Cities, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 463–471, 1998 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0264-2751/98 $19.001 0.00PII: S0264-2751(98)00041-9

Viewpoint

Urban management indeveloping countries

Ronald McGill 1*63 Riccarton Road, Linlithgow, Edinburgh EH49 6HX, UK

This paper reviews current thinking about urban management in developing countries. It does so in thecontext of recent contributions to a debate on the nature of urban management (Stren, 1993,Cities 10120–138; Mattingly, 1994,Cities11(3) 201–205; Werna, 1995,Cities12(5) 353–359). The paper thereforeconsiders various definitions of the process. This is seen to focus on both the strategic and operationalconcerns of urban development. It considers the holistic characteristics. This embraces both city and insti-tution building. The contribution of town planning is assessed. This is viewed as a disappointment, despiteits potential relevance. The process of providing infrastructure is assessed. This requires all the players toparticipate, irrespective of organisational location. Integrating the organisational arrangements is thereforeacknowledged. This helps to confound attempts to impose an idealised organisational model for urbanmanagement, emphasising instead inter-organisational arrangements and their unifying planning process.The wider aim to decentralise urban management is acknowledged. Hence, urban management should bedriven by the lowest level of competent government. Urban management is therefore seen to have a twinobjective: first, to plan for, provide and maintain a city’s infrastructure and services, and second, to makesure that the city’s government is in a fit state, organisationally and financially, to ensure that provisionand maintenance. 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

This paper seeks to review currentthinking about urban management indeveloping countries. It does so byexploring a number of themes that areemerging in the literature and practice.These themes are helping to establish aconceptual coherence and structure tothe subject. This is necessary in that

*Tel/fax: 1 44(0) 1506 843260; E-mail:rmcgill@dircon.co.uk1The author started his career in Britishtown planning and urban regeneration. Hebecame chief executive (city manager) ofLilongwe city council, in Malawi’s GardenCity capital, then urban management adviserto the Malawi government, before complet-ing his PhD on institutional development forcity management – all through ODA (DfID).He moved on to Tanzania, as managementadviser (institutional development) to theTanzanian government’s civil servicereform programme. He has now returned tothe UK, as a freelance consultant.

463

there is still no accepted definition ofurban management. As Stren (1993, p137) suggests, in the context of UNHabitat’s Global Urban ManagementProgramme, “while comparative andconceptual work has taken place, theoverall concept of urban managementhas not been addressed head on. Is itan objective, a process or a structure?”Mattingly (1994, p 201) argues that “aclearer view of (urban management’s)meaning and substance” is required.Werna (1995, p 356) contends that “theconcept of urban management is stillelusive”. This paper reviews five topicsin an attempt to take the debate for-ward.

Defining urban managementAbout 20 years ago, the idea of urbanmanagement was being seen by two

authors as a form of brokerage. It wasthe dispensing of resources through themanipulation of power. In this sense,urban management was at the interfacebetween the bureaucracy that hadresources to dispense and the com-munity that was in the need of theseresources, by way of infrastructure andservices. At that time the focus was ondecision making

In this context, Williams (1978)attempted to define urban managementas a topic of study. He argued that“urban managerialism is not a theorynor even an agreed perspective. It isinstead a framework for study” (p 236).He went on to define the nature ofurban management as having “a farmore explicit concern with powerrelations, the nature of cities and theirsocial and economic structure” (p 237).He then looked at the players in the

Viewpoint: R McGill

process. “There has been considerabledebate as to whether urban mana-gerialism should simply be concernedwith the role of government officials (atboth central and local levels) asmediators or whether it shouldencompass a whole range of actors inboth public service and privateenterprise who appear to act as control-lers of resources sought by urban popu-lations” (p 239). This question of therange of players in the process isreturned to under “integrating the pro-cess”.

On the face of it, this is a politicalinterpretation. Leonard (1982, p 10)would seem to agree. He argued thatthe origins of this managerialist thesisis the “concern with the institutions andofficials empowered to allocateresources and facilities”. It is suggestedthat the twin issues of power, inrelation to the provision of infrastruc-ture and services, and the range of play-ers in the urban management process,are central themes in the debate.

As the 1980s progressed, thedeveloping world experienced a shift inemphasis from the donor community.The provision of mono-dimensionalinfrastructure schemes (such as majordams) were slowly being questioned.This was because of the increasingrealisation that such projects had inevi-table and major consequences on otherparts of the economic, social andenvironmental systems. Two changeswere the gradual result.

First, rather than deliver majorengineering projects, donors movedtowards a process of institutionalcapacity building to allow developingcountries to provide and maintain theirown infrastructure. This was the birthand growth of institutional develop-ment, as a distinct intervention processin the developing world. Second camethe idea of recognising the inter-con-nections between various infrastructureprojects, particularly in the urban sec-tor.

The former dominance of the mono-dimensional aid project may have hadsomething to do with the organisationalstructure of the governments requestingthe aid. Many writers have commentedon the sectoral dominance of centralgovernment and the resulting conse-quences for infrastructure and servicedelivery. For example, Baker (1989, p

464

33) suggests that the sectorally domi-nated organisation “works reasonablywell until the system encounters a prob-lem of a very broad and highly inte-grated nature”. One example is obvi-ously the urban question. Then, thesectoral structure “tackles only theparts which are identifiable to eachministry and then each ministry tacklesthe symptom as a problem in, and of,itself”. This is a simple response to thehighly complex nature of rapidly grow-ing cities. Urban management musttake a wider view of things.

According to Sharma (1989, p 48)“urban management can be describedas the set of activities which togethershape and guide the social, physicaland economic development of urbanareas. The main concerns of urbanmanagement then, would be inter-vention in these areas to promote econ-omic development and well being, andto ensure necessary provision of essen-tial services”. The promotion of econ-omic development and essential ser-vices seems reasonable enough butonly as an early step in the analysis.

