Docstoc

Official leaflet for the conference

Document Sample
Official leaflet for the conference Powered By Docstoc
					CONCEPT
The simultaneous influx of processes of globalization and localization in recent years has led to the emergence of innovative and transformative experiments in democratic administration and promotion of development, whether through multiplying initiatives for citizen participation in the public space, or by adopting systemic administration models on the part of local governments and institutions which are testing new systems of governance. There is clear evidence that the patterns of relationship between state and society are undergoing profound transformations, especially at local level.

DEMOCRATIC INNOVATION AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
FOR INCLUSIVE CITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Together with forms of people's participation focused on interacting with the state in defining, carrying out and inspecting public policies and quality service provision, concentrating on the governmental budget, new forms of incorporating society's potential for discovering and developing its own assets and energizing its potential for sustainable human and social development are also beginning to be tested.

Porto Alegre, February 13 to 16, 2008
PUC – Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul

OBJECTIVES
The challenge for the World Conference on Development of Cities is to capture the diversity of these initiatives for democratic innovation and social transformation that have emerged in recent years, creating an atmosphere of collective reflection, discussion and presentation of experiences of interest to various publics today.

Right to the City
Local Policies on Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities

TARGET PUBLIC

Governance and Democracy in Cities
Innovative Experiences of Democratic Participation and Administration

Public administrators (mayors, councilors and public policy makers) Academics and specialists

Local Development in Cities
Processes of Investment in Social Capital for Developing Economic, Environmental, Human, Social and Political Assets

Community leaders Governmental, business and social promoters of experiments in democratic participation focusing on urban areas and directed at stimulating local development in cities.

Sustainability and the Network-City
The Emergence of Social Networks and the Sustainable City of the Future

SIGN UP NOW: www.cmdc2008.com

FAÇA JÁ SUA INSCRIÇÃO: www.cmdc2008.com.br

2

THE WORLD CONFERENCE IN FIGURES
PROMOTED BY

400 hours of Activities 4 Opening Panels 4 Major Conferences 4 Major Panels

40 Workshops 40 Panels 160 Presentations 20 Minicourses
STRATEGIC PARTNERS SUPPORTED BY
Representação da UNESCO no Brasil

THE 4 MAJOR THEMES OF THE WORLD CONFERENCE
Day One (February 13, 2008) Right to the City
(Local Policies on Citizen's Rights and Responsibilities)

Day Two (February 14, 2008) Governance and Democracy in Cities
(Innovative Experiences of Democratic Participation and Administration)

SIGN UP FORM
YOU CAN ALSO SIGN UP AT www.cmdc2008.com.br

Day Three (February 15, 2008) Local Development in Cities
(Processes of Investment in Social Capital for Developing Economic, Environmental, Human, Social and Political Assets)

BOOK YOUR PLACE!
In order to sign up successfully, please complete, cut out and send off this form to CMDC General Office (Address: Av. Siqueira Campos 1300 Sala 205 Porto Alegre / RS - CEP 90010-001 or fax it to + 55 51 32891625, along with the proof of bank deposit. Banco do Brasil (Bank of Brazil) • Agência (Branch): 3798-2 • C/C (Checking Account): 73457-8

Day Four (February 16, 2008) Sustainability and the Network-City
(The Emergence of Social Networks and the Sustainable City of the Future)

THE 40 MAJOR QUESTIONS TO BE APPROACHED BY THE WORLD CONFERENCE
The World Conference will attempt to answer the 40 major questions on pages 4 to 7 of this leaflet.

REGISTRATION FEES Date Until 11/20/07 Until 12/20/07 From 12/21/07 Fee R$ 150,00 R$ 200,00 R$ 300,00 Category Normal / Regular Normal / Regular Normal / Regular

Minicourses: Online sign-up only as of 11/15/2007

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORLD CONFERENCE
Name:

Simply complete and send off the Sign-up Form on page 8 of this leaflet. Or sign up directly on the www.cmdc2008.com website.

