (33%), butin absolute terms they have between616 and 620 million urban dwellers(Harris, 1991).

Much of this growth is rapid andunplanned. Our aim in this part is toclarify how this growth, which is par-tially driven by SA processes, contrib-utes to an increase in the vulnerabilityof cities to disasters. Urban growth onsuch a large scales cannot avoid havinga major environmental impact.Environmental degradation increasesdisaster vulnerability, and every disas-ter has an additional negative environ-mental impact.

At a general level, Parker (1995)provides a long list of rapid urbanisa-tion’s impact on the natural environ-ment. Rapid growth raises levels ofurban air pollution, degrades surfacebodies of fresh water, destroys delicatecoastal areas, upsets the ecological bal-ance of the surrounding seas, depletesand destroys drinking water resources,

296

contaminates areas through theimproper disposal of hazardous wastes,overloads soil filtration capacity andmost significant of all degrades physi-cal security as once-stable buildinglands become dangerous because ofovercrowding and areas which weredangerous to begin with are occupiedby squatters. To some extent all thesecomponents are potentially disasterprone, more in incremental terms.However, it is this last aspect that weare mainly concerned with, since it hasmore to do with structural factors thatwe are attempting to unravel.

Some examples of the extent of theproblem serves to draw the attention tothe severity of the problem. MustafErdik, in Parker, et al. (1995), indicatesthat about 43% of the total land, 51%of the population, 75% of the industry,and 31% of the dams in Turkey arelocated in the two most hazardouszones on the official earthquake hazardzoning map of the country. Mulwanda(1989)’s study of squatters in Zambiareveals that a large area of Lusaka isbuilt on limestone and dolomite whichcan dissolve in water. Brazil is anotherexample of how rapid growth of low-income slums and squatter settlementsaround major urban agglomerations ishigh enough to have become the majorrisk factor in areas exposed to the mostserious natural hazards in the country.The mudslides and floods in Rio deJaneiro in 1988, and the 1985 floods inthe Northeast illustrates the devastatingeffects of natural events when com-bined with mismanagement, faulty con-struction, and absence of basic infra-structure (Kreimer and Munasinghe,1992). The question here is why suchsettlements are permitted on these sitesin the first place, and why do govern-ments and donor agencies financepotentially dangerous infrastructureprojects in high-risk areas?

The answer or argument that we pro-pose is that these outcomes derive notso much from uncontrolled growth,which is a proxy, but from structuralfactors creating marginalisation anddepriving large segments of the popu-lation from opportunities of choice thusturning them into residents of physi-cally vulnerable settlements.

Vulnerability comes from the newdivision of the population as a result ofrapid growth into “winners” and

“losers”. The winners are predomi-nantly the young, skilled, landed, andeducated. These will take advantageand take part in the newly emergingcoalitions of interests. On the otherhand, the old, poorly or semi-skilled,and landless are likely to fall behind.For these people there will be little orno choice since they are not a part ofany coalition and are excluded from thedecision making process. Settlerspulled to the cities by deteriorating liv-ing standards in rural areas, as a resultof SA deregulation of agriculturalprices, arrive to find that they are alien-ated from formal systems of land,employment and services (Westgate,1981). They will be driven to inhabitvulnerable areas as the only optionavailable which has not attracted theattention of developers. Such areas pro-vide a necessary source to sustaintheir lives.

If this structural explanation is putalongside the rates of urbanisation out-lined above, then we can begin toappreciate the size of population thatannually enters the vulnerable group.Systems of governance and planningfar from redefining the outcome ofthese forces and limiting such conse-quences exacerbate the problem ratherthan containing it, as a servant of thechanging division of labour and rolesof cities.

Chakravorty and Gupta (1996) arguethat the tension generated by this rise ininequality, in the economic and socialspheres, should be mitigated by thestate. However, the state, as a conceptand as a practical entity, is undergoinga process of redefinition in line with SAprocesses which contributes furtherdamage on the increased vulnerabilityof low-income groups. Thus Burgessetal. (1994) note that the concept of thestate embodied in market enablementhas diminished the equity, welfare andsocial goals embodied in state inter-ventions and that the market is not gen-erating socially acceptable patterns ofwelfare distribution. Mistargeting is adirect outcome of the unbalancedenvironment created by SA and theshift to market-oriented state. Forexample, Brazil’s total social expendi-ture in 1986 was around 25% of itsGDP. However, 41% of the populationreceived as little as 20% of socialexpenditure (World Bank, 1991b). This


is occurring at the time when low-income groups’ living conditions aremoving from bad to worse, thus con-tributing to increased economic vulner-ability.

