These are hard facts and well known. Half the world’s mega cities – 13 out of 27, with populations of over 10 million – are in Asia, as also are half of all its tier-II cities – 194 out of 387 – each with a million or more inhabitants. And the region is urbanising at a speed that no other region in the world currently matches. By 2050, Asia will have 3.4 billion people living in its urban areas against the 1.7 billion now. But are the implications of these facts well understood by all Asian governments?
With cities and towns taking an overwhelming position as the prime movers of economies, and villages becoming increasingly peripheral in a rapidly urbanising landscape, the migration to cities of large chunks of people is no longer possible to stop. At an urban forum in Manila last month, President Haruhiko Kuroda of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said about 80 per cent of Asia’s GDP currently emanates from its urban areas. No amount of romancing can lure people back to villages anymore, because livelihood opportunities have largely moved from there. The absence of a credible economic counter-balance in the countryside has given urbanisation a walkover.
The purpose of the Manila forum was to draw, once again, the attention of Asia’s governments to what awaits them if they don’t get serious about their urban future: a ballooning of the squatter population, from 200 million now to nearly 700 million by 2015; a wider spread of urban poverty and squalor; worsening chaos on the streets; a breakdown of systems and services; falling quality of life; unhealthy congestion; scarcer water and electricity; and thicker levels of pollution.
Since cities and towns have such a predominant role in a country’s GDP, and the rural sector is no more a dependable fallback, business as usual will also have a crippling effect on economic growth. In cities like Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila, traffic congestion costs alone are said to account for six per cent of GDP. Those who know Dhaka can only imagine what that mess of a city costs Bangladesh.
As Kuroda emphasised in his speech, it’s the quality and efficiency of Asia’s cities and their ability to make continuous efforts to innovate that will determine the region’s long-term productivity and overall stability. Liveable, competitive, inclusive and environmentally-protected urban areas are what the region’s governments – any government for that matter – should be aiming for.
The task, obviously, isn’t going to be easy. In fact, in light of the ominous and engulfing rate at which urbanisation is spreading, it’s mind-boggling in terms of investments alone. Where’s all the money going to come from? ADB itself had estimated some time ago that investment in urban infrastructure in Asia had fallen short by about $30 billion a year.
ADB is now ready to expand its support for the development of transport systems and basic infrastructure, and unveiled an Urban Operational Plan at the Manila meeting. But the problem goes far beyond road flyovers, better drainage, low-carbon transport and improved slums, or city greening, energy-efficient buildings and intelligent systems in mega cities. In fact, mega cities are only part of the problem. The bigger question is how to stop mega cities from growing further to an extent where they pass beyond control and are prone to disintegrate under their own weight.
I doubt if governments, especially in South Asia, fully realise the import of this question. Mega cities can’t be contained, however much we seek to improve their liveability, efficiency and competitiveness, unless we develop tier-II urban centres with equal zeal and attention. In fact, the fate of these intermediate cities is perhaps of greater concern since they are the first ports of call for urban migrants and, left to neglect and chance, they can permanently disfigure a country’s landscape and lead to its slumming.
For some countries, like Malaysia, transforming smaller cities is easier because sizes are small, the demographic pressure isn’t high and gaps in living standards aren’t gaping. For others, like India, where most of the lesser cities are chance-directed, chance-erected hell-holes, ugly to look at, dismal to live in and culturally-barren, the task is stupendous. ADB’s Urban Operation Plan is, of course, a welcome move, and, as Kuroda suggested, the private sector can be asked to help in certain cases, but the imbalance of development is so big that private housing complexes and shopping malls alone can’t fix it.
India has another important handicap: fragmented thinking. Even after 55 years of organised planning, development continues to be seen, both at the Centre and in states, as an affair to act when necessary and not something where vision, will and action are synchronised to perform like an orchestra. It’s doubtful if the likely spending of trillions on infrastructure under the Twelfth Five-Year Plan is going to make a difference.