Rakodi (1991, p 542) offers a similarview. “Urban management aims toensure that the components of the sys-tem are managed so that they makepossible the daily functioning of a citywhich will both facilitate and encour-age economic activity of all kinds andenable residents to meet their basicneeds for shelter, access to utilities andservices, and income generatingopportunities”. Both authors recognisethat urban management has a strategicresponsibility with operational conse-quences.

Churchill (1985, p v) concurs withthe idea of an increasing complexity.“The term urban management is begin-ning to take on a new richer meaning.It no longer refers only to the systemsof control but rather, to sets of behav-ioural relationships, the processthrough which the myriad activities ofthe inhabitants interact with each otherand with the governance of the city”.Clearly, the mono-dimensional inter-vention has been replaced by a moresubtle and complex pattern of thinking,in dealing with urban development.The question is perhaps, where doesurban management begin and end.

Richardson (1993) presents threetests of urban management success.

“The ability of metropolitan managersto implement a declared spatial strategymay be regarded as a reasonable test ofmanagerial efficiency” (p 63). “Anotherreasonable test of the effectiveness ofmetropolitan management in cities ofdeveloping countries is the ability todeliver basic urban services and trunkinfrastructure to a rapidly growingurban population” (p 64). “The otherkey managerial problem with urbanservice delivery is the simple one ofoperations and maintenance” (p 65). Inthis context, it would be reasonable toargue that the implementation of adeclared spatial strategy could bealmost entirely dependent on the pro-vision of trunk infrastructure to supportthat strategy. In turn, the infrastruc-ture’s operation and maintenance rep-resents the operational life – blood tothe city; the strategic and operationalconcerns of urban management.

In short, the initial parameters ofurban management embrace three top-ics. First, is it just a government con-cern (dispensing resources) or is it amatter for all players in the city build-ing process. The question thereforeseems to be, who or what should be thedriving force of urban management?Second comes the institutional dimen-sion in the sense of organisation; sec-toral thinking versus the inter-sectoralnature of the city. The question hereseems to be, is there a way to ensurean institutional complexity to match theurban complexity it is dealing with.Finally, is the apparent contradictionbetween a strategic imperative and anoperational vitality. Here, it is sug-gested that urban management isrequired to conceive of itself as a verti-cally integrated concept; the divorce ofplanning from implementation beingthe Achilles heal of traditional townplanning (see the third section). Thequestion now is, how can these initialideas of urban management hangtogether? One answer is to attempt aholistic definition of the challenge.

Its holistic characteristicsUNDP (1989, p 60) has argued that“one of the most important lessonslearnt from the distant and recent pastis the failure of outdated models andpractices of physical planning(discussed in the next section) as well

Viewpoint: R McGill

as of isolated projects (noted above)and initiatives in providing an answerto the vast and pressing needs of rap-idly forming urban centres in thedeveloping world. Urban managementcan be the answer to this challenge,provided that it develops, both in con-cept and in practice, as a holisticapproach”. This is very encouraging.

Shabbir Cheema (1993, p 7) concurs.

Because policies and programmes tocontrol rural-to-urban migration andthe diffusion of urban populationhave not been successful, there is anincreasing recognition that thegrowth of cities is inevitable and thatthe solutions to urban problemsdepend heavily on effective urbanmanagement. Urban management isa holistic concept. It is aimed atstrengthening the capacity of govern-ment and non-government organis-ations (NGOs) to identify policy andprogramme alternatives and toimplement them with optimal results.The challenge of urban managementis thus to respond effectively to theproblems and issues of individual cit-ies in order to enable them to per-form their functions.

The important dimension here is theneed to strengthen government andother players, such as NGOs, in theurban management process. There istherefore, an early recognition thatgovernment is not the only player inmanaging urban development. Theimportant distinction to be made how-ever is that between a strategic andoperational intervention. NGOs have anenviable record of working with com-munity groups to help themselves, forinstance in squatter upgrading. How-ever, they should operate in the contextof an agreed strategic (or urbandevelopment) framework, that isdecided by (ideally) the lowest level ofcompetent government. It is the stra-tegic definition of urban managementthat is important at this stage.

Stren et al. (1992) constantlyreinforce the idea that intervention inthe urban system has to be both holisticand integrated.

(1) Urban policy must be treated hol-istically (in terms of sectors, and interms of the relationship betweenthe urban and rural environments)(p xiii).

(2) The “urban development approach-”…recognises the diversity of theurban experience and the many

465

ways in which different sectoralpolicies affect the urban areas.Such an approach is both holisticand multidisciplinary (p xiv).

(3) The need for a holistic approach…Approaches to the environmentalchallenge involve first and fore-most, a higher level of inter-sec-toral co-operation (p xxi).

(4) As urban life is dynamic and multi-dimensional, so the approach to thestudy of cities must reflect thisdiversity. The essence of the holis-tic approach…is to recognise theinterconnectedness of all sectorsand locations… (p 4).

(5) Any strategy or approach whichattempts to bring some coherenceinto the urban policy field is oftencalled an urban developmentapproach… Ideally, such anapproach should be holistic(recognising the complex interac-tions of elements which make acity “work”) (p 10).

(6) A holistic approach is now essen-tial (because) all human activitiesare closely linked, as the urban sys-tems concept itself implies (p 67).

(7) A holistic approach, forexample…(requires) explicit link-ages between policies involving theformal and informal sectors of theeconomy (p 68–69).

(8) Wastes in the urban economy are agood example of the importance ofviewing urban problems in an inte-grated and spatially coherent man-ner. The term waste economy isitself a holistic concept… (p 76).

It is the nature and characteristics ofintervention in the urban developmentprocess that is the central concern ofurban management.

In recording a policy discussion onthe challenge of cities in developingcountries, Harris (1992, p xxi) notes thefollowing. There is a move “away fromthe traditional project approach to onethat emphasises process, that seizesopportunities as they arise, that stressescontinuity, and, recognising the multi-sectoral nature of urban activities, alsostresses the need to look at cities in aholistic way”. Looking at cities in aholistic way offers an indicator for theinstitutional question but does not, ofitself, answer the question about what

should be the driving force for urbanmanagement.