The redefinition of the state and itsrole, in turn, has implications on theplanning process. The notion that byaltering the structure and spatialarrangements of existing patterns or bycareful management of new develop-ment, risk from future disaster eventscan be reduced, is countered by twomain problems associated with urbanplanning in the developing world.These problems persist while the defi-nition and role of planning is movingaway from regulatory to enablementstrategies.

The first is that the general planningprocess continues to remain open topolitical manipulation and patronage.In addition the assumptions of choice,participation, democracy and access toinformation and knowledge, all essen-tial for the effective operation of plan-ning, are in fact missing in most partsof the developing world. This createsvulnerability through exacerbatinginequality. This manifests itself in theinner cities, where the contradictionbetween enablement policies and con-flicts of interest is the underlying factorin inner city dereliction and squattersettlements. Squatter settlements inZambia were recognised for upgrading,instead of being demolished, in thesecond and third national developmentplans. However, dislocation is still thenorm (Mulwanda, 1989). The net effectis continuing squatting on other sites,and the further these residents aredriven off sites suitable for develop-ment, the more the chances of settlingthem on unsafe sites.

Other examples of the limitedefficiency of planning processes are theMega City Programme and the NewCalcutta Projects in India. Equity goals,once served primarily through slumsupgrading and public goods provision,are now being diluted through invest-ment in the upper end of the housingmarket. The Mega City Programmedocument of the Calcutta MetropolitanDevelopment Authority indicates thatequity is notable by its absence in the“new state” intervention efforts. Of the100 000 dwelling units to be created inNew Calcutta, 7000 are to be in the so

297

called “service villages” — to housesome displaced people and developfringe village areas — 15 000 morewill be made available to economicallyweaker sections and low-incomegroups, while 78 000 will be built forthe middle- and high-income groups.This distribution will be made in a situ-ation where 71% of the populationbelongs to the low-income and econ-omically weaker categories(Chakravorty and Gupta, 1996).

The second problem is thatapproaches to the analysis of vulner-ability and risk, upon which much ofthe application of planning for the pre-vention of disaster is based, are narrow,simplistic and take no consideration ofthe economic and social status of low-income dwellers. The case of Bom-bay’s Second Development Plan offerssome clues to the limited relevance ofurban planning policies, in so far as dis-aster issues are concerned. The metro-politan development plan an unrealist-ically low population target which leftthem indifferent to the needs of thecity’s economy. The plan prescribedbuilt-up area to plot area ratios (FloorSpace Indices, FSIs), and maximumdensities which took most of the hous-ing built in the city out of the reach oflower income groups. As D’Souza(1991) indicates, the strategy has failedto recognise employment patterns uponwhich low-income groups base theirlivelihood, such as cottage or house-hold industries and the utility of mixedland-use in that situation. Plans failingto cater for the needs of the unorgan-ised sector, contributed largely to theirexclusion from formally planned andserviced production sites. Excludedfrom the strategic plan’s land allocationfor housing, then from economic pro-duction activities, there is very littlepoint in questioning choices left, orwhere to locate?

In this context we can now enforcethe key point: disasters, particularly inurban areas, are not only an act of nat-ure. Natural phenomenon would not, byand large, constitute disasters if humansettlements did not exist where theystrike, if people had equal opportunitiesto settle in safe sites and in ways thatcreate healthy and hygienic conditions.The magnitude of disasters reflects thelevel of inequality, exclusion and mar-ginalisation. Despite the widespread

advocacy that housing should not bepermitted on steep slopes, and that landwhich is subject to flooding should notbe opened up to new settlements, thesesettlement patterns remain and willcontinue to be the predominant necess-ity for the urban poor. The human fac-tor in creating or increasing vulner-ability through structural processes isno less decisive than natural phenom-ena themselves. In the next section weshall attempt to provide a summary ofthe main ideas raised in this paper, aswell as some guidelines as to how theycould be minimised.