Name appearing on the badge: Address: Complement: Country: Home Telephone: ( Cell Phone: ( E-mail: ) ) Nº:

YOU CAN ALSO BE A SPEAKER

Submit your Presentation proposal to the Conference Organizing Committee. Find out how on the www.cmdc2008.com website (Call for Papers).
Institution

PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

FAÇA JÁ SUA INSCRIÇÃO: www.cmdc2008.com.br

3

Business Telephone: Business E-mail:

DAY ONE

Right to the City
(Local Policies on Citizen's Rights and Responsibilities)

DAY TWO

Governance and Democracy in Cities
(Innovative Experiences of Democratic Participation and Administration)

01 How can initiatives like the “Montreal Charter on Rights and Responsibilities” form an instrument for promoting inclusion and public services based on the values of human rights and social human rights? 02 How can government, private enterprise and civil society coordinate themselves with regard to local policies for citizen's rights and responsibilities? In what specific instances could this coordination take place? How can such coordination combine social control of services, efficiency and equality? 03 Can experiments like the City Statute (Brazil) serve as a reference for good governance? How can this experiment be disseminated at regional and local levels? How can proposals or directives in other legal documents or norms developed at international level (e.g. UN-Habitat Conferences, World Urban Forum) also serve as references for good governance and be disseminated at regional and local levels? 04 During the 3rd World Urban Forum in Vancouver in 2006, two different interpretations of the concept of right to the city were defined: the first is based on a legalistic paradigm in which the legal concept determines the conception of actions guiding the development of cities; the second is based on value references in which interpretation is subjective and the concept is understood in a spirit of global rights based on the approach to developing policies, planning and urban administration. Are these the only interpretations? How can the new non-governmental public policy practices developed by citizens fit within these interpretations? How can local players define this right in terms of the particular characteristics of each city? 05 The concept of Right to the City is related to the following issues: 1) Dignified, decent life for all residents of the city. 2) Urban planning and laws which promote inclusion, social cohesion, competitiveness, urban cultural diversity and inter-religious dialogue in the city. 3) Local democracy as a necessary element of urban governance: rights and responsibilities of city residents. 4) Civic and empathetic (or solidary) cosmopolitanism amongst urban

06

07

08

09

10

inhabitants. What are the necessary determining factors for turning the various dimensions of right to the city into real, concrete rights? Should we add the idea of cooperation (social capital or social network, for example), alongside the idea of competitiveness, to the dimensions of (or the objectives associated with) the concept (of right to the city)? Are these complementary or conflicting proposals? How can good governance contribute to both strategies becoming compatible? Are suitable urban policies and planning sufficient for promoting social cohesion, competitiveness, inclusion, local democracy and good governance? If so, where has this occurred? What role can good social practices, alongside urban policies, play in this direction? What role can be played by policies of endogenous development of cities, alongside suitable urban policies and planning, in promoting social cohesion, inclusion, local democracy and good governance? What role can the establishment of dialogues (also through inter-religious intermediation) at municipal level play in constructing and implementing proactive urban policies able to prevent conflict? In which cities has the establishment of this type of dialogue played a part in preventing conflict? How can (if they can) conflict-prevention initiatives (whether they are distributive, intergenerational, inter-ethnic or interreligious) be coordinated through the application of urban policies and initiatives for establishing democratic forms of regulating conflict at the base of society and in the everyday lives of citizens? How can the educational dimension of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Charters of Rights and Responsibilities and of other referential documents be deepened? How can education be promoted and transformed into a force in the city? How can irregularity be faced, particularly in terms of land and unregulated housing and labor, which traditionally occurs in cities in developing countries, but is also growing in industrialized countries?

11 Can the idea of social inclusion be adequately expressed solely as the right of citizens to receive something from the state? What should people do to support their own inclusion, besides demanding their rights from the state, protesting, requesting and monitoring government policies? What responsibilities should people take upon themselves for promoting their real social inclusion? 12 Alongside the notion of equality, which is always stressed when we talk about the need for social inclusion, should we not also stress the notion of freedom for innovation, creation, risk-taking and undertake and propose collective actions that result in greater participation of society for promoting inclusion of the excluded through their endogenous initiatives? 13 What are the relationships between representative democracy (as a regime or form of state administration) and participatory democracy (as a way of regulating conflict at the base of society and in the everyday lives of citizens and their organizations)? Are representative democracy and participatory democracy conflicting or complementary systems? Can there be participatory democracy (or at least experiments or attempts at participatory democracy at local level) without representative democracy (at national level) or in the context of representative democracy lacking legitimacy? 14 What are the relationships between local democracy and good governance? Can good systems of governance be constructed and made to work in the absence of a formal democratic regime (and outside the scope of the legal state)? To what extent can good systems of governance be constructed and made to work in the absence of good democratic – more participatory – practices – tested at the base of society? 15 Why do certain human groups manage to create environments favorable to good governance, economic prosperity and expansion of civic culture which are able to improve conditions of social interaction, and others not? 16 Bearing in mind the unequal spread of access and technological skill, do new information and communication technologies