Nevertheless, the suggested holisticcharacteristics of the urban develop-ment process should be matched by themanagerial interventions that seek toharness its innate energy. The idea ofopportunism, as a desired characteristicof urban management, should thereforebe recognised. One could argue that theNGO model is ideally suited to har-nessing such opportunities for the bene-fit of local communities (e.g. Habitatfor Humanities’ housing projects insouthern Africa). Therefore, the oppor-tunistic as well as the holistic nature ofurban management should be coupledwith its institutional requirements forharnessing all the players and matchingthe complexity of the phenomenonbeing managed; the city. To this end,town planning should make a signifi-cant contribution, with its twin con-cerns for towns as a social way of lifeand planning as technical problem solv-ing.

Town planningReturning to UNDP’s “outdated mod-els and practices of physical planning”,there is a wealth of information to con-firm this contention. Lakshmanan andRotner (1985, p 85) highlight the cen-tral dilemma in traditional town plan-ning responses to cities in developingcountries. In the context of Madras,they record that “until recently, theurban planning system was divorcedfrom public investment and the budget-ary and economic planning processesof the state and local government”.That is, it was dominated by the masterplan syndrome. Sinou (1988, p 25) sup-plements the argument. “The demo-graphic explosion of Third World cities(some attaining annual rates of up to10%) also underlined the vain characterof urban planning and methods mod-elled on cities with slow growth rates”.This was epitomised by the master plansyndrome, modelled on the Westerntradition (UNCHS, 1987, p 2). What ishighlighted here is the often quotedfailure or fundamental flaw in townplanning practice; the divorce of plan-ning from budgeted implementation.

Richardson (1993, p 61) concurs.“For example, several cities (e.g. Delhi,Madras, Karachi, Dhaka, and Jakarta)

Viewpoint: R McGill

have periodically developed masterplans that have included elements of aspatial strategy. Unfortunately, theseplans have been almost useless. Theyusually involve wildly inaccurate popu-lation projections and land use zonesthat deviate, often dramatically, fromreality. Invariably, they are too rigidand inflexible to accommodatereadjustments as conditions change”.

Clarke (1992, pp 149–150) echoesthe point. “Traditional master planshave been mainly static in nature,attuned to a scenario of slow urbangrowth in which major investments ininfrastructure, roads, services and otherpublic investments could be carefullyplanned in the context of a finite long-term plan. Rapid population growth,lack of infrastructure and services, andshortages of funds and staff in the typi-cal developing country city, require amore dynamic planning process inwhich priorities have to be continuallyassessed and re-assessed in the light ofavailable resources”.

This argument is expanded at lengthby Farvacque and McAuslan (1992, p63).

Master plans take too long to pre-pare; they seldom offer guidance onthe phasing and techniques ofimplementation; they seldom evalu-ate the costs of the development theypropose or try to determine how theycould be financed and pay little or noattention to the necessary resourceallocation and financial feasibility ofpolicies and programmes; masterplans are seldom based on realisticappraisals of the city’s economicpotential or likely population growth;community leaders and implemen-tation agencies are seldom meaning-fully involved in the master planningprocess; master plans areinfrequently updated and their staticnature cannot keep up with thedynamic process of urban growth inthe developing world. In the majorityof cities with master plans, the sup-ply of shelter for the low incomepopulation is built in spite of themaster plan, not because of it. Inbrief, master planning and compre-hensive planning techniques areprimarily concerned with the productrather than the process and do notadequately address implementationissues, the increasing complexity ofland markets, the role of the publicsector versus private sector actionsand the links between spatial andfinancial planning.

466

This is, indeed, the Achilles heal oftown planning.

One way out of this dilemma (ie thepotential of town planning to contributecentrally to urban management andtherefore, to overcome its master plansyndrome) is to focus more specificallyon the provision of infrastructure. Thisis a growing feature of urban manage-ment practice. “More recently, plannershave come to acknowledge the neednot only to become involved with theplanning of new infrastructure, but alsoto use the provision of infrastructure asone of the key means for influencingthe pattern of land development”(Devas, 1993, p 88). For example, thisintroduces the idea that trunk or arterialinfrastructure should be a primarydeterminant of spatial form. This isespecially so when infrastructure thre-sholds are taken into account whenallocating and phasing major urbanbuilding; eg a new housing location.

Additionally and in its defence, whattown planning training still does is tostress the interconnections of the vari-ous elements of towns and cities; Ged-des’ idea of the “synoptic vision”. Takethat thought a stage further, one startsto develop a pattern of thinking thatrecognises the interconnected-ness ofthe intervention mechanisms withintowns and cities. It is suggested thatthis is the intrinsic or (again) the holis-tic nature of urban management.

Thus, if urban management is con-cerned with intervening in the develop-ment of towns and cities, then itbecomes a process that should:

• embrace all the players in the citybuilding process (not just be a dis-penser of resources);

• harness the driving force of urbandevelopment (not attempt to governit artificially, through a master plan);

• be horizontally integrated (to over-come sub-sectoral myopia);

• be vertically integrated (to overcometown planning’s Achilles heal ofbeing divorced from budgetedimplementation);

• be capable of responding to opport-unities that present themselves (theimplied release of the innate capacityof the community or informal sector,through NGO participation).

In so doing, urban management begins

to reveal the characteristics of its hol-ism. At the aggregate level, thesecharacteristics are two-fold. First, itmust understand the nature of the urbanenvironment it is dealing with. Second,it must organise the instruments ofintervention in such a way that theinstitutions that conduct the urban man-agement are in a fit state, organis-ationally and financially, to do so.Thus, it is suggested that urban man-agement in developing countries is con-cerned with both city building (with itsinsatiable need for infrastructure) andinstitution building (with its seeminglyendless need for increased capacity toperform). The remainder of this papertherefore reviews these twin concerns.

