Democratization, decentralization and liberalization
There are other factors that are more ideologically and politically driven that are having a major impact on the organization of life in the countries and cities of the South - those encompassed by the terms "decentralization" and "democratization", on the one hand, and "liberalization", on the other.
Although there has never been a time when, in development circles, decentralization and democracy were not seen as a "good thing", in practice, over the period of the Cold War neither of the two major powers considered it in their interest to promote them. Indeed, the majority of countries in the South possessed highly centralized regimes - with little by way of democracy - that were more or less directly installed and in most cases continuously supported by one or other of the two "superpowers". Some attempts were made by development agencies to support decentralization programmes but, by the early 1980s, these were deemed a general failure (Rondinelli et al., 1984).
Changes started in the early 1980s, first in Latin America, with the collapse of authoritarian regimes, then in the countries of Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s and most recently in East Asia (which is the subject of later discussion). The African experience has been more mixed, but with some notable cases over the period - the most conspicuous being the collapse of apartheid in South Africa. Decentralization is a complex process that concerns redistribution of powers from central to regional, municipal and community levels, but that must also involve redistribution of financial resources if it is to be at all effective.2 In most countries of the South where decentralization processes have been initiated - and there are now very many examples - the difficulties of implementing them have become rather evident in a situation where local government is ill - prepared to take more responsibility for local action and central government agencies are typically resistant.
Of course, the early 1980s also saw the resurgence of neo - liberal ideology, underpinned by a new determination of big business in the industrialized countries (and particularly the United States) to assert its interests in the political arena (Korten, 1996). The basic principle of neo - liberalism is to promote free enterprise and free trade (the "free market"), meaning that private businesses should not be restricted by governments in their pursuit of commerce, trade and profit making because, it is argued, this is the true generator of wealth in society and thus, ultimately, the alleviation of poverty.
In practice, the interpretation put upon the principle has not been either consistent or even - handed (Shutt, 1998) and it is a major contention of Southern NGOs concerned with trade issues that, while Southern countries are being compelled to open themselves to free trade, Northern countries maintain systems of protection. In any case, liberalization has created a very definite context within which development has been shaped in the countries and cities of the South and this needs some discussion in order to better understand the most serious difficulties faced by local initiatives in sustainable development planning and management.
Neo - liberalism has been promoted in countries of the South via two routes: first through the widespread adoption of the ideology by elites within the countries - which has meant that governments have been inclined to "buy into" it - and second through the influence and pressure of the international development banks, ending in most Southern countries at some stage in "structural adjustment" that has forced changes in administration that conform to neo - liberal rules - which, it is widely admitted, have in the first instance marked negative social and environmental consequences (UNRISD, 1995).
In the past, governments in the South have not, been particularly successful in planning and directing the distribution and growth of cities. It is also true that attempts to organize the development process have not been without their problems. But, during certain periods, governments in most countries of the South have succeeded in stimulating and directing developments that have improved the economic and social conditions of their populations. Indeed, once viewed as "Southern" countries, government - directed development programmes in Japan and more recently in Singapore, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province of China have been spectacularly successful in economic terms.
Ignoring these examples and the possibilities that might exist for other societies to take whatever path suits them, neo - liberal rules, promoted as a universal route to effective development, remove, through "privatization", the responsibility of governments for key areas in the planning and direction of development. The results for most Southern countries are rather clear in terms of the social consequences, where all indications show the consistent rise in the incidence of poverty with, at the same time, the emaciation of what small welfare programmes were available in the past.
On the surface, there has been concern that the environment (and sustainable development) should not suffer as a consequence of "deregulation" of the economy. Environmental ministries and/or agencies now exist in most countries and in some even local environmental agencies have been established. These are mandated to control the impact of the development process on the environment and it is usually these agencies that have been responsible for the follow - up to UNCED. The contradiction between neo - liberalism and effective environmental protection cannot, however, be avoided and the effectiveness with which environmental issues and any meaningful interpretation of sustainable development have been sidelined in the international systems promoting free trade (the GATT Agreement and the operations of the World Trade Organization) is rather clear.
At the level of theory, Rees (1998) has analysed the clarity with which mainstream economists reject the very existence of the problematic of sustainability, asserting that whatever resources are exhausted or despoiled will always be replaced by substitutes (the important issue is at what price; the social and environmental impacts are not seen as relevant to economics). At the level of practice, as already noted, sustainable development is promoted as a voluntary activity of all actors with little attempt to provide structures within which the various actors can work towards the same ends. Environmental ministries and agencies are universally on the margins of the development process and their capacity and remit even to regulate environmental impacts adequately - and certainly to be proactive in indicating directions for development - are restricted by the neo - liberal ideological and political context that puts the interests of economic actors first.
There are, however, many contending theoretical tools that might be applied to counter the depredations of the free - market approach to development. In the environmental sphere, attention is being focused on "common property regimes" for the sustainable management of resources (Berkes, 1989). Some acknowledgement is given by the World Bank (Jodha, 1992) to the potential effectiveness of such forms of protection for the sustainable management of particular resources over free - market pressures to exploit resources in whatever way the market actors see fit.
On the social side, concern is being expressed at the way in which social support networks, particularly in rural areas, are falling apart in the face of modernization, commercialization and the spread of ("liberal") individualistic attitudes and practices. Looked at as a dimension of capital - alongside financial, economic, environmental and others - "social capital", which embodies these traditional forms of life support, is seen as becoming depleted. Some individuals may be becoming better off (gain in economic capital), but communities (and with them other individuals that are usually less conspicuous) are becoming less well off (loss of social capital).
While it may be useful to understand the processes of change that are taking place - particularly in the countries of the South - these concepts and others are not as yet recognized as anything but marginal to the development discourse. Economic growth in general remains the central purpose of development, with liberalism as the mechanism according to which it should be pursued. Unfortunately the critique emanating from rather obvious failures remains marginalized.
So what light do these considerations shed on the potential for success of participatory local sustainable development planning and management initiatives? It should be clear that in principle these efforts directly contradict the neo - liberal ideology, with its presumptions about competition, rather than co-operation, and its disinterest in any genuine moves to reorient the development process along lines of sustainability. It would thus seem that, if these initiatives are to become more effective, there will have to be a progressive abandonment of neo - liberalism: the two approaches to development have entirely different ideological bases, orientations and institutional requirements.
[Ukrainian] [English] [Russian]