Concluding accounts

The discussion outlined some of thetrends and causes of SA, economicreform and globalisation of capital, andincreasing vulnerability of urban areasto disaster. The discussion covered thecurrent characteristics and problemsspecific to urban systems in an effortto understand the dynamics of today’srapid change and its impact on vulner-ability, and distinguish it from theeffects of natural phenomenon. We alsoattempted to highlight the role ofsocietal factors and establish the linkbetween areas in macro-economicreform and an issue such as disasters.The aim was to draw attention to thecrucial structural factors which are gen-erally overlooked when it comes to pol-icy making concerning disaster miti-gation. The main conclusion in thisrespect is that cities can both contributeto and reduce their risk and vulner-ability depending largely on methodsand approaches adopted in develop-ment.

Since it is beyond the scope of thepaper to outline specific solutions to theproblems outlined above, what wepresent is a number of issues to betaken in consideration in futureresearch and policy making. The fol-lowing is not an agenda, by any means,but rather a few pointers that emergefrom the above discussion.

Sustainable cities

Recognition of the trends outlinedabove has focused attention on thenegative and, in most cases, irreversi-bly negative impacts of the changingworld economic order. Indeed, what


could be concluded is that when itcomes to the global ecosystem some ofthe effects have reached a stage ofbeing neither controlled nor contained.

In as far as the definition of urbanvulnerability that we started with isconcerned, the situation is, however,different. Inequality and limited accessto resources which create vulnerabilityof certain segments of the urban popu-lation are not irreversible. Sustainabledevelopment has been advocated for along time as a way out of this “trap”.Although environmentalists are grow-ing sceptical about the concept and itsvalidity, arguing that it has beenoverused, misused, and abused by pol-icy makers, politicians and businesscorporations, and that it has becomemore of a slogan to camouflage econ-omic interests than real commitment(Casagrande, 1996), we still argue forits validity but from a different per-spective.

The kind of sustainable developmentthat we argue for derives from a devel-opment model that takes in consider-ation the local and regional structure ofevery society. So far, the drive for rapidgrowth has overlooked local circum-stances through the implementation ofa global reform agenda. Anderson(1995)’s argument supports thissuggestion by indicating that sus-tainable development is not possiblewithout an explicit component thatreduces vulnerability, and vulnerabilitywill never truly be reduced untilapproaches to development are alteredto meet the sustainability criteria. Thissimply means that each case should beassessed for its own merits, and univer-sal blue prints for economic develop-ment are not valid when the issue ofvulnerability to disasters enters the equ-ation.

Emergency plans andcomprehensive planningParker (1995) identifies the need for,and urges all major cities to have acomprehensive “emergency” actionplan that not only deals with all of thehazards which currently threaten theurban areas but also anticipate newthreats. We argue not for a separate“emergency” plan but rather a planwhich incorporates disaster/emergencyparameters as integral components of acity’s future comprehensive develop-

298

ment plan. Urban plans must incorpor-ate “pre-disaster” preventionapproaches in terms of land use allo-cations, scanning out vulnerable sitesor reducing their vulnerability inadvance of settlement. This approachwould alter the balance away from“post- disaster” emergency mech-anisms which are still required but area secondary priority. We also argue thatthe kind of disasters that we have dealtwith in this paper may need very littleanticipation if development policies aregeared to reduce vulnerability or toeliminate it. Parker’s approach appearsvalid, determined by the occurrence orvulnerability to natural disasters whichhave no societal or policy inducedcomponent. It is the latter whichcharacterises urban areas.

Survival strategies of the poorand macro-economic factors

Combining this approach with, as pre-viously discussed, a more people-centred approach to disaster mitigation,the starting point could be an attemptto fully understand how people surviveat the lower end of the economic scale.How do they minimise risk? How canthese strategies be mediated and sup-ported? This will largely contribute tounderstanding of sources of inequalityand how these could be reduced. Thiscould be taken one step further intolooking at regional inequalities withinthe national economy. Our argumentdoes not contradict the need forassessing disaster potentials at thisscale, but at the same time it empha-sises the need to focus on constraintsto hazard/disaster mitigation at a locallevel. It is of utmost importance, how-ever, that the design of macroeconomicand sectoral policies should incorporatethe potential implications of disastervulnerability on the urban environment.