Integrating infrastuctureprovisionMany writers highlight the fundamentalimportance of infrastructure provision(water, sanitation, roads, houses andserviced land for development) tourban development: eg Steinberg(1991, p 7), Linn (1983, pp 56–57),World Bank (1991, p36) and UNDP(1991, p 53). Thus, a test for urbanmanagement can be introduced.According to Mabogunje (1993, p 3),“the acid test of efficiency in the man-agement of cities is the state of infra-structure provision”. It is suggested thatsuch a test is at the lowest level ofimpact but is the legitimate first stageof analysis (e.g. is there clean water forall; are the roads passable withouteffort). The next level of analysiswould then be the contribution of trunkor arterial infrastructure to determiningthe spatial pattern of urban develop-ment. Finally, would come the macro-economic impact of infrastructue pro-vision; its contribution to the economicgrowth of households and enterprises.At whatever level the urban manage-ment test is pitched, its provision ofinfrastructure is entirely dependent ontwo things. First is the nature of theplanning process that helps ensure thatprovision (below). Second is thelocation of that process in the insti-tutional framework (the next section).

Authors have attempted to define thenature of the planning process in urbanmanagement. Recently, the generalcharacteristic of its integration hascome to the fore. According to UNCHS

Viewpoint: R McGill

(1989, p 11) one item on its future Glo-bal Urban Management Programmeagenda was to develop operationalmodels for urban management. In parti-cular, “a key theme will be to developguidelines for the integration of spatial,sectoral, economic, financial and insti-tutional planning so as to better achieveurban development goals”. As Stren(1993) has already suggested, its sub-sequent work has been “comparativeand conceptual…the overall concept ofurban management has not beenaddressed head on”. Fortunately, thereis a wealth of material to draw upon inthe community at large to help presentsuch an overall concept.

The scope of infrastructure provisionand the notion of an external economyto urban development indicates thewide range of players necessary forsuccess in the urban management pro-cess. Amos (1989, p 208) makes a tell-ing point in this regard. “Urban man-agement is the responsibility ofmunicipal government and urban man-agement is concerned with all aspectsof urban development, both public andprivate. It is in no way confined to theservices operated by the municipalauthority… Good urban managementdepends on the power to co-ordinatethe activities of a variety of agencies atnational and local levels”. This is vital.It reminds us of “the range of players”in the process. It also reinforces thenotion of integrating the whole urbanmanagement process.

From a different perspective, Dom-icelj (1987, p 252) notes that “the city-wide approach is frequently more theresult of increased technical and finan-cial assistance reflected in more projectcomponents than any strategic analysisof development trends, potentials andconstraints”. However, within such anenforced necessity, opportunitiespresent themselves. He suggests that“in order to achieve better integrationand to identify the broad range ofpotential problems, the Asian Develop-ment Bank’s recent attempts to studyurban sectors and then to identifyrelated projects within this sphere,appears to be both successful and wellreceived”. In this example, integrationis seen to encompass both institutionalinvolvement and sectoral proposals.The need for that matching institutional

467

complexity to deal with the urban ques-tion is being responded to.

Using the Asian DevelopmentBank’s territorial focus, Clarke (1985,p 44) cites the example of Jakarta.“Given the evident fragmentation ofdecision making and the difficulties inproject implementation for both levelsof government, a more integratedapproach was stressed through betterco-ordination between the socio-econ-omic, financial, physical and insti-tutional planning sectors”. The inte-gration here, it is suggested, is bothhorizontal (across sub-sectoralboundaries) and vertical (strategic andoperational; “both levels ofgovernment”).

Allport and Einsiedel (1986) lookedat a similar case, covering the urbanmanagement of Manila. Five majorproblems were identified, including thebane of urban management indeveloping countries, institutional frag-mentation. In order to overcome theseproblems, a planning system wasdevised “involving an annual planningcycle of activities linked to the nationalbudgeting system and its major outputis a five-year rolling investment pro-gramme of projects, which are consist-ent with expected available funds andgovernment priority”. In this case thestress is on integrating not only theagencies in the planning process butalso planning with programming andbudgeting. Courtney and Lea (1985, p106) heralded this approach as a modelto be developed elsewhere.

The point is to identify the centralrole of the annual policy and budgetarycycle and the integration of all thefunding players in the urban manage-ment process. Amos (1989, p 206)explains, “At municipal level, thereshould be for each urban area, an urbanprogramme which identifies projectstogether with the appropriate resourceallocations for capital investment,maintenance and operating costs. Theprogrammes should be…regularlyreviewed, revised as necessary androlled forward annually… It shouldinclude all public sector expenditure”.This is very important. First, the annualprogramme and budget cycle is recog-nised. Second, the need to integrate allthe players in the city building process(ie “all public sector expenditure”) isreinforced.

Thus, according to Davidson (1991,p 122), “urban management is aboutmobilising resources in a way that canachieve urban development objec-tives”. Later, he suggests that “inte-gration is a much used word. Manyprojects include the word integrated intheir titles, but actually, achieving inte-gration is much more difficult… Inte-gration is a benefit when 21 2 5 5(p 126)”. According to him, factors foreffective integration include “an inte-grated plan, a modest initial scale, inte-grated area based management andintegrated finances” (p 127).

Lee (1987, p 30) notes “it has beenargued that urban development is not asector like any other traditional sectorsinvolved in the development of urbanareas. The merit of urban developmentis the opportunity it affords to co-ordi-nate and integrate…various compo-nents on an area basis. An issue iswhether such co-ordination and inte-gration are possible and practical, andwhether there is a limit to such endeav-our. In the formulation of a programmeand a project however, it is not onlyfunctional linkages that matter but alsoinstitutional arrangements…” In otherwords, whatever the institutions in thecity building process, they should havea common reference point (or strategy)for both planning and implementation.

With a common strategy, irrespec-tive of organisation, all the players canparticipate in the urban managementprocess, by way of co-ordinated citybuilding. The players range from cen-tral to local government and on to theprivate sector. The private sectorincludes both the formal and informalcomponents. This captures the require-ment for both the horizontal and verti-cal integration. Therefore, integration isvery important when attempting toorganise institutions for urban manage-ment.

