Managing the Indian Metropolis Governance trends in Mumbai and

							Managing the Indian Metropolis:
Governance trends in Mumbai
and Delhi


       Dr. Joop de Wit,
 Institute of Social Studies,
         The Hague
 The presentation
 From Government to Governance
 Patterns and problems of urban growth
 Problems of governance: coordination,
  capacity, corruption
 Urban decentralisation & Wards Committees
 Public-community partnerships: Resident
  Welfare Associations
 Implications for governance and participation
  for the middle classes and for the poor/slum
  dwellers
Governance- 1

 Moving from Government to Governance
 ‘The set of formal and informal rules,
  structures and processes which determines
  the way in which individuals and
  organisations can exercise power over the
  decisions which affect their welfare.’
 It is a multi-actor process with the
  Government as well as weaker and stronger
  actors who need to cooperate to solve
  collective problems
 Governance - 2
 There are formal (laws, procedures), but also
  informal structures and rules (caste/tribal
  organisations, ethics, customs, patronage
  relations).
 Governance is not only about inputs,
  outcomes and impacts, but values such as
  transparency, integrity, honesty are important
  in themselves.
 Finally, governance is inherently political, as it
  is about the allocation of (scarce) resources-
  and all actors (groups) will try and further
  their own interest
Indian Mega-cities
 New Delhi, India’s capital, has a population of 14
  million people in 2001; Greater Mumbai has
  approximately 17 million people
 In Delhi 26% of population lives in slums; in Mumbai
  it is as much as 49%
 Conditions are generally better in Delhi: more capital
  & investment, more industry, better infrastructure and
  services. High per capita incomes; bigger middle
  class; the poor mostly re-settled to the suburbs
 Mumbai: enormous stress on basic services,
  housing, transport: serious lack of land, massive
  urban poverty in slums all-over the city
City Management

 By and large cities grow ‘naturally’ and rather
  spontaneously, in spite of master plans and a
  machinery of licenses: urban planning is seen
  as a failure
 In Delhi as many as 80% of the buildings are
  ‘illegal’ or unauthorized: there is a shadow
  world of bribes, deals, illegal constructions
  and additions with large developers and
  ‘land-Mafiosi’ setting the tone in collaboration
  with corrupt officials and politicians
 Enormous pressure on land and high prices
City Management - 2

 So while a core structural problem is
  corruption, other key problems of city
  management include problems of co-
  ordination between the many agencies that
  run cities (Delhi: MCD, GOD, NCT, DDA etc)
 The bureaucracy is big, slow and works in a
  ‘top-down’ manner
 There is lots of ‘political interference’ where
  politicians interfere for selfish reasons in
  policy, benefit unduly, or channel benefits to
  their ‘vote banks’: low trust in politicians
Governance Reforms

 In the 1990s liberalisation of the Indian
  economy which had important impacts
  especially on Indian cities: ‘global cities’ like
  Bangalore emerged - leading also to higher
  economic growth & more powerful corporate
  sector & a growing middle class
 1992: urban decentralisation legislation: the
  74th Constitutional Amendment. More power
  for municipalities, reservation of 33% of
  council seats for women, creation of wards
  committees (stadsdeelraden) in cities
Decentralisation impacts

 City corporations have been rather reluctant
  to delegate powers and funds to the Wards
  Committees: they are still relatively powerless
 One Ward Committee still has to govern
  populations as large as 400-800,000, so
  ‘proximity’ is an issue and hence low scope
  for more accountability and transparency
 Risk of elite capture: middle and high income
  groups directly contact Ward office; the poor/
  slum people have access problems and
  contact brokers or councillors
Urban decentralisation- 2
 So decentralisation has not generally translated into
  increased participatory democracy.
 However, large differences across India: in cities like
  Calcutta (West Bengal) and Cochin (Kerala) it is
  rather the poor who appear to make most use of the
  new Wards Committee structures
 Here the wards are small (7000-32,000), people are
  well organised and literacy amongst the poor is high
  (related to the dominance of communist parties in
  these states)
 The wards committees here have representatives
  from community, trade & professional associations
Public-Private (community) partnerships

  In both Mumbai and Delhi (more so)
   increasing incidence of new cooperative
   arrangements between the City government
   and organised citizens
  In Delhi the organisation of Resident Welfare
   Associations (RWA) is encouraged (Bhagidari)
   and they are taking over some tasks normally
   done by the state (security, SWM, fee
   collection, organising water, maintain parks
   etc)
The future of Governance

 Indian middle classes are manifesting
  themselves more and more - through
  organisations like RWA – but these may not
  be very pro-poor (e.g. object to slums)
 They mistrust politicians: the poor vote more
  than the rich. Rich groups may directly target
  offices to redress their grievances using good
  contacts & clout
 They may file petitions in court – leading to
  almost activist role of Courts/ Supreme Court
 Polarisation rich-poor?
 While the poor vote more, and are more
  politically active, their interests are not really
  served- only just before the elections
 In the uneven and unequal multi-actor urban
  governance arena, their position is weak –
  and undermined by reforms like health and
  education reforms (market/fees), more
  evictions, paying more for urban services
 Can the weak Indian state correct this risk of
  income polarisation – and bolster the position
  of the poor? How ‘participatory’ are RWAs?