An Assessment of Urban Development Theories

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/343110854
Urban Development Theories and Policies: A Critical Review and Evaluation
Article · July 2020
CITATIONS READS
2 10,422
1 author:
Tolulope Ajobiewe
Middle East Technical University
15 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Tolulope Ajobiewe on 21 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CRP 711: URBAN & REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT. INSTRUCTOR: PROF. DR. AYDA ERAYDIN
Urban Development Theories and Policies: A Critical Review and Evaluation
By: Tolulope Ajobiewe

1.1 General Overview.
The evolution of regions and urban agglomerations is seen as following development cycles that
include periods of rapid growth followed by periods of slower growth and decline. Booth (1987) put
it even better by stating that each wave of regional and urban development is being determined by the
lifecycles of the era that belong to it. The question therefore is: what determines the existential
expiration of a supposed lifecyle? Apart from this query, this essay - ‘An Assessment of Urban
Development Theories and Policies’ makes other inquiries and tried to provide answers to these
queries. For context, the essay is divided into seven sections (see figure 1), each section provides an
account of debates and arguments as contained in literature and concludes with a summary. The
summary is guised in a manner that it allows for the author’s thoughts beyond those provided in the
thrust of each section.
What is the new urban theory? In trying to provide an answer to the existence of a new urban theory,
the first section of the essay recognized the evergreen classics of urban theorizations and presented
that urban land nexus, post-colonial urban analysis, assemblage theory and planetary urbanism are the
contemporary and new theoretical attempts in an urban theoretical discourse. The second section of
this essay debated the characteristics, causes and consequences of urban sprawl which in a sense is
endemic to a sustainable human development. Seeing that globalization has peaked in the new century,
recent discussions have coined the term ‘neoliberalization’ to describe a trend in urban governance
that goes beyond a ‘roll back’ of inherited institutionalized political forms, but adds elements and ‘rolls
out’ new institutional forms and politics that are supportive of a project of accelerated interurban
competition and uneven development. The third section draws an inspiration from neoliberalization
to look beyond urban sprawl and focus on the degeneration of urban areas – urban shrinkage. There
are multiple facets of urban shrinkage, the essay however illustrated that there are three major drivers
which are globalization, deindustrialization and population decline.
In an attempt to look behind the glib notion Competitiveness, the essay in the fourth section identified
what is about cities that makes some more competitive than others. The need for social cohesion and
the benefits that accrue from social capital was also not overlooked. In the fifth section, migration,
diversity and creativity was discussed separately, however the interconnection between these three
(migration, diversity and creativity) as it relates to competitiveness and social cohesion cannot be
1
overemphasized. The negatives and positives perks of gentrification was the focus of the sixth section
of the essay and the role of gentrification in promoting social mix/cohesion. The essay concluded by
summarizing the highlights of all six sections in the seventh section.
The New Urban Theory C

O
N
C
Urban Sprawl
L
U
D
Urban Shrinkage
Urban I
Development N
Theories and Competitiveness, Social G
Polices Cohesion and Social
Capital R
E
Migration, Diversity and M
Creativity A
R
K
Gentrification
S
Figure 1: Essay’s Structure.
1.2 The New Urban Theory.

In the early and middle decades of the 20th century, the works of the Chicago School of Urban
Sociology were in fashion and these works attempted an ecological (functionalist) explanation of urban
development. In another word, they were the ‘Classics of Urban Theory.’ Scholars such as Park,
Burgess, Mckenzie, Hoyt, Harris and Ullman were notable for their contributions to the theorizations
on urban development as they proposed ecological models aimed at gaining a better understanding of
socio-spatial segregation within a city. These models (concentric zone model, sector model, and the
multiple nuclei model) are the ‘ABCs’ of any urban theory discourse as such dwelling on the tenets
and assumptions of the models might not be necessary for this essay. Nevertheless, there is a sense in
providing a short glimpse at these models as this is to provide a background against the evaluation of
the new trends in urban theory – which this section of the essay themed ‘the new urban theory.’ In
retrospect, Burgess claimed that: “In the expansion of the city a process of distribution takes place
which sifts and sorts and relocates individuals and groups by residence and occupation.” Similarly,
2
Park et al dealt with the city primarily as a congeries of socially differentiated neighbourhoods caught
up in a dynamic of ecological advance and succession together with associated mentalities and
behaviours.
Beyond the classics of urban theory, there are as well some notable models of urban development.
For instance that of Myrdal that conceptualized the polarization and spread model of urban
development, and the core-periphery model by Friedman that conceptualizes the transformation of
functionally rather isolated, pre-industrial cities into interdependent, multi-centric urban
agglomerations. It is worth mentioning also that the models gave theoretical explanations to the stages
(four stages) of urban development which were distinguished on the basis of demographic dynamics.
In the wake of the 1960s, the ideas of the Chicago school started to come under intense critical
scrutiny, notably by Castells (1968) cited in Scott and Storper (2014). Castells suggested that there was
nothing especially urban about the questions studied under the banner of urban sociology because in
the end they are simply questions about society at large. A critique of the classical models continued
through the 1980s and saw among other critics: Lefebvre (1970), Harvey (1973), McDowell (1983)
and Massey (1991). The high levels of diversity and disagreement in urban theory over the last century
or so preempted new theoretical attempts. Scott and Storper (2014) for instance criticized three of
these new theoretical attempts i.e. postcolonial urban analysis, assemblage theories and planetary
urbanism. The authors argued that the trio of these theoretical attempts have different points of
intellectual origin and different points of emphasis, though postcolonial and assemblage- theoretic
approaches do share significant conceptual common ground, notably their focus on particularity,
localism and difference, and an insistence on the empirical ‘complexity’ of socio- spatial arrangements
(Scott and Storper, 2014).
Furthermore, Scott and Storper mentioned that stable theory of the city is needed to account for the
genesis of cities in general, to capture the essence of cities as concrete social phenomena and to make
it possible to shed light on the observable empirical diversity of cities over time and space. The classical
models and the new theoretical attempts recognized that urban areas contain division of labor and
agglomeration, cities throughout history are based on this fundamental process of agglomeration.
Scott and Storper (2014) took this notion further and explained that cities sort themselves into a
spatially extensive lattice or patch-work organized around their common center of gravity and
characterized by intricate internal patterns of geographic differentiation. They called this issue urban
land nexus.
3
1.2.1 Urban Land Nexus