Integrating institutionsShabbir Cheema (1987, p 154) dwellson the challenge of co-ordination in theurban management process. “Twotypes of co-ordination problems arediscernible; horizontal, among the cen-tral, regional and municipal levelagencies, respectively, in the city; andvertical among related activities of sev-eral levels of government and adminis-

Viewpoint: R McGill

tration concerned with urban develop-ment”. Later, as many authors seem tosuggest, “experience shows that thereare no universally applicable insti-tutional arrangements or structures forco-ordinating urban developmentactivities…” (p 155).

Sharma (1989, p 50) offers the pic-ture that is trying to be avoided.“Unless agencies have a common set ofgoals and targets, time based and pro-ject-based action does not always workto the best advantage of city develop-ment. Municipalities have to performtheir management tasks in isolation ofthe development inputs of variousagencies. The process also takes on arandom form because of the lack of(co-ordinated) programmes. Cities arereplete with examples of unco-ordi-nated development even at project levelbecause the priorities of differentagencies often do not match and, attimes are even divergent”. Without acommonly agreed or integrated strat-egy, such problems will simply be per-petuated.

For example, in Calcutta, “inter-sectoral horizontal communications arewanting. The planning sector is ignoredby the operational sectors; its pro-gramme development is more oftenthan not, side stepped by projectimplementing departments” (Banerjee,1989, p 75). In Bangkok, “co-ordi-nation in planning and implementationis ineffective (p 129)… Co-ordinationin the execution of projects…hasalways posed a problem”(Dhiratayakinant, 1989, p 130). It istherefore no accident that the absenceof an integrated strategy will result invarious degrees of dysfunction. Thereis only one city (at a time). Therefore,there should be one commonly agreedstrategic framework for both the city’sdevelopment and the institutionalresponses to support that development.

Allport and Einsiedel (1986, p 34)seem to concur. A new (urban) plan-ning could “only be achieved, either bygiving the city government power (overgovernment ministers) to dictate whatshould happen within its area or devis-ing some form of inter-agency bodycomprising the city government and themajor resource allocation and spendingagencies, reliant for its effectiveness onpersuasion. Accordingly, a senior levelinter-agency technical working group

468

was formed, comprising senior rep-resentatives of all the key resource allo-cation and spending agencies, andchaired by the commissioner for plan-ning”. This example comes from Man-ila. A model of that inter-agency pro-cess is worth developing.

Sivaramakrishnan and Green (1986,p 83) agree by strongly suggesting thatfrom the Asian experience, “to meetminimum organisational needs, empha-sis should be placed on the formationof networks of existing institutions, inboth the private and public sectors, tochannel information and policy pro-posals to a metropolitan managementteam for overall planning purposes, andsubsequently, to recommend relateddevelopment projects and programmesto it for metropolitan review, selectionand financing”. This highlights theneed for sound inter-agency arrange-ments. However, such arrangementsare only a means to an end. In thisimmediate context, the end is a com-mon planning process.

One model does exist to show thatan inter-organisational planning andimplementation process can work. Assuch, it reflects Sharma’s (1989, p 50)argument of agencies that must “havea common set of goals and targets, timebased and project based…”. The modelin question is based on the pioneeringwork of the Tennessee Valley Auth-ority (TVA). Pearsall (1984, p 47)presents the following:

Several of the agency directors andplanners were initially sceptical thatan overall planning process could bedeveloped which would not infringeon agency jurisdictions, which wouldnot supersede agency planning pro-cesses, and which would enhance thesuccess of agency initiatives. TheTennessee Protection Planning Com-mittee has developed such an overallprocess. The Committee’s work isaccomplished through discussion andconsensus development at the meet-ings and through the actions of indi-vidual agencies working alone or co-operatively after the meetings.Agency personnel have developedcommitment to the process since itsinception, primarily because the pro-cess enhances the success of theirindividual agency natural area pro-grammes. It is therefore possible toestablish a multi-agency planningprocess which neither replaces norsupersedes the individual agencyprocesses. Such an approach requiresthat the agencies themselves co-ordi-

nate a conglomerate of processes.The resulting overall process will becyclical, creative and fragmented…

Amos (1989, p 208) supports thisargument, “Urban management is theresponsibility of municipal governmentand urban management is concernedwith all aspects of urban development,both public and private. It is in no wayconfined to the services operated by themunicipal authority… Good urbanmanagement depends on the power toco-ordinate the activities of a variety ofagencies at national and local levels”.This is vital. It reminds us of “the rangeof players” in the process. It alsoreinforces the notion of integrating thewhole urban management processthrough “a strategy which providescommon purposes for the agencies”(p 202).

The TVA example is an ideal out-come. For a start, this inter-agencyplanning shifts the emphasis fromorganisational structures to organis-ational processes. It also concentratesthe mind on the nature of the inter-organisational relationships. Thisseems a very useful way forward. Theadded dimension is the desire for theinter-agency arrangements to be asdecentralised as possible. At this stage,decentralisation has ceased to be anissue. It is accepted as a prerequisite forsuccessful urban management and thedelivery of its services (UNCHS, 1984,p 106; UNCHS, 1990, p 49; Malo andNas, 1991, p 182; Rondinelli, 1990, p1); Mabogunje, 1991, p 9); Hardoy andSatterthwaite, 1992, p 64).

Thus, from an institutional perspec-tive, two points emerge. First are theinter-agency arrangements. Second isthe (accepted) decentralisation agenda.It is suggested that the ideal outcomeis an urban management process,driven by a robust local government. Inturn, that drive must harness the under-lying force of the urban developmentprocess, dominated as it is, by theinformal sector. Here, central govern-ment should offer its steering hand inrelation to general policy and its ownresponsibilities for investment. The onecomplication is that too often, centralgovernment is still the major fundingplayer for infrastructure provision inthe rapidly growing cities ofdeveloping countries. That generates ahost of questions about the funding of

Viewpoint: R McGill

urban infrastructure which are beyondthe scope of this paper.