Structural adjustment,environmental needs and hazardmitigation

Devising models and applications,however, is one thing, implementingthem is another. Guidelines and poli-cies aiming at sustainable and equitabledevelopment are of no use if not sup-ported by national and local strategiesaimed at enhancing the financial andmanagerial capacity of local insti-

tutions. There is, therefore, a need toreview the World Bank’s localempowerment programme since theoutcome so far has not been very prom-ising. It seems that the forces createdby the internationalisation of capital arestronger than the Bank’s attempts tocounter them.

The contradictory forces emphasiserapid growth and create the assumptionamong decision makers in developingcountries that environmental controlmeasures cannot be afforded if a coun-try seeks to achieve sound economicdevelopment in a short period. There isa need therefore to advocate the longterm consequences of such approachesand emphasise how detrimental it willbe in the context of hazards and disas-ters in the urban setting. There is alsoa need to devise more cost-effectiveregulations and policies which can cre-ate an economic environment con-ducive to production but not detrimen-tal to the natural urban environmentalsystems and settlement strategies.

Land policiesA key point in almost all developingcountries is land policy. Land priceinflation is a decisive factor in theexclusion of certain income groupsfrom housing and services, thereforestarting the vulnerability cycle whichalways potentially leads to disaster vul-nerable settlement patterns. Land pol-icy reform should be on the top of pri-ority lists in the developing world.Reform in land policy would help toreduce rampant price inflation in devel-opment land, thereby achieving com-petitiveness and improving the priceaccess to housing among low-incomegroups.

The overall guiding principle, there-fore, should be fully integrating andincorporating policies for disaster miti-gation into the planning process in theurban environment.

Anderson, M B (1995) Vulnerabilityto Disaster and Sustainable Develop-ment: A General Framework forAssessing Vulnerability. In:DisasterPrevention for Sustainable Develop-ment: Economic and Policy Issues,ed. M. Munasinghe and C. Clarke. Apaper for the Yokohama World Con-ference on Natural DisasterReduction, May 23–27. The Inter-national Decade for Natural DisasterReduction (IDNDR) and the WorldBank.


Anderson, M B (1992) MetropolitanAreas and Disaster Vulnerability: AConsideration for Developing Coun-tries. In:Environmental Managementand Urban Vulnerability, ed. A. Kre-imer, and M. Munasinghe. WorldBank Discussion Paper No. 168.World Bank, Washington DC.

Anderson, M B (1985) ‘A Recon-cenptualisation of the LinkagesBetween Disasters and Develop-ment’. Disasters 9(Supplement),46–51.

Burgess, R, Carmona, M andKolstee, Th. (1994)ContemporaryUrban Strategies and Urban Designin Developing Countries. A CriticalReview. Position paper prepared forthe International Seminar “The Hid-den Assignment”. Rotterdam, 5–7October.

Cannon, T (1994) VulnerabilityAnalysis and the Explanation of“Natural” Disasters. In: Disaster,Development and the Environment,ed. A. Varley. John Wiley and Sons.

Casagrande, E F (1996) SustainableDevelopment in the New Economic(Dis)Order: The RelationshipBetween Free Trade, TransnationalCorporations, International FinancialInstitutions and “Economic Mir-acles”. Sustainable Development4,121–129.

Chakravorty, S and Gupta, G (1996)Let a Hundred Projects Bloom.Structural Reform and Urban Devel-opment in Calcutta.Third WorldPlanning Review18, 415–431.

Cohen, M (1991) Urban Growth andNational Hazards. In: ManagingNatural Disasters and the Environ-ment, ed, M. Munasinghe. WorldBank, Washington DC.

D’Souza, J B (1991) Will BombayHave a Plan? Irrelevance of Plannersand their Plans.Economic and Polit-ical Weekly, May 18.

Gilbert, A (1993) Third World Cit-ies: The Changing National Settle-ment System.Urban Studies 30,721–740.

Harris, N and Fabricus, J (eds.)(1996) Cities and Structural Adjust-ment. Development Planning Unit.University College London.

Harris, N (1996) Introduction. In:Cities and Structural Adjustment, ed.N Harris, and J Fabricus. Develop-ment Planning Unit, University Col-lege London.

Harris, N (1995) Bombay in a GlobalEconomy. Structural Adjustment andthe Role of Cities.Cities 12, 175–184.

Harris, N (1994)Structural Adjust-ment and Cities: Three Papers.

299

Development Planning Unit. Work-ing Paper No. (63). University Col-lege London.