17

18

19

20

further strengthen social inequality, inequality in access to power and in exploitation of natural resources? Or can they be seen as allies in the process of social and political emancipation and as strategies for sustainable urban development? To what extent can models of corporate governance be applied to public governance? And what aspects of public governance could (or should) be applied to corporate governance? What political factors (related to governability) would be implied in the notion of public governance and absent from the notion of corporate governance? What role does social solidarity (or wider or social cooperation) play in constructing good models of public governance? Is good public governance the result or a cause of social solidarity? How can solidarity (or cooperation) be stimulated in local governance initiatives or programs? What are the roles and limits of the forms of discussion and deliberation on governmental budget in the process of democratizing society, changing the patterns of relationship between state and society, constructing good models of governance and promoting the local development of cities? Can it be stated that we are experiencing a transition to new forms of democracy tested at the base of society which, without neglecting its traditional parliamentary dimensions based on voting and delegation (in a kind of informal representation), favors more permanent processes of political discussion and progressive construction of consensus, testing new organizational patterns based not just on meetings to discuss and decide what the government should do, but particularly on forming social networks, community-development networks, networks formed of connections between people and groups, yet focused on concrete, innovative actions in partnership with government, business and civil-society organizations? What is the evidence for such a statement? Can we say that the growth and sophistication of the organization of civil society is beginning to create degrees and forms of 'social control' over business and government? If so, where and to what extent?

SIGN UP NOW: www.cmdc2008.com.br

4

SIGN UP NOW: www.cmdc2008.com.br

5

DAY THREE

Local Development in Cities
(Processes of Investment in Social Capital for Developing Economic, Environmental, Human, Social and Political Assets)
“energy” which is different from what can be obtained from work carried out simply in exchange for payment? 26 What is the role (or need) for inter-sector partnerships among state bodies (such as governmental organs and agencies), the market (or private enterprise involved in carrying out their corporate social responsibility), and civil society (or the third sector, but also including “unorganized” citizens) in local development? To what extent is it possible to promote local development without these partnerships? 27 How much is it necessary to connect networks of people (in the place itself) to implement a local development project? Is it possible to work only with networks of institutions (bodies or organizations, such as councils, public organs, companies, associations, NGOs, forums and development agencies)? Can hierarchical institution networks really be considered as networks (i.e. as systems of nodes and connections with a spread topology)? Do the connectivity and topology of the social network of a place have any relationship with its ability to develop? What kind of relationship? 28 Can it be generally stated that places that stand out for having taken a giant step or notable leap in their development process are those that have not depended on paternalistic governments or other institutions wishing to adopt them, but have forged ahead rightly and wrongly – more wrongly than rightly – but above all learning from their mistakes? Why? What conclusions, in terms of measures for stimulating development, should we draw from this finding? 29 The participation of traditional political agents (governmental parliament members and executives) in processes of local development has been the object of much controversy, sometimes generating deadlocks that have paralyzed or hindered the initiatives. Some have argued that this participation is essential for the proposed actions to get the necessary support to be effective, and that projects become weaker without institutional resources or support, while others have observed that these agents have generally impeded the processes as they try to control them or use them instrumentally for political promotion. How can this deadlock be resolved? 30 What is the nature of the main difficulties and obstacles encountered by a place promoting its endogenous development: economic, as nothing can be done without funding; social, as people are not generally collectively mobilized for promoting their own development (each wishing only to look after their own interests); educational, due to the low education of the population (or insufficient level of human capital); technical (methodological); or political, as a local society not developing as it could is a sign that the creative and entrepreneurial forces are somehow bound by the traditional political system? Could there be an intrinsic relationship or implicit connection between democracy (practiced at the base of society and everyday lives of citizens) and (sustainable human and social) development? What form does this relationship or connection take?

DAY FOUR

Sustainability and the Network-City
(The Emergence of Social Networks and the Sustainable City of the Future)