Summary and conclusion

In summary, urban management is con-sidered to beconceptually holisticin itsapproach to towns and cities indeveloping countries. At its core, thisholism requires that the urban issuesare considered at the same time as theinstitutional questions, to ensure a sus-tained strategic and operationalresponse; theintegrated structureofurban management. The acid test of theurban management process should beseen as theprovision of infrastructure.This would support not only economicdevelopment but also the spatial distri-bution of urban growth. That provisionranges across the institutional spec-trum, from government to the informalsector. The need is therefore to have acentral driving force to ensure thenecessary inter-agency planning andbudgetary co-ordination. Ideally, thatdriving force should be at the mostpractical level of decentralised govern-ment, namely a robust local or citygovernment.

In this light, it is difficult to acceptthe question of an elusive concept tourban management (Werna, 1995).From a practitioner’s perspective, thechallenge of coping with a rapidlygrowing city in a developing country isall too real (McGill, 1994b, 1995). It istherefore suggested that urban manage-ment in developing countries shouldseek to achieve the simple but funda-mental twin objective of:

• planning for, providing and main-taining a city’s infrastructure and ser-vices, and

• making sure that the city’s localgovernment is in a fit state, organis-ationally and financially, to ensurethat provision and maintenance.

This is the essentialmeaningof urbanmanagement.

Local government is therefore seenas the necessary driving force to inte-grate all the players in the city buildingprocess. By integrating all the players,one harnesses the urban developmentprocess itself. It is, or should be, amutually reinforcing cycle. That cycleis institutionally located. Hence, the

469

importance of institution building tourban management (McGill, 1993,1994a).

What remains is the need to intro-duce a sharper focus to the muchneeded comparative analysis of urbanmanagement experience in developingcountries. That experience might reflecton the process in terms of:

• the existence of an integrated urbanmanagement strategy, which

• focuses on both the urban and itssupporting institutional developmentchallenges, that

• encourages an inter-sectoral debateand subsequent co-ordinated inter-ventions, that

• ensures a direct relationship betweenplanning and budgeting, and

• embraces the informal sector as partof the city building challenge.

That process might then be judged byits tangible outputs; for example:

• efficiently located development;• clean water;

• decent sanitation;

• maintained roads;

• serviced locations for development;

• squatter upgrading; and• basic health and education services.

This is the essentialsubstance ofurban management.

These outputs could then be assessedin terms of their impact on, forexample, poverty reduction andenvironmental enhancement; the cur-rent focus of the Urban ManagementProgramme.

A contribution to the comparativeanalysis, from an institutional develop-ment perspective, therefore focusing onthe means of urban management, hasalready been made (McGill, 1996).What the institutional development per-spective tends to focus on is the role ofthe players in the process. What it doesnot do is uncover the relationshipsbetween (a) the players in the urbanmanagement process and (b) the recipi-ents of its products: the infrastructureand services. It is suggested that thisintroduces the concept of governance tourban management, a topic that is nowworth exploring.

In conclusion, this paper attempts toaddress the questions by Stren (1993)

in terms of “concept, structure, processand objective” by Mattingly (1994) interms of “meaning and substance” andWerna (1995), by refuting the notionthat urban management is still elusive.It does so from the perspective of apractitioner, who was given the opport-unity to reflect on that practice. Urbanmanagement is very real and very test-ing for anyone who seeks to achieve atangible and beneficial impact in thecommunity.

ReferencesAllport, R and Einsiedel, N (1986) An

innovative approach to metropolitanmanagement in the Philippines.PublicAdministration and Development6,23–48.

Amos, F (1989) Strengthening municipalgovernment.Cities 6, 202–208.

Baker, R (1989) Institutional innovation,development and environmental man-agement: an “administrative trap”revisited. Part 1.Public Administrationand Development9, 29–47.

Banerjee, T (1989) Issues in financial struc-ture and management: the case of theCalcutta metropolitan area.RegionalDevelopment Dialogue10, 61–80.

Churchill, A (1985) ‘Forward’ in Lea, J andCourtney, J (Eds),Cities in Conflict:Planning and Management of Asian Cit-ies, p v, World Bank, Washington DC.

Clarke, G (1985) ‘Jakarta, Indonesia: plan-ning to solve urban conflicts’ in Lea, Jand Courtney, J (Eds),Cities in Conflict:Planning and Management of Asian Cit-ies, pp 35–38, World Bank, Wash-ington DC.

Clarke, G (1992) Towards appropriateforms of urban spatial planning.HabitatInternational 16, 149–166.

Courtney, J and Lea, J (1985) ‘Lessons inresolving the conflicts (of managingAsian cities)’, in Lea, J and Courtney, J(Eds), Cities in Conflict: Planning andManagement of Asian Cities, pp 101–108, World Bank, Washington DC.

Davidson, F (1991) Gearing up for effectivemanagement of urban development.Cit-ies 8, 120–133.

Devas, N (1993) ‘Evolving approaches (tourban management)’ in Devas, N andRakodi, C (Eds),Managing Fast Grow-ing Cities: New Approaches to UrbanPlanning and Management in theDeveloping World, pp 63–101, Long-man, London.

Dhiratayakinant, K (1989) Issues in finan-cial structure and management: the caseof Bangkok metropolis.Regional Devel-opment Dialogue10, 111–144.

Domicelj, S (1987) ‘International assistancein the urban sector’ inUrban PolicyIssues, pp 247–268, Asian DevelopmentBank, Manila.

Farvacque, C and McAuslan, P (1992)‘Reforming urban land policies and

Viewpoint: R McGill

institutions in developing countries’,Urban Management Programme PolicyPaper 5, The World Bank, Washington,DC.

Hardoy, J E and Satterthwaite, D (1992)‘Environmental problems in ThirdWorld cities: an agenda for the poor andthe planet’. International Institute forEnvironment and Development, London.

Harris, N (Ed) (1992)Cities in the 1990s;the Challenge for Developing Countries,UCL Press, London.

Lakshmanan, A and Rotner, E (1985)‘Madras, India: low cost approaches tomanaging development’ in Lea, J andCourtney, J (Eds),Cities in Conflict:Planning and Management of Asian Cit-ies, pp 81–94, World Bank, Wash-ington DC.

