Oyat (607).pdf - Prime Journals
Oyat (607).pdf - Prime Journals Oyat (607).pdf - Prime Journals
1045 Prim. J. Bus. Admin. Manage.authorities in Uganda from 1992 – 2001. As a technocrat,the researcher had been able to work with variousstakeholders including policy makers, developmentpartners, central government officials and the localpopulation to ensure that attendant aims and objectivesof urban authorities could be met.Secondly, this research work benefits from relevantcontemporary literatures on urban growth anddevelopment, urbanization and rural-urban migration, aswell as from secondary data from United Nationsagencies. On top of this, the researcher is a teacher ofurbanization and industrialization at Gulu University. Allthese sources of primary and secondary data havegreatly helped to sharpen not only exposure but properunderstanding of the notion of strategic management ofurbanization and rural urban migration in poor countries.Strategic areas to focus on in poor countries bypolicy makers and technocratsIt is important not to stop rural population from moving toinhabit urban areas. The tendency of artificiallyseparating rural areas from urban zones can afford tolead to a fundamental backlash. It is important to haveour facts right. The history of attempts to control ruralurbanmigratory flows is couched in frustration. Mostcentrally planned economies during the cold war era suchin Russia, China and North Korea attempted it particularlyby limiting migration to the capital cities and towns withlittle or no effect. Many post colonial governments inAfrica and Latin America have inherited the draconianmeasures of colonial regimes to prevent rural-urbanmigration. It is fact that efforts to redirect migration flowsand to stop urban concentration often reflect technocrats’lack of understanding of why migrants move. Explicitgovernment policies systematically attempt to promotede-concentration. By contrast, their implicit and policies,which generally conform to market forces, almostinvariably strengthen concentration, to the contrary(McGranahan and Satterthwaite, 2006).Arising from this lop sided approach, it has led to theobservable fact that societies that allow the freemovement of people within their borders are likely to seea reduction of poverty in rural areas. We should note thatpeople simply do not move from rural to urban areas forthe sake of it. There are clear and well meaning pullfactors generally. To this extent, those who attempt tocontrol migration or limit reverse movements to townsand cities, are likely to see little change or experiencedeterioration in living conditions of people. We should bereminded that internal movements of population weretightly controlled in both China and Viet Nam until thereforms from 1978 and 1986 respectively. Arising fromsuch reforms hinging on liberalization and free mobility oflabor, poverty in these countries has sharply droppedover the subsequent decades (Tannerfeldt and Ljung,2006).Governments of developing countries should examineissues associated with shelter needs of the poor in urbanzones. Overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure andservice provision, insecurity of tenure, risks from naturaland human made hazards, exclusion from the exercise ofcitizenship and distance from employment and incomeearning opportunities are all linked together. Shelter is atthe core of urban poverty. Much can be done to improvethe lives of people through better policies in this area. Infact countries in developing world should come out withwhat is called national shelter plans discreetly andproperly developed and consistently implemented. Policymakers and technocrats alike should note thatinadequate shelter provision or not proactively takingaction at all is at the root of urban poverty. The persistentreluctance of policy makers to accept urban growthleaves the poor to fend for themselves in disorganizedand merciless land and housing markets. Beingpowerless, the poor are forced to live in inhabitable orinsecure areas where even minimal services such aswater and basic sanitation are unlikely to materialize.Dealing with the rapid doubling of the urban populationin developing countries requires vision and a moreeffective and efficient approach. To have a chance toimprove their lives, the poor need access to affordableand serviced land on which to build their homes andreach other services. With that as the cornerstone, theycan start to build the rest of their lives. Thus, a criticalinitiative for the medium and long term is to provideaccess to shelter through proactive policies with regard toland ownership, good regulations, financing and servicedelivery. But we should note that providing poor peoplewith minimally serviced land is not an easy solution.Given the voracity of the economic interests prevailingand involved, the murkiness of titles in many developingcities and towns, and the uncaring responsiveness andability of informal land markets to emphasize profit byexploiting the poor – to this extent, dealing in land usehas always been fraught with difficulties. Not only theintended beneficiaries, but local and nationalgovernments generally have very limited resources andwill to effectively and efficiently chat for the way forward.Government bureaucrats generally have little appetite forthe taking tough political and well meaning decisions thatthe issue requires.One specific angle of great concern that should belooked at is that to do with availability of land for the poorin the face of rapid urban growth. The problem is not somuch the shortage of land or the number of poorurbanites but rather their restricted access to servicedland and housing because of distorted land markets.Servicing already settled areas costs more than providingserviced land on unoccupied sites! Yet public authorities,pleading insufficient funds seem to find smallerinvestments in expost facto programs more appealingthan well planned proactive policies. Much could be done