21 What is it that hinders the development of places (and cities in particular): lack of resources; lack of political will of governments; lack of governmental, business and social leadership responsibility; lack of an elite with the conditions to open out processes for stimulating development; the fact of creative and entrepreneurial effort in the local society being in a latent (non-dynamic) state; obstructions in the social network, especially those introduced by the political system: centralization, autocracy or highly antagonistic democracy (and the adversarial climate established at the base of society, which eliminates trust), the exchange of favors among those in power and populist welfarism? 22 What is the role of “good practice” as an incentive to local development? Can it be stated that the good examples of development in some places play an animating role, showing that obstacles can be overcome and are able to motivate people towards mobilization for the development of their locality, but do not generally serve as a development model for these localities, since each local development has unique characteristics and induction processes? Is not “good practice” largely “a hothouse plant” which, when removed from the carefully prepared environment for its growth, usually withers? 23 How can the work of local-development induction be evaluated? By constructing indicators able to reveal the impact (or effectiveness) of the actions arising out of local-development-induction processes in terms of improving the living conditions of the population? Is it enough to measure improvements in the population's living conditions (applying indicators like the local HDI, for example), or is it also necessary to measure improvements in conditions of social interaction? But how can we measure improvements in conditions of social interaction? Does the number of effective partnerships in favor of common objectives and the number of volunteer citizens involved in development actions constitute important indicators in this direction? What other indicators could be used for assessing local-development induction? 24 What is the role of local-development-induction methodologies: offering guidance or instructions for opening out the endogenous process of local development or providing communication with the social network existing in each place regardless of our organizing efforts, favoring the emergence of social phenomena that we cannot invent or introduce from top-down intervention? Should local-developmentinduction methodologies set out a sequence of steps to favor the creation of a new set of institutions and norms or should they contribute to liberating communities from those routines and norms that were hindering them from going in their own direction? 25 Methodologies for local-development induction are increasingly recommending the incorporation of volunteers living or working in the places where this induction process is being tried. Why is this? Is it because there is generally a lack of resources for hiring technicians able to coordinate these processes, or is it necessary to rely on something like a volunteer

31 Can it be stated that society is changing and the citizen is emerging as a player in a way that was not possible before, that the individual who is transformed into the citizen connected to a civil society that is no longer organized based on vertical schemes of representation is subject to a new flow of information and knowledge – being a junction, an intersection point in these flows – which are denser and faster than were ever possible before? What are the consequences of this change (if it is in fact occurring) for the development of cities and sustainability of societies? What are the relationships between the new urban forms major cities are taking and the emergence of a new political culture? 32 Is the citizen who has been playing a greater part in the new emerging civil society the classic individual of liberalism (operating through rational choices for maximum satisfaction of his egotistical materialistic interests) or a new citizen connected to multiple social networks and who, not uncommonly, joins new communities of practice, learning and planning? What is the importance of this change in roles (or profile) of the social players for the development of cities and achieving sustainability for societies? 33 Are the emergent social networks, connecting people with people to deal with issues of their private interest and also, in some cases, public interest, not at risk of being controlled by those already controlling the traditional organizations, based on their power, wealth or greater knowledge? How much can it be guaranteed that this does not happen, and what can be done to this end? 34 Can it be stated that efforts for increasing the spread of social networks (and not relying on the centralized or multi-centered organizational pattern of corporations, unions, associations and other traditional forms of regimentation) are implicit in the efforts to contribute towards the emergence of a new politics, through democratization (or rather, more democracy), and that this means focusing on and valuing the unorganized, connected citizen making up the great contingent of the new civil society emerging in this new 21st century? 35 How much should we avoid replicating pyramidical, vertical organizational forms based on the command-execution flow, and instead back distributive peer-to-peer (P2P) networks connecting people to people in order to democratize society and promote sustainable

36

37

38

39

40

human and social development? Is it currently possible to organize real P2P social networks and keep them functioning? Can the citizen connected to citizen-participation networks, as such, make public policy, or is public policy a monopoly of the state? Or (not being a state monopoly but also including social players) does this only favor the old corporate-party structures of the traditional and bureaucratic forms of organization? Can civil society, as such, take collective public initiatives, increasing its role and entrepreneurship? And can unorganized citizens (according to the old organizational patterns), yet connected to one another in pursuit of common objectives, participate in forming a new non-state sphere? What is the role of socalled digital inclusion and how should this notion be interpreted in the light of the emergence of the connected citizen: access to a computer and the computer network, ability to receive and transmit information and ideas in cyberspace or acceptance by a virtual community? Does the existing institutional and legal-political framework make the construction of truly horizontal networks of people impracticable (as there will always be someone trying to impose top-down control from one or several centers) or is it now possible to change how we politically and administratively behave in organic terms? Will it be enough to change the framework of governmental and non-governmental projects, programs and actions at all levels (since everything, or nearly everything, we currently organize based on a mainframe pattern, from youth literacy to a political organization, can be reorganized according to a network pattern)? Is sustainability an environmental dimension (in the sense of the natural environment) of development or a new name for development itself from a systemic perspective (encompassing all the other dimensions, including the social)? On what critical factors does the sustainability of human societies and governmental, business and social organizations depend? Are there intrinsic relationships between networkorganization patterns and the processes of sustainability? What form do such relationships take? What are the relationships among the sustainability of cities, local democracy and systems of governance that incorporate the population's participation in new systemic models of shared public administration?

SIGN UP NOW: www.cmdc2008.com.br

6

SIGN UP NOW: www.cmdc2008.com.br

7


				
DOCUMENT INFO