Lee, B K (1987) ‘Major urban developmentissues: an overview’ inUrban PolicyIssues, pp 15–60, Asian DevelopmentBank, Manila.

Leonard, S (1982) Urban managerialism: aperiod of transition.Progress in HumanGeographyV, 190–215.

Linn, J (1983) Cities in the DevelopingWorld; Policies for their Equitable andEfficient Growth, Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Mabogunje, A L (1991) ‘Local governmentissues in Africa’. Paper presented at thelaunch of the Municipal DevelopmentProgramme in Harare in May 1991. Uni-versity of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Mabogunje, A L (1993) ‘Infrastructure: theCrux of Modern Urban Development’Urban Edge1(3) 3. World Bank, Wash-ington, DC.

Malo, M and Nas, P J (1991) ‘Local auto-nomy: urban management in Indonesia’,Sojourn: Social Issues in Southeast Asia,Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Sin-gapore6(2) 175–202.

Mattingly, M (1994) Meaning of urbanmanagement.Cities 11, 201–205.

McGill, R (1993) Institution building for aThird World city council: some lessonsfrom the practice.International Journalof Public Sector Management6, 24–33.

McGill, R (1994a) Institutional develop-ment and the notion of sustainability.International Journal of Public SectorManagement7, 26–40.

McGill, R (1994b) Integrated urban man-agement: an operational model for ThirdWorld city managers.Cities 11, 35–47.

McGill, R (1995) Urban management per-formance: an assessment framework forThird World city managers.Cities 12,337–351.

McGill, R (1996) Institution Building: AThird World City Management Perspec-tive, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke andSt Martin’s Press, New York.

Pearsall, S (1984) Multi-agency planningfor natural areas in Tennessee.PublicAdministration Review44, 43–48.

Rakodi, C (1991) Cities and people: towardsa gender-aware urban planning process?Public Administration and Development11, 541–559.

Richardson, H (1993) ‘Problems of metro-

470

politan management in Asia’ in ShabbirCheema, G (Ed),Urban Management:Policies and Innovations in DevelopingCountries, pp 51–75, Greenwood Pra-eger Press, Westport.

Rondinelli, D (1990) ‘Decentralising urbandevelopment programs: a framework foranalysis’, US Agency for InternationalDevelopment, Washington, DC.

Shabbir Cheema, G (1987) ‘Strengtheningurban institutional capabilities: issuesand responses’ inUrban Policy Issues,pp 147–184, Asian Development Bank,Manila.

Shabbir Cheema, G (1993) ‘The challengeof urban management: some issues’ inShabbir Cheema, G (Ed),Urban Man-agement: Policies and Innovations inDeveloping Countries, pp 1–16, Green-wood Praeger Press, Westport.

Sharma, S K (1989) Municipal manage-ment. Urban Affairs Quarterly – India21, 47–53.

Sinou A (1988) ‘From planning to manage-ment’ RISED Bulletin(8) 25–26. Euro-pean Environmental Bureau, Brussels.

Sivaramakrishnan, K C and Green L (1986)Metropolitan Management: The AsianExperience, Oxford University Press forthe World Bank, Washington, DC.

Steinberg, F (1991) Urban infrastructuredevelopment in Indonesia.Habitat Inter-national 15, 3–26.

Stren, R E (1993) Urban management indevelopment assistance: an elusive con-cept.Cities 10, 120–138.

Stren, R E, Bhatt, Vet al. (1992) ‘An urbanproblematique: the challenge of urbanis-ation for development assistance’,Centre for Urban and Community Stud-ies, University of Toronto.

UNCHS (1984) ‘Human settlements poli-cies and institutions: issues, options,trends and guidelines’, United NationsCentre for Human Settlements(Habitat), Nairobi.

UNCHS (1987) ‘Environmental guidelinesfor settlements planning and manage-ment, Vol 1, Institutionalising environ-mental planning and management ofsettlements development’, UnitedNations Centre for Human Settlements(Habitat), Nairobi.

UNCHS (1989) ‘Urban management pro-gramme: overview of programme activi-ties’, United Nations Centre for HumanSettlements (Habitat), Nairobi.

UNCHS (1990) ‘Roles, responsibilities andcapabilities for the management ofhuman settlements: recent trends andfuture prospects’, United Nations Centrefor Human Settlements (Habitat), Nairo-bi.

UNDP (1989) ‘Urban transition indeveloping countries: policy issues andimplications for technical co-operationin the 1990s’, Programme AdvisoryNote, United Nations Development Pro-gramme, New York.

UNDP (1991) ‘Cities, people and poverty,urban development co-operation for the1990s’, UNDP strategy paper, NewYork.

Werna, E (1995) The management of urbandevelopment, or the development ofurban management? Problems and prem-ises of an elusive concept.Cities 12,353–359.

Williams, P (1978) Urban managerialism: aconcept of relevance?Area10, 236–240.

World Bank (1991) ‘Urban policy and econ-omic development: an agenda for the1990’, A World Bank Policy Paper.World Bank, Washington, DC.

AppendixThis paper is necessarily limited in length.However, students and practitioners ofurban management may be interested inadditional sources on the topic of urbanmanagement in developing countries.

Bahl, R and Linn, J (1992)Urban PublicFinance in Developing Countries, WorldBank, Oxford University Press, New York.

Bamberger, M and Hewitt, E (1987) ‘Amanager’s guide to monitoring and evaluat-ing urban development programmes: ahandbook for programme managers andresearchers’, World Bank Technical PaperNo 54, Washington, DC.

Batley, R and Devas, N (1988) ‘The man-agement of urban development’HabitatInternational l2(3) 173–186.

Benninger, C (1987) ‘Training for theimprovement of human settlements’HabitatInternational11(1) 145–160.

Blair, T (Ed) (1985)Strengthening UrbanManagement, Plenum, New York.