Urban processes take on specific concrete attributes that reflect the wider – and ever changing – social,
economic and political conditions within which urbanisation is always embedded. Five basic variables
or forces were identified to shape the principal variations of the urban land nexus at different times
and places, and they are:
i. The overall level and mode of economic development
ii. Prevailing resource allocation rules
iii. Forms of social stratification
iv. Cultural norms and traditions and
v. Relations of political authority and power.
The urban land nexus is by its very nature is subject to peculiar and endemic forms of politicisation,
it resides also in the economic tensions engendered by the division of labour and agglomeration. The
tensions created by competition for land uses, the urge to secure access to positive externalities and
to avoid the effects of negative externalities, the rent seeking behaviour of property owners and the
need to protect or enhance certain kinds of urban commons, among other frictions, all create
constantly shifting circles of urban social conflicts. Urban land nexus is explained as a location
decision.
1.2.2 Postcolonial Urban Analysis

Postcolonial urban studies echoes the work of earlier writers such as Abu-Lughod (1965), King (1976)
and Jacobs (1998) all cited in Scott and Storper (2014). Early writers averred it as an urban condition
shaped by the experience of colonialism. Having said that, these studies are broadly motivated by the
claim that the theory produced in the Global North is inescapably unable to account for empirical
situations in the Global South. Postcolonial commentators are especially dissatisfied with what they
allege to be the pervasive modernist and developmentalist biases of urban theory as elaborated in the
Global North. Modernism-developmentalism is further criticised by postcolonial scholars for its
promotion of a teleological concept of cities in the Global South in which growth and change are
alleged to be subject to evolutionary stages involving shifts from less to more modern and developed.
Robinson (2006) and Roy and Ong (2011) argued that much twentieth century urban theory, with its
roots lying overwhelmingly in the global North, suffers from intellectual parochialism, and hence its
claims to universality must be called into question.
4
1.2.3 Assemblage Theory

Assemblage theory is first and foremost an ontological view of the world conceived as a mass of
rhizomatic (a stem of some plants that grows horizontally along or under the ground and produces
roots and leaves) networks or finely grained relationships constituting the fundamental character of
reality. These networks bind together unique human and nonhuman objects within fluid, hybrid
mosaics forming more or less temporarily stabilised systems of interconnections representing the
current state of the observable world. Assemblages become stabilised by ‘territorialization’ (as opposed
to destabilising deterritorialisation) when they are anchored to particular tracts of geographical space.
Importantly, any state of reality in this theory is taken to be ‘flat’ in the sense that any perceived
hierarchical or scalar ordering (from a top to a bottom) decomposes back again into the kaleidoscopic,
rhizomatic and horizontal relations that are said to constitute it (DeLanda, 2002; Marston et al., 2005).
1.2.4 Planetary Urbanism

Planetary urbanism for its part concentrates on an attempt to reformulate the relationship between
‘concentrated’ and ‘extended’ forms of human settlement, land use and spatial development by
assimilating both of them into a theoretical urban landscape that is nothing less than global. Brenner
and Schmid (2015), suggest that in the 21st century a radical blurring of the category of the urban
versus everything else has come about, and that what were formerly identified as urban areas can no
longer be distinguished from the rest of geographical space, conceptually or empirically. These are the
central doctrines of ‘planetary urbanism’. The urban cannot be plausibly understood as a bounded,
enclosed site of social relations that is to be contrasted with nonurban zones or conditions. It is time,
therefore, to explode our inherited assumptions regarding the morphologies, territorializations and
socio-spatial dynamics of the urban condition (Brenner and Schmid, 2015).
1.2.5 Summary
There has been a growing debate in recent decades about the range and substance of
urban theory. The paradigm shift from the classical urban theories to a new-found theoretical attempts
have been discussed in the paragraphs preceding this summary. The foregoing debate has been
marked by many different claims about the nature of cities, including declarations that the urban is an
incoherent concept, that urban society is nothing less than modern society as a whole, that the urban
scale can no longer be separated from the global scale, and that urban theory hitherto has been deeply
vitiated by its almost exclusive concentration on the cities of the global North. It is important to state
at this juncture that cities are now being considered as regions, among other considerations, city
5
regions: as places of social reproduction, as the new spaces of globalization, as the spaces of new
governance practices to mention a few. More importantly, city regions are also considered more
recently as the spaces of Artificial Intelligence – the spaces of the future for the lack of a better word.
All cities can be understood in terms of a theoretical framework that combines two main processes,
namely, the dynamics of agglomeration/polarization, and the unfolding of an associated nexus of
locations, land uses and human interactions. This same framework can be used to identify many
different varieties of cities, and to distinguish intrinsically urban phenomena from the
rest of social reality. The ‘new urban theory’ understands that to paint all cities across the world with
the same brush or assumptions would be an unfair assessment, which is why Robinson (2011) provides
a spirited defense of what she calls ‘the comparative gesture’ as a basis for constructing knowledge
about cities and for avoiding the hazards of a priori theorization, especially when it is based on a
limited sample of cities from the global North.
As a final remark, the contemporary theoretical attempts have also recognized in a pragmatic sense
that there is the changing nature of scales of political governance – from Lagos, to Laos; Shanghai to
Sao Palo, Cairo to Chicago; or from Istanbul to Indianapolis. Along with the changing nature of scales
of political/urban governance is a difference in the neoliberal domination process across these urban
areas. Roy and Ong (2011) build on these points of departure in their plea for a ‘worlding’ of cities,
signifying an effort to bring more cities into investigative view and an acknowledgment of the reflexive
relations between the urban and the global.
1.3 Urban Sprawl