Harris, N (1991) City, Class andTrade. Social and Economic Changein the Third World. DevelopmentPlanning Unit and I. B. Tauris andCo. Ltd.

Harris, N (1983)Economic Growthand Spatial Change. DevelopmentPlanning Unit. Occasional PapersNo. (1). University College London.

Kelly, C (1995) Assessing DisasterNeeds in Megacities: Perspectivesform Developing Countries.Geo-journal 37, 381–385.

Kreimer, A and Munasinghe, M(1992) Editors Overview. In:Environmental Management andUrban Vulnerability, ed. A Kreimer,and M Munasinghe. World BankDiscussion Paper No. 168. WorldBank, Washington DC.

Leitmann, J (1991) EnvironmentalProfile of Sao Paulo: Case Study. In:Urban Management and theEnvironment. World Bank, Washnig-ton DC.

Mitchell, J K (1995) Coping withNatural Hazards and Disaster inMegacities: Perspectives on theTwenty-First Century. Geojournal37, 303–311.

Mulwanda, M P (1989) Squatters’Nightmare: The Political Economyof Disaster and Disaster response inZambia.Disaster13, 345–350.

Munasinghe, M, Menezes, B andPreece, M (1991) Rio Reconstructionand Flood Prevention in Brazil.LandUse Policy8(4), October.

Parker, R S (1995) Disaster Vulner-ability: Lessons from Four TurkishUrban Areas. In: Informal Settle-ments, Environmental Degradation,and Disaster Vulnerability, ed. R SParker, A Kreimer, and M Munas-inghe. IDNDR and the World Bank,Washington DC.

Preece, M (1992) Urbanisation andVulnerability in Brazil: The CurrentChallenges. In:Environmental Man-agement and Urban Vulnerability,ed. A Kreimer, and M Munasinghe.World Bank Discussion Paper No.168. World Bank, Washington DC.

Pugh, C (1995) International Struc-tural Adjustment and its Secteral andSpatial Impacts.Urban Studies32,261–285.

Rakodi, C (1993) Planning forWhom? In:Managing Fast GrowingCities. New Approaches to UrbanPlanning and Management in theDeveloping World, ed. N Devas, andC Rakodi. Longman.

Roberts, B R (1995)The Making ofCities. Cities of Peasants Revisited.Arnold.

Samaniego, R (1996) Finance andGovernance. In:Cities and Struc-tural Adjustment, ed. N Harris, andJ. Fabricus. Development PlanningUnit. University College London.

Sen, A (1989) Food and Freedom.World Development ReportNo. (17),p 769-781. World Bank, Wash-ington DC.

Sen, A (1988) The Concept of Devel-opment. In:Handbook of Develop-ment Economics, ed. H Chenery, andT Srinivasan. Elsevier.

Sen, A (1986) The Concept of Well-being. In:Essays on Economic Pro-gress and Welfare in Honour of IGPatel, ed. S Guhan, and M Schroff.Oxford University Press.

Skeldon, R (1990) PopulationMobility in Developing Countries.Belhaven Press.

Steedman, S (1995) Megacities: TheUnacceptable Risk of Natural Disas-ter. Built Environment21, 89–93.

Townroe, P M (1996) New Econ-omic Roles. The Changing Structureof the City. In: Cities and StructuralAdjustment, ed. N Harris, and J Fab-ricus. Development Planning Unit.University College London.

UNDRO (1977)Disaster Preventionand Mitigation: A Compendium ofCurrent Knowledge — Land UseAspects. United Nations Office of theDisaster Relief Coordinator. Vol. (5),New York.

Westgate, K (1981) Land-Use Plan-ning, Vulnerability and the Low-Income Dwelling. In: Disaster andthe Small Dwelling, ed. I Davis. Per-gamon Press.

World Bank (1992)Governance andDevelopment. World Bank, Wash-ington DC.

World Bank (1991a)Urban Policyand Economic Development: AnAgenda for the 1990s. World Bank,Washington DC.

World Bank (1991b)Brazil Econ-omic Stabilisation with StructuralReform. World Bank, WashingtonDC.

Zetter, R (1996) What Kind ofPlans? What Kind of Planner?Rethinking Planning Education in theDeveloping World. In:Educating forReal; The Training of Professionalsfor Development Work, ed. N Hamdi,and A El-Sherif. ITG.

structural adjustment, urban systems, and disaster vulnerability in developing countries

Documents