Bubba, N and Lamba, D (1991) ‘Urbanmanagement in Kenya’Environment andUrbanization3(1) 37–59.

Cadman, D and Payne, G (Eds) (1990)The Living City: Towards a SustainableFuture, Routledge, London and New York.

Chandrasekhara, C S (1989) ‘Improvingmunicipal management’Nagarlok: UrbanAffairs Quarterly, Centre for Urban Studies,The Indian Institute of Public Adminis-tration 21(4) 54–67.

Clarke, G (1991) ‘Urban management indeveloping countries: a critical role’Cities8(May) 93–107.

Davey, K (1993) ‘Elements of urbanmanagement’, Urban Management Pro-gramme, Working Paper 11, World Bank,Washington, DC.

Davey, K et al. (1996) Urban Manage-ment. The Challenge of Urban Growth,Avebury, Aldershot.

Gunesekera, R (1988) ‘Training urbandevelopment managers: an example fromthe technical co-operation training pro-gramme for India’, Habitat International12(3) 149–161.

Habitat (1996) An Urbanising World.Global Report on Human Settlements,Oxford University Press for the UnitedNations Centre for Human Settlements(Habitat), Nairobi, Kenya.

Halla, F (1985) ‘Changing the theoreticalbasis of urban planning from “procedures”to “political economy”’. Working Paper, No16, Development Planning Unit, UniversityCollege, London.

Viewpoint: R McGill

Hart, D (1989) ‘Mismanaged urbanisationin Africa: the examples of Cairo and Lagos’South African Geographical Journal(71)182–192.

Hart, D and Rogerson, C (1989) ‘Urbanmanagement in Kenya: South African policyissues’South African Geographical Journal(71) 192–200.

van der Hoff, R and Steinberg, F (Eds)(1992) Innovative Approaches to UrbanManagement, Avebury, Aldershot.

Juppenlatz, M (1979) ‘A comprehensiveapproach to the training of human settle-ments’ Third World Planning Review1(1)86–99.

Kopardekar, H D (1989) ‘Training anddeveloping skills for urban management’Nagarlok: Urban Affairs Quarterly, Centrefor Urban Studies, The Indian Institute ofPublic Administration21(4) 130–142.

Laquian, A (1979) ‘Human resourcedevelopment for human settlement policies’Habitat International3(3/4) 393–401.

Lee-Smith, D and Stren, R E (1991) ‘Newperspectives on African urban management’Environment and Urbanization3(1) 23–36.

Lusagga Kironde, J M (1992) ‘Receivedconcepts and theories in African urbanis-ation and management strategies: the strug-gle continues’Urban Studies29(8) 1277–1292.

Mabogunje, A L (1992) ‘Perspective onurban land and urban management policiesin Sub-Saharan Africa’, Africa TechnicalDepartment Series No 196, World Bank,Washington, DC.

Martin, R (1989) ‘Developing thecapacity for urban management in Africa’Cities 8(May) 134–141.

Mattingly, M (1988) ‘From town plan-ning to development planning: a transition

471

through training’ Habitat International12(2) 97–109.

Mattingly, M (1989) ‘Implementing plan-ning with teaching: using training to makeit happen’ Third World Planning Review11(4) 417–428.

Okpala, D (1987) ‘Received concepts andtheories on African urbanisation studies andurban management strategies: a critique’Urban Studies24 137–150.

Rakodi, C (1990) ‘Can third world citiesbe managed?’ in Cadman, D and Payne, G(Eds), The Living City: Towards a Sus-tainable Future, pp 111–124, Routledge,London and New York.

Ramachandran, A (1993) ‘Improvementof municipal management’Habitat Inter-national 17(1) 3–31.

Rogerson, C (1989a) ‘Managing urbangrowth in South Africa: learning from inter-national experience’South African Geo-graphical Journal(71) 129–133.

Rogerson, C (1989b) ‘Successful urbanmanagement in Seoul, South Korea: policylessons for South Africa’South AfricanGeographical Journal(71) 166–173.

Rondinelli, D and Shabbir Cheema, G(Eds) (1988)Urban Services in DevelopingCountries: Public and Private Roles inUrban Government, Macmillan, Basings-toke, England.

Roth, G (1987)The Private Provision ofPublic Services in Developing Countries,Oxford University Press for the WorldBank, Washington, DC.

Safier, M (1992) ‘Urban development:policy planning and management. Prac-titioners’ perspectives on public learningover three decades’Habitat International16(2) 5–12.

Sidabutar, P, Rukmana, N, v.d. Hoff, R

and Steinberg, F (1991) ‘Development ofurban management capacities: training forintegrated urban infrastructure developmentin Indonesia’Cities 8(May) 142–150.

Stren, R and McCarney, P (1992) ‘Urbanresearch in the developing world: towardsan agenda for the 1990s’, Major Report No26, Centre for Urban and Community Stud-ies, University of Toronto.

Stren, R E and White, R (Eds) (1989)African Cities in Crisis: Managing RapidUrban Growth, Westview Press, Boulder,CO.

Stren, R E (1991) Old wine in newbottles? An overview of Africa’s urbanproblems and the “urban management”approach to dealing with them.Environmentand Urbanization3, 9–22.

UNCHS (1987) ‘Executive summary ofthe global report on human settlements’,United Nations Centre for Human Settle-ments (Habitat), Nairobi.

UNCHS (1987) ‘Global report on humansettlements’, United Nations Centre forHuman Settlements (Habitat), Nairobi.

Wallis, M (1987) Local government anddevelopment in Southern African states:Botswana and Lesotho compared.Planningand Administration14, 68–76.

World Bank (1995) ‘Better urban ser-vices: finding the right incentives’. Wash-ington, DC.

World Bank and UNCHS (1990) ‘Urbanmanagement programme: phase 2’, Wash-ington, DC and Nairobi.

World Bank and UNCHS (1991) ‘Urbanmanagement programme: revised prospec-tus’, Washington, DC and Nairobi.

World Bank and UNCHS (1994) ‘Urbanmanagement programme: annual report1993’, Washington, DC and Nairobi.