Oyat 1046to improve the situation for instance by enacting specialregulations for the provision of adequately serviced landfor low income groups. Cities and towns could financeurban development by taxing increases in land valueresulting either from public investment in local urbaninfrastructure or services, or from the redefinition of landuses towards more profitable ones, such as changesfrom rural to urban, or from residential to commercialuses. The urban poor tend to be treated as if they arepassive in the production and consumption of land, andyet they have some capacity to pay for land, despite theirlow and unstable incomes. Indeed, the poor already payvery high prices for the housing they find through theinformal market. This capacity to pay could be bettermobilized through formal regulations and provision ofplots of land in their favor.The urban poor may be linked to potential incomegenerating activities such as soft credit facilities. But thisrequires that such poor individuals should be facilitated orenabled to form groups of about 10 – 40 for easytargeting and management, and linkage to resources.Urban authorities and development partners shouldmobilize and sensitize such groups including enablingthem acquire basic business skills in resourcemanagement before providing soft kind of revolving fundsto the respective identified groups. The operation of eachand every group should be closely monitored andevaluated by the funding agency. Continuous supportshould always be given to the respective groups so thateach would continue to rise and fulfill the attendant setobjectives.McGranahan GDM, Satterthwaite D (2006). Land andservices for the urban poor in urbanizing countries,London, Longman.Tannerfeldt G, Ljung P (2006). More urban, less poor: Anintroduction to urban development and management,London, JIDA.UN-Habitat (2006). State of the World’s Cities 2006/2007:The millennium development goals and urbansustainability, London, Earth scan.United Nations Fund for Population Activities (2007).State of world population, New York, UNFPA.UNFPA (2011). State of Uganda Population: Populationand reproductive health – Broadening opportunitiesfor development, Kampala, UNFPACONCLUSIONSUrban authorities and central governments should desistfrom the temptation and predisposition of planning andfocusing on the well-to-do in towns and cities in poorcountries. In any case in developing countries we havemore poor people living in towns and cities than the rich.The philosophy of good governance demands that thosein authority should majorly plan and focus more attentionand resources in favor of the disadvantaged than the wellto do class of people. It is a fact that good governancecan be judged in terms of how well an institution hasmanaged scarce resources in favor of the needy, but notin terms how well it has done to improve the lot of thealready well to do class of people. To this extent, itmeans that more resources and attention should be morein favor of the disadvantaged.REFERENCESGeorge ST, Vinod T (1987). The economics ofurbanization and urban policies in developingcountries, Washington DC, World Bank.Michael PT (2003): Economic development, London,Longman.
- Page 2 and 3: Prime Journal of Business Administr
<strong>Oyat</strong> 1046to improve the situation for instance by enacting specialregulations for the provision of adequately serviced landfor low income groups. Cities and towns could financeurban development by taxing increases in land valueresulting either from public investment in local urbaninfrastructure or services, or from the redefinition of landuses towards more profitable ones, such as changesfrom rural to urban, or from residential to commercialuses. The urban poor tend to be treated as if they arepassive in the production and consumption of land, andyet they have some capacity to pay for land, despite theirlow and unstable incomes. Indeed, the poor already payvery high prices for the housing they find through theinformal market. This capacity to pay could be bettermobilized through formal regulations and provision ofplots of land in their favor.The urban poor may be linked to potential incomegenerating activities such as soft credit facilities. But thisrequires that such poor individuals should be facilitated orenabled to form groups of about 10 – 40 for easytargeting and management, and linkage to resources.Urban authorities and development partners shouldmobilize and sensitize such groups including enablingthem acquire basic business skills in resourcemanagement before providing soft kind of revolving fundsto the respective identified groups. The operation of eachand every group should be closely monitored andevaluated by the funding agency. Continuous supportshould always be given to the respective groups so thateach would continue to rise and fulfill the attendant setobjectives.McGranahan GDM, Satterthwaite D (2006). Land andservices for the urban poor in urbanizing countries,London, Longman.Tannerfeldt G, Ljung P (2006). More urban, less poor: Anintroduction to urban development and management,London, JIDA.UN-Habitat (2006). State of the World’s Cities 2006/2007:The millennium development goals and urbansustainability, London, Earth scan.United Nations Fund for Population Activities (2007).State of world population, New York, UNFPA.UNFPA (2011). State of Uganda Population: Populationand reproductive health – Broadening opportunitiesfor development, Kampala, UNFPACONCLUSIONSUrban authorities and central governments should desistfrom the temptation and predisposition of planning andfocusing on the well-to-do in towns and cities in poorcountries. In any case in developing countries we havemore poor people living in towns and cities than the rich.The philosophy of good governance demands that thosein authority should majorly plan and focus more attentionand resources in favor of the disadvantaged than the wellto do class of people. It is a fact that good governancecan be judged in terms of how well an institution hasmanaged scarce resources in favor of the needy, but notin terms how well it has done to improve the lot of thealready well to do class of people. To this extent, itmeans that more resources and attention should be morein favor of the disadvantaged.REFERENCESGeorge ST, Vinod T (1987). The economics ofurbanization and urban policies in developingcountries, Washington DC, World Bank.Michael PT (2003): Economic development, London,Longman.
Change language