Squires (2002) defined Sprawl as a pattern of urban and metropolitan growth that reflects low-density,
automobile dependent, exclusionary new development on the fringe of settled areas often surrounding
a deteriorating city. Urban sprawl is related to several urban problems, and these problems differ from
one geography to another. In trying to understand these problems and their variants, researchers like
Downs (1999), Gainsborough (2002), Carruthers and Ulfarsson (2003) and Bernt (2009) have brought
to the fore the general causes of urban sprawl, and its pros and cons on the broad urban fabric. Figure
2 illustrates among others the dominant characteristics of urban sprawl, while table 1 summarizes the
causes and consequences of urban sprawl.
6
Table 1: Urban Sprawl (Cause and Effect)

Causes Consequences
Inflated Infrastructure and Public Service Cost Poor Air Quality
Energy Inefficiency URBAN Impacts on Water Quality and Quantity
Impact on Wildlife and Ecosystem SPRAWL Impacts on Public and Social Health
Loss of Farmland
Source: (Author’s construct)
Unlimited Low
Outward Denisty
Expansion Devpt.
Private Use
Urban Sprawl Vehicles segregation
No
Housing
Central
Provision
Planning
Figure 2: Characteristics of Urban Sprawl (Author’s illustration)
Downs (1999) for instance avowed that urban sprawl in the United States declines in inner cores of
the cities. In developing countries, the character of urban sprawl might be different seeing that the
edge between urban and rural areas are becoming blurred. However contrasting character and causes
of urban sprawl have been found across various urban areas. Neoliberal policies have been identified
to be a driving force, it goes without also saying that the consequences are similar as it comes with
economic and social impacts of its own. In recent years, the debates on anti-sprawl tactics and policies
such as urban compactness and consolidation have been rife as a solution to urban sprawl and
ultimately in the pursuit of a sustainable human settlements. Amongst other proposals are:
i. Urban growth boundary to limit the outward draining of resources from core areas
ii. Regional coordination and rationalization of local land use planning
iii. Regional development of subsidized housing for low-income households.
iv. Regional operation of public transit systems and highways
7
1.3.1 Summary
There is no wishing away the environmental problems that comes with urban sprawl, even more so
the environmental footprints caused by automobile dependency, consumption patterns, eradication
of farmlands and green areas that characterise the urbanization process of developing countries. It
would be untrue to say that policy makers in these countries do not recognise the costs associated
with urban decay in the city center or inefficient transport and land use practices. These are all
concerns of public policy decisions at all levels of government and decisions by many private
businesses, particularly large corporate entities. Curbing urban sprawl in developed countries have
been engrained in their policy decisions since the 1970s, perhaps emphatically after the Brundtland
commission on Sustainable Development in 1987. In the developing countries, densification, urban
compactness and delimiting the expansion of urban territories is but a new phenomenon, perhaps less
than three decades ago. The financial capacity, technology, land tenurial systems, ‘colonial’ land-use
and zoning systems, and inefficient mass public transportation systems are about the reasons why
managing urban sprawl has been a monumental challenge.
1.4 Urban Shrinkage
Urban shrinkage is not a new phenomenon, as a matter of fact the mention of shrinking cities can be
found in literature towards the end of 20th century. Three decades into this century, the Chicago
School of urban sociology viewed the development and decline of cities and city centres as a natural
process whereby urban changes results from a lifecycle that ends in inevitable decline. In Germany
for instance Haubermann and Siebel (1981) introduced the term ‘schrumpfende Städte’ (shrinking
cities) as a metaphor to describe the decline in population and economic base experienced by German
cities as a result of deindustrialization. The phenomenon of cities growing slowly or declining is found
on every continent and has been described as a significant international politico-economic and
planning issue. The fact that shrinking cities across the world are defined by peculiar characteristics is
not up for debate, Reckien and Martinez-Fernandez (2011) noted that when cities shrink, they share
common elements in what can be characterized as a “shrinkage identity.” For context, a shrinking city
can be defined as an urban area - a city, part of a city, an entire metropolitan area or a town - that has
experienced population loss, economic downturn, employment decline and social problems as
symptoms of a structural crisis (Reckien and Martinez-Fernandez, 2011).
8
In the early years of the 21st century, analysts have tried to understand ‘urban shrinkage,’ some analysts
under the guise of the Shrinking Cities International Research Network (SCIRN) posited that the term
‘urban shrinkage’ is used to stress the fact that this phenomenon is a multidimensional process with
multidimensional effects and having economic, demographic, geographic, social and physical
dimensions that not only continue to evolve as a result of new global and local realities, but also
influence theories and research proffering diagnosis, prognosis and remedies. The collaborative works
of SCIRN have been to understand different types of city shrinkage and the role that different
approaches, policies and strategies have played in the regeneration of these cities. The crux of the
debate by these analysts (10 urban analysts who worked on 30 cities across the world) is that
globalization of the economy, global financial flows and the internalization of production processes
are powerful underlying causes of shrinkage in numerous industrial cities that have been unable to
find a niche in the current competitive international economic environment.
Recently, the effects of the financial crisis have given birth to a new wave of media and political interest
in ‘shrinking cities’, particularly in the US. Baron et al (2010) explained that term ‘shrinking’ is not only
used to describe the process by which cities lose population and employment, but also to define new
strategies consisting in demolishing vacant buildings and ‘downsizing’ the city. In eastern Germany,
urban shrinkage is mainly one of deindustrialization and depopulation. Here, the transformation from
a planned system to a free market did not lead to ‘flourishing landscapes’ (as Chancellor Kohl had
promised), but to a total collapse, in which the economic structure fell apart. In a very short period of
time, mainly between summer and fall 1990, industrial production went down to a third of its original
level and the economic base literally disintegrated. In figure 3, this essay conceptualized urban
shrinkage as having three major causative factors, this is was done following the foregoing positions
especially that of SCIRN.
DeIndustriali Population
Globalization
zation
Urban Shrinkage
Decline
Figure 3: Urban Shrinkage Conceptualized (Author’s Construct).
9
Swyngedouw (2004) emphasized that the process of globalization should be reformed as a process of
glocalisation. Martinez-Fernandez et al (2012) maintained that globalization has caused a gradual shift
towards a new global economic order that created a new system of global production, manufacturing,
distribution, and consumption. This gradual shift revealed new urban forms made possible by the
logistic and new technology revolution. Simultaneously, other towns and cities, whose development
is based on a single industry or an intensification of activity in a single sector, were particularly affected
by these globalization processes and lost their roles as a result of the growing competition. Also, the
scales of both economic flows and networks and their regional governance are rescaled through a
globalization process. Population change in cities today is one of the symptoms of globalization. On
the one hand, globalization stimulates the mobility of people across countries and regions, with some
communities being at the sending end (resulting in shrinkage of their population),
while other areas experience net gains (e.g. capital cities and regional centres). On the
other hand, communities and indeed entire countries, Japan or Germany for example, that
have low fertility rates are rapidly ageing, a process that often combines with young people
moving out, accelerating shrinkage (Wiechmann and Pallagst, 2012).
1.4.1 Shrinking to Resilience

In urban studies, the resilience concept has been used to describe to what extent the urban system is
vulnerable and whether an urban system can adapt to both sudden and slow changes taking place.
Besides, it provides clues for understanding how disturbances modify an urban system and can help
for developing scenarios to estimate the impacts of disturbances upon foreseen trajectories. Eraydin
(2013) expressed that since the late 1970s, neoliberalisation and market-friendly policies have been
affecting the way cities develop and function. Neoliberal principles based on market reliance seem to
take over or manipulate the decision-making powers in urban development and create uncoordinated
state interventions (Peck et al. 2009). The resilience concept enables an assessment of policy responses
to shrinkage since the main reason for shrinkage, as discussed in the introduction, is due to problems
of coping/dealing with changing conditions (globalization, deindustrialization and population
decline).
10
1.4.2 Summary
Today, urban shrinkage can be analyzed as a global and structural phenomenon rather than an
exception or aberration. In the past, urban planning have focused almost extensively on urban growth,
urban transformation, and urban rehabilitation/renewal. Unlike cities in Europe or the global North,
where issues of low fertility rates, deindustrialization and population decline serves as a precursor of
urban shrinkage; in many cities across the developing countries, urban shrinkage has been due to civil
unrest, political anarchy, the aftermaths of wars and terrorism to mention a few. Local actors consider
urban regression as situations that should be as short-lived as possible with the belief it will be
recovered. This assumption needs to be revised, by predicting urban shrinkage as a permanent and
structural component of urban development. Since shrinking cities are the spatial manifestation of a
global process accompanying the establishment of a new regime of accumulation, increasing
neoliberalisation and ‘entrepreneurialization’ would no doubt continue to cause serious problems in
the governance of cities all over the world if not properly managed.
1.5 Competitiveness, Social Cohesion and Social Capital

Competitiveness as a term emerged in the 1980s – as an indicator of globalization and urban
development policies. Eraydin (2008) stated that competitiveness is expected to contribute to the
economic performance and welfare of cities, by enhancing the attractiveness of these places for
international capital, by enabling local agents to export their products and services all over the world
and participate in global value chains; and by gaining global functions that will allow them to benefit
from the spillover effects of globally circulating knowledge, information and technology. In addressing
the relationship between competitiveness, social cohesion and spatial segregation, Eraydin (2008)
questioned the possibility to expect a positive change in socio-spatial inequalities since increased
competitiveness generates not only international business and high-level services, but also traditional
low-cost production activities. The author points that the non-market processes and education, gender
and the urban land policies and housing markets have played important roles in the redistribution of
different social groups within an urban space. Therefore, competitiveness is a way of discussing the
relative economic performance of territories and their achievements in generating income,
employment and new enterprises.
It goes without saying therefore that the general assumption is that a competitive and fast-growing
economy can have a more direct contribution to social cohesion. There are fundamental issues in
trying to understand the ‘what’s’ and ‘what not’s’ of social cohesion. The increased differentiation in
11
education, ethnicity, income, home-ownership structure, and life style is one of such fundamentals.
Little wonder Dekker and Bolt (2005) analyzed social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands
and argued that one of the challenges to social cohesion in many urban neighbourhoods is the
heterogeneity of the population. Dekker and Bolt (2005) identified five different dimensions of social
cohesion defined by Kearns and Forrest, which are:
i. Social networks and social capital- based on a high degree of social interaction within
communities and families.
ii. Common values and a civic culture-based in more common moral principles and codes of
behaviour.
iii. Place attachment and an intertwining of personal and place identity.
iv. Social order and social control-based in an absence of general conflicts between groups at
large (i.e. Muslims versus Christians).
v. Social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities, based in equal access to services and
welfare benefits, redistribution of public finances and opportunities, and ready
acknowledgement of social obligations.
Therefore, promoting social cohesion in urban neighborhoods, policy goals for national and local
authorities should as a matter of fact consider these dimensions religiously.
In explicating the concept of social capital, Coleman (1988) explained social capital to be of different
forms. These forms of social capital are; obligations, expectations, and trustworthiness of structures,
information channels, norms and effective sanctions. For the sake of clarity, these forms can be
understood in terms of community ties/associations, religion and or ethnic ties, and clubs to mention
a few. The idea, simply put is the benefits, privileges, services, and or favors accrued from being a
member of an association, or the interactions with different actors, and the relationships with one,
two or more actors. Therefore, social capital constitutes a particular kind of resource available to an
actor. Going by the logic of this theory, social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity
but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of
social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors – whether persons or corporate actors –
within the structure. Still on social capital, Murie and Groves (2005) focused on the World Bank’s
categorization of social capital which are bonding, bridging and linking. The strong ties connecting
family members, neighbours, close friends and business associates can be called bonding social capital.
12
These ties connect people who share similar demographic characteristics. The weak ties connecting
individuals from different ethnic and occupational backgrounds can be referred to as bridging social
capital. Bridging social capital implies horizontal connections to people with broadly comparable
economic status and political power. Linking social capital, consists of the vertical ties between poor
people and people in positions of influence in formal organisations (banks, agricultural extension
offices, Police). It is worth mentioning therefore that a feature shared by most forms of social capital
that differentiates it from other forms of social capital is its public good aspect: the actor who generate
social capital ordinarily capture only a small part of its benefits, a fact that leads to underinvestment
in social capital.
1.5.1 Summary
Competitiveness, social cohesion and social capital as mutually exclusive concepts that they are, there
is a sense in which one might be forced to make a connection between the three. Having said that,
competitiveness as with most things quickly becomes apparent that in reality, it is a very slippery
concept. In another word, a vague concept, so much so that this vagueness opens it up to an array of
interpretations that has often led to confusion in the policy debate. Francis (1989) expressed that many
policy initiatives are undertaken with the mindset of the term - ‘Competitiveness’, as a result it is
important to appraise the different senses in which the term ‘competitiveness’ is used. In a manner of
speaking, competitiveness at one level it is equated, usually loosely, with the ‘performance’ of an
economy, an absolute measure. At another, because it relates to competition, it implies a comparative
element, with the implication that to be competitive, a city has to undercut its rivals or offer better
value-for-money. In this sense, competitiveness is essentially about securing (or defending) market-
share. Competitiveness on the whole has to be reasonably understood and accepted as a meaningful
concept at the level of the firm.
In urban centers, the degree of social interaction within communities and families is not so much on
the increase, rather, it is on the decline. Considering the dimensions of social cohesion, no doubt,
there are constant interactions among people at their places of work, schools, and shopping centers,
religious places and even neighbourhood parks. Achieving social solidarity and reducing wealth
disparity is a huge challenge in most urbanized economies of the world. Apart from that, a Post-
COVID19 situation would change the narrative entirely, not necessarily to the extreme negative
spectrum. What policy makers will contend with is the fact that the benefits that comes from social
cohesion, and the privileges accruing from an individual’s social capital will as well be largely affected.
13
1.6 Migration, Diversity, Creativity
A narrative on the increasing spate of urbanization is an evergreen debate, Tacoli, McGranahan, and
Satterthwaite (2015) took this notion a little further to consider alongside urbanization, rural-urban
migration and urban poverty. The authors noted that increasing migration movements are an
important element for urbanization, and focused on the positive and negative effects of rural-urban
migration on urbanization. In recent years, global migration turned into a serious crisis for developed
countries, there are evidences of estranged migrants on the coast of the Mediterranean, on the US-
Mexico border, and at Turkish border to mention a few. For many years, the negative impact of
migration on urbanization have been extensively discussed, perhaps considering some positive impact
if any, offers a different perspective entirely. Internal migration and especially net migration to urban
areas direct the urbanization of a country's population, this is the case in both developed and
developing countries. However, it is important to conceptually understand the demographics and
urban transitions in the different countries i.e. developed and developing. Beginning from the 1980s
till date, the African continent has recorded the highest total population growth, therefore, it has the
highest rate of urban population growth.
Nevertheless, the Asian continent still has the highest urbanization rate and the highest net rural-urban
migration rate (Tacoli et al, 2015). In many parts of the world (except Africa and Asia), both urban
population growth rates and urbanization rates are decreasing. However, the absolute number of
people added to the urban population of the world every year increases primarily due to the growth
of the urban population in Africa and Asia. In not conflating issues, Poston and Bouvier (2010)
distinguished between urbanization and urban population growth. On the one hand urbanization is
defined by demographers as the increasing share of population living in urban areas, if urban and rural
populations are growing at the same rate, there is no urbanization. On the second hand, if the urban
population is increasing but the total population is not changing, the entire urban population growth
is the result of urbanization and the rate of urbanization is equal to the urban population growth rate
(Poston and Bouvier, 2010).
Undoubtedly, urbanization is primarily the result of migration, but not only as a result of rural-urban
migration. It is the net result of complex migratory movements between rural and urban areas,
including back and forth circular migration. One of the main assumptions that support the negative
view towards migrants is the perception that it increases urban poverty. In the past, urban
14
governments have responded to migration fears by trying to be less accommodating to low-income

migrants, the results tend to be counterproductive – and ironically force low-income residents, and
not just migrants, into the very sort of overcrowded and underserviced informal settlements taken to
reflect overly rapid urbanization (Tacoli et al, 2015). As a way of offering a new perspective on the
negative impacts of migration, Baycan-Levent (2009) investigated the why’s and how’s of diversity and
creativity, the effects of this duo (diversity and creativity) on the capacity of cities and regions; under
which conditions can diversity be the source of urban and regional competitive advantage in
knowledge intensive activities; and the key assets, infrastructure, and policy tools required to foster
the development of creative, competitive and cohesive places.
Social and cultural diversity is no doubt one of the most important challenges facing modern societies
today. Some scholars have argued that this growing diversity is the impact of migration and has led to
a whole gamut of debate in both migration studies and socioeconomic policies. In these debates, the
three interrelated and complementary concepts: plurality, diversity and multiculturalism has gained an
increasing social and political interest. The critical questions in these debates are: whether diversity is
‘good’ or ‘bad’ for economic growth and productivity from an economic perspective and for social
capital and social cohesion from a sociological perspective; and whether a culturally diversified society
is more or less efficient than a culturally homogeneous one. In lay terms, diversity can be defined as a
difference and the differences can be observed both in nature and society. This is to say that any
attempt to unbundle the meaning of diversity requires a much broader interpretation. According to
Baycan-Levent (2009) managing diversity (migration, migrant groups, and cultural diversity) has
produced four main approaches, and they are: ‘monoculturalism’, ‘leading culture’, ‘melting pot’ and
‘multiculturalism’. Also, there are numerous studies on multiculturalism, it is worthy to mention that
it became an official national policy that was adopted from the 1970s onward in Canada, Australia and
in most of the member states of the EU.
Beyond multiculturalism, Vertovec (2007) suggested a new concept called ‘superdiversity’ in order to
define the changing demographic and social patterns or a transformative ‘diversification of diversity.’
Superdiversity refers to a condition that is distinguished by a dynamic interplay of variables among
“an increased number of new, small and scattered, multiple-origin, transnationally connected, socio-
economically differentiated and legally stratified immigrants who have arrived over the last decade”
(Vertovec, 2007). Whether a culturally diversified society is more or less efficient than a culturally
homogenous one can be viewed from an economic and social perspective and these perspectives have
15
both positive and negative implications on cultural diversity. In an economic sense, cultural diversity
on the one hand creates potential benefits by increasing the variety of goods, services and skills
available for consumption, production and innovation. On the other hand, cultural diversity generates
potential costs as it may entail racism and prejudices resulting in open clashes and riots, as well as
conflicts of preferences leading to a suboptimal provisions of public goods. The effects of diversity
on social connections, in general have been demonstrated by two opposite perspectives: ‘contact
hypothesis’ and ‘conflict theory’. The former argues that diversity fosters interethnic tolerance and
social solidarity, while the latter argues that diversity fosters out-group distrust and in-group solidarity
or bonding social capital, thus increasing ethnocentrism. However, Putman (2007) suggested another
theory - ‘constrict theory’ for the possibility that diversity might actually reduce both in-group and
out-group solidarity – that is, both bonding and bridging social capital.
Recent studies from the US and Europe offer some opposite evidences about how diversity affects
social capital and social cohesion. For instance, these studies revealed that the more ethnically diverse
the people we live around, the less we trust them. Therefore, in more diverse communities people
trust their neighbors less. In trying to map a nexus between diversity and creativity, Baycan-Levent
(2009) explained that creativity in general seems to be enhanced by immigration and cultural diversity.
Furthering this narrative, the author added that cultural diversity provides sources for creative
expression that are increasingly being harnessed by players in the creative industries. In addition,
studies have shown and demonstrated that diversity has a positive effect on creativity, innovation and
performance at different scales -from team or organizaton to city/region and society- and in different
fields -from art to science and technology. The diversity and the creative capacity of cities and regions
was also elaborately discussed, in doing so, Baycan-Levent (2009) appraised these conceptualizations:
creative class; creative industries; creative milieu; and creative cities. An overall evaluation shows that
creative cities have great potentials for a creative economy. The creative capacity of the cities is key in
promoting sustainability, solving problems in every field, and increasing urban competitiveness in the
new economy. In the debate on why some places (cities and regions) are more attractive than some
others for new and creative activities, the concerns are related to path dependence, cluster formation
and soft location factors often associated with the emergence of creative industries and creative class.
16
1.6.1 Summary
There is no denying the economic, social and spatial implications of diversity and creativity. For
instance the negative effects of diversity observed in both economic and social arena largely depend
on individual characteristics such as age, education, and income level. Lower educational attainments,
low incomes and unemployment are associated with the perception of negative implications of
diversity. Gradually, a number of studies have begun to identify how immigrants can make a positive
contribution to the socio-economic well-being of neighbourhoods and cities. Recently, concerns have
been increasingly expressed about the social benefits of multiculturalism. From an economic
perspective, meanwhile, debates about diversity have recently entered the competitiveness literature.
Fainstein (2005) argues that “the competitive advantage of cities, and thus the most promising
approach to attaining economic success, lies in enhancing diversity within the society, economic base,
and built environment.” The relationship between diversity and creativity in the context of an urban
and regional dynamics is a complex and sophisticated one. It is in recognizing the complexity of this
relationship (between diversity, creativity and urban space) that any clamor for a creative, competitive
and cohesive city or region can be feasible, let alone realizable.
There are a number of policy types (non-policy, guest-worker policy, assimilationist policy, pluralist
policy and integrationist policy) that has an over-bearing impact (positive and negative) on diversity in
urban areas. On another note, there are a number of challenges to realize a creative, competitive and
cohesive city or region. The first challenge for cities is building a ‘creative urban governance’ which
requires shifting mindsets, breaking down silos, re-balancing risks, visioning, building consensus and
creating the conditions for people to become agents of change rather than ‘victims of change’. As a
final remark, diversity fosters creativity and innovation, contributes to entrepreneurship, enhances
productivity, and promotes economic growth – evidences from the USA, some countries in the EU
and more recently, a number of countries in Southeast Asia.
1.7 Gentrification
Ley and Teo (2006), aptly defined gentrification as a conceptual category that provides a critical edge
and some theoretical coherence to physical and social change incorporating eviction, displacement,
demolition and redevelopment. In spite of the extensive amount of research concerning gentrification,
there has been little consideration of the intersection between ethnic groups and gentrification. Filion
(1991) notes that gentrifiers benefit in terms of enhanced home equity and neighborhood amenities,
but existing residents—especially those who are displaced to less-desirable neighborhoods—are
17
negatively impacted. Based on this, Lees (2000) argued that at the turn of the present century, emphasis
in gentrification research has been placed much more directly on class and gender than on ethnicity
or race. The implications of gentrification for non-gentrifiers and the neighborhoods in which they
live are both negative and positive. Lees (2000), Atkinson (2004), and Raco and Kesten (2016)
identified major negatives of gentrification, they also identified contrasting positives as summarized in
table 2. Gentrification affects low-income residents, especially recent immigrants, who might have
otherwise found affordable housing in gentrifying neighborhoods but are forced to look elsewhere,
which is known as exclusionary displacement (Raco and Kesten, 2016).
The loss of affordable housing have been identified in literature as the most important negative impact
of gentrification. Also, the increase in property values in gentrifying areas enhance the growing wealth
gap between homeowners and renters and make it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for renters
to enter the homeownership market in these areas of the city. In contrast, increased property values
resulting from gentrification are advantageous to homeowners who wish to capitalize on the increased
equity in their house. In addition to residential displacement, gentrification can result in the
displacement of commercial and industrial activities and the loss of working-class, shopping and job
opportunities as summarized in table 2.
Table 2: Negatives and Positives of Gentrification
Negatives Positives
Speculative property price increases, loss of Stabilization of declining areas and
affordable housing and displacement encouragement of further development
Commercial/industrial displacement Increased property values
Community resentment and conflict Increased social mix.
Sources: Lees (2000), Atkinson (2004), and Raco and Kesten (2016)
Beyond the discourse of residential gentrification, Lees (2007) explained “retail gentrification” or
“boutiqueification”. In this regard, industrial uses either close down completely or move elsewhere,
primarily because of increased land costs, obsolete factory space and the obtrusive nature of many
industrial activities that can lead to conflict and tension with middle-class professionals resulting in a
lack of political support for industrial uses. In contrast to the negatives associated with the
displacement of commercial and industrial activities, the most positive result of gentrification is often
claimed to be the stabilization of declining areas and the encouragement of further development,
sometimes with public subsidy and support. Zuki et al (2009) analyzed the differences between state
and market-led gentrification – contrasting the steps that government took to “jump-start”
18
gentrification in Harlem and to “expand” gentrification in Williamsburg—processes of commercial

gentrification are alike. The first “pioneers” are individually owned boutiques, often started by new
local residents. When population density is greater and available stores are larger, more boutiques
arrive and chain stores open, bidding up rents above the level many of the pioneers can afford. These
social dynamics cannot be separated from complex issues of social class, cultural capital, and race, and
the challenges they pose to both identity and community formation. Boutiques tend to support the
interests of more affluent and more mobile residents.
Lees, Shin, and López-Morales (2016) locating gentrification in the Global East criticized
contemporary understandings of gentrification which is limited to the experiences of the Global
North, and sometimes too narrowly understood as classic gentrification. The authors, instead of
confirming the rise of gentrification in places outside of North America and Western Europe, adopted
a more open-minded approach to not over-generalizing different urban processes under the label of
gentrification. The authors considered the two categorizations of economies in East Asia – the Tiger
economies (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) and the Tiger Cub economies
(Philippines, Indonesia, and the transitional economies of mainland China and Vietnam). Lees et al
(2016) pointed out that various forms of gentrification exist and have been studied by researchers and
governments in East Asia. The common subjects are new-build gentrification, the relationship
between education and neighborhood change, and commercial gentrification. In recent years also,
studies from the global east have tried to explore the relationship between redevelopment and
gentrification. These studies have come to aver that gentrification can be an established as an
influential urban process that affects the life chances of local inhabitants in one place, whilst in other
places it might simply be a subsidiary, nascent process at work in tandem with other urban processes.
Today, gentrification is criticized for its limited consideration of the divergent urban processes that
produce displacement and dispossession (Lees et al, 2016). Almost a decade before the inquisition of
Lees et al (2016), Lees (2008) assessed whether or not gentrification leads to displacement, segregation
and social polarization. The author’s argument was hinged on the probability of gentrification leading
to more socially mixed, less segregated, more liveable and sustainable communities. There has been a
consensus of opinion in that gentrification contributes to the rising of social mixing, social capital and
social cohesion of inner-city communities. Lees (2008) however emphasizes that there is an uneasy
cohabitation between gentrification and social mix. In sum, it is however important to compare notes
across different geographies as a way of discovering effective strategies to deal with the negative
19
impacts of gentrification. For instance, Lees et al (2016) painted the scenario of Tapei and Hong Kong.
“Taipei, which is reportedly subject to revanchist urban policies may learn from Seoul or Hong Kong,
which provide public housing as part of in-kind compensation schemes for eligible ‘displacees.’
However, Seoul’s experience also provides a telling story of how the provision of public housing as a
fruit of struggles against the state could lead to the co-optation of ‘displacees’ movements” (Lees et
al, 2016).
1.7.1 Summary
Empirical evidence suggests that gentrification does not necessarily result in increased social diversity
or that social mix is a cure-all for the negative effects of gentrification. Gentrification brings about
negative impacts such as social segregation, social polarisation and displacement. In some cities, the
levels of social mix, ethnic diversity and immigrant concentration within surrounding neighbourhoods
declines as a result of gentrification. Therefore, the more progressed gentrification is in a
neighbourhood, the greater the reduction in levels of social cohesion/mix. On the flip side,
gentrification does not engender social mixing. Social mixing is a one-sided strategy that is seldom
advocated in wealthier neighbourhoods that may be just as socially homogeneous— for example, poor
people are not being moved/attracted to middle-income suburbs. In terms of gentrification and social
mixing, there are different examples that are abound in literature. In the United Kingdom for example,
state-led gentrification of public housing by a mixed communities policy. The United States focuses
on social mixing based on spatial de-concentration of poverty - this process is related to property
taxes.
1.8 Concluding Remarks
The sections before this one explored a number of topical issues as far as urban development theories
and policies go. The need for a new lens in understanding urban dynamics beyond the dogmas of the
classical urban theories opened up a series of contemporary comparative urban studies which in itself
affirms the place of content-based and context-based realities and solutions. Urban sprawl, urban
compactness, polycentric cities and urban shrinkage are not in actual sense contemporary debates,
there is however no denial in the fact that in recent years, they have garnered wide acceptance, found
massive traction and popularity in the academia and beyond. The Sustainable Development Goals
initiated in 2015, has no doubt set the ball rolling in achieving sustainable cities and communities, to
this end, concepts such as urban compactness, and polycentric cities will be very much around in the
next two decades. Globalization has made cities transcend out-fashioned conceptualizations, as a
20
result cities are now seen as regions with places of places of highest level of competitiveness. City
region as an outcome of endogenous interplay of different actors, is also a place of social reproduction
enhancing the power of the national economy.
Plainly, cities compete - they do so internationally, nationally and at the regional level, and as collection
of assets, cities differ markedly. However, all cities and regions can become ‘winners’, finding a
successful niche in the globalizing economy – provided that they adopt appropriate institutional
arrangements, appropriate social attitudes and successfully utilize their resource endowments,
whatever they may be. There is no single formula to achieve this, although it is plain that urban
authorities need to look beyond traditional policy instruments such as planning controls, social
initiatives, housing developments and the provision of training and associated infrastructure. To a
certain degree, social cohesion, social capital, diversity, and creativity and competitiveness are mutually
inclusive concepts, which have influenced urban development theories and policies of the 21st
century.
References
Atkinson, R. (2004). The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban
renaissance?. European Journal of Housing Policy, 4(1), 107-131.
Baycan-Levent, T. (2009). Diversity and creativity as seedbeds for urban and regional dynamics. Paper presented
at the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science. Pp 101-129
Bernt, M. (2009). Partnerships for demolition: The governance of urban renewal in East Germany's
shrinking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 754-769.
Booth, D. E. (1987). Regional long waves and urban policy. Urban Studies, 24(6), 447-459.
Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban?. City, 19(2-3), 151-182.
Carruthers, J. I., & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2003). Urban sprawl and the cost of public services. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(4), 503-522.
Castells, M. (1968). Is there an urban sociology. Sociologie du Travail, 10(1), 72-90.
DeLanda, M. (2002). A new ontology for the social sciences. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, Estados Unidos:
University of Illinois.
Downs, A. (1999). Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. Housing policy debate, 10(4), 955-974.
Dekker, K., & Bolt, G. (2005). Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: Differences
between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban studies, 42(13), 2447-2470.
Eraydin, A. (2013). “Resilience Thinking” for Planning. In Resilience thinking in urban planning (pp. 17-
37). Springer, Dordrecht.
21
Eraydin, A. (2008). The impact of globalisation on different social groups: Competitiveness, social
cohesion and spatial segregation in Istanbul. Urban studies, 45(8), 1663-1691.
Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Cities and diversity: should we want it? Can we plan for it?. Urban affairs review,
41(1), 3-19.
Francis, A. (1989). The concept of competitiveness. The Competitiveness of European Industry, Routledge and
Kegan, London, 3-12
Filion, P. (1991). The gentrification‐social structure dialectic: A Toronto case study. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, 15(4), 553-574.
Gainsborough, M. (2002). Political change in Vietnam: In search of the middle-class challenge to the
state. Asian survey, 42(5), 694-707.
HauBermann, H., & Siebel, W. (1991). Soziologie des Wohnens. H. HauBermann.
Lees, L., Shin, H. B., & López-Morales, E. (2016). Planetary gentrification. John Wiley & Sons.
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance?. Urban
studies, 45(12), 2449-2470.
Ley, D., & Teo, S. Y. (2014). Gentrification in Hong Kong? Epistemology vs. Ontology. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1286-1303.
Marston, S. A., Jones III, J. P., & Woodward, K. (2005). Human geography without scale. transactions
of the institute of british Geographers, 30(4), 416-432.
Martinez‐Fernandez, C., Audirac, I., Fol, S., & Cunningham‐Sabot, E. (2012). Shrinking cities: Urban
challenges of globalization. International journal of urban and regional research, 36(2), 213-225.
McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space. Environment
and planning D: Society and Space, 1(1), 59-72.
Middleton, A., Murie, A., & Groves, R. (2005). Social capital and neighbourhoods that work. Urban
Studies, 42(10), 1711-1738.
Putnam, R.D. (2007) ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first
Century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2):
137-174.
Poston Jr, D. L., & Bouvier, L. F. (2010). Population and society: An introduction to demography. Cambridge
University Press.
Raco, M., Kesten, J., & Colomb, C. (2014). Urban policies on diversity in London, United Kingdom.
Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, London
Reckien, D., & Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2011). Why do cities shrink?. European Planning Studies, 19(8),
1375-1397.
Robinson, J. (2006). Ordinary cities: between modernity and development. Psychology Press.
Roy, A., & Ong, A. (Eds.). (2011). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global (Vol. 42).
John Wiley & Sons.
22
Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2015). The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory.
International journal of urban and regional research, 39(1), 1-15.
Squires, G. D. (Ed.). (2002). Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences, & policy responses. The Urban Insitute.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge
review of international affairs, 17(1), 25-48.
Tacoli, C., McGranahan, G., & Satterthwaite, D. (2015). Urbanisation, rural-urban migration and urban
poverty. Human Settlements Group, International Institute for Environment and Development.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and racial studies, 30(6), 1024-1054.
Zukin, S., Trujillo, V., Frase, P., Jackson, D., Recuber, T., & Walker, A. (2009). New retail capital
and neighborhood change: Boutiques and gentrification in New York City. City & Community,
8(1), 47-64.
Wiechmann, T., & Pallagst, K. M. (2012). Urban shrinkage in Germany and the USA: A comparison
of transformation patterns and local strategies. International journal of urban and regional research,
36(2), 261-280.
23
View publication stats

An Assessment of Urban Development Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Assessment of Urban Development Theories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Assessment of Urban Development Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Urban Development Theories and Policies: A Critical Review and Evaluation

Article · July 2020

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Urban Development Theories and Policies: A Critical Review and Evaluation

By: Tolulope Ajobiewe

The New Urban Theory C

1.2 The New Urban Theory.

1.2.1 Urban Land Nexus

1.2.2 Postcolonial Urban Analysis

1.2.3 Assemblage Theory

1.2.4 Planetary Urbanism

1.3 Urban Sprawl

Table 1: Urban Sprawl (Cause and