Population, territory and sustainable development

131
the absence of a strategic vision and the lack of technical and administrative tools for designing and
applying appropriate city policies; and (ii) the 1980 debt crisis, which devastated the region’s economy
and whose impacts were magnified in urban and metropolitan areas, resulting in years of lack of
investment and a period during which problems such as poverty, unemployment, crime, pollution and
traffic congestion spun out of control and shook the foundations of city governance. The 1980s also saw a
shift in the development model from State-led industrialization to market-led primary production, which,
in principle, had a rural bias (or rather, a bias toward primary production, which is usually located in rural
areas). Some of these urban deficits are briefly examined below.
1. Living conditions, urban poverty and slums
Latin America is the developing region that best exemplifies what is referred to as the “urbanization of
poverty”, where a large share of the poor population lives in urban areas. This is not because the
incidence of poverty is higher there (which is not the case in any country in the region, as explained in
chapter IV on population, territory and rural development), but because of the composition effects of 80%
of the population being urban.
The fact that most persons in situations of poverty live in urban areas has quantitative and
qualitative implications for policies aimed at reducing poverty. The quantitative implications are
associated with the location of resources, which must increasingly be allocated to cities even though they
are not the areas that are most affected by poverty. This issue is politically sensitive, then, but populationtargeted
programmes are unavoidable. Moreover, it is not a minor issue considering that the main
innovation in poverty reduction policies in the twenty-first century in the region is conditional cash
transfer programmes (ECLAC, 2009b). Since these programmes involve the direct transfer of money to
the poor population (as identified through various mechanisms and in compliance with national
procedures and criteria), the pressure to allocate them to urban areas will grow. According to some recent
studies, this involves highly complex challenges. 11 Moreover, the starting point for many of these
programmes was exclusively rural in focus, and some maintain that focus today. For example, the
Tekopora programme in Paraguay is directed at the poorest districts of the country, which are typically
rural. Consequently, the initial design may require adjustments before the programme can be deployed in
urban areas. Besides, regardless of the scope of these challenges, the urban bias must be considered when
designing programme eligibility rules, which will have to be tailored to the profile of poverty and urban
life in general. In particular, it will be necessary to link eligibility to compliance with commitments that
are compatible with the exercise of citizens’ rights and satisfactory social and economic performance on
the part of cities.
The qualitative implications, in turn, are related to the particular characteristics of urban poverty.
While conditional cash transfer programmes address one of the key dimensions of urban poverty (namely,
insufficient income), it is well documented that urban poverty has other components. This expands on the
idea of the multidimensionality of poverty 12 in that it includes the territorial dimension, in particular the
physical, infrastructural, social and culture aspects of the environment in which the poor reside. Some of
these dimensions are addressed in this chapter (housing, connectivity and transport, exposure to
11
12
“A recent review of the application of these programmes in urban Latin America showed that a significant set of
obstacles has arisen in the application of conditional cash transfers in urban areas, which raises questions about
the applicability of such programmes in cities” (Linn, 2010, p. 13).
Although the issue is complex, some countries in the region have adopted official methodologies for the
multidimensional measurement of poverty. Mexico is the most widely-known example (CONEVAL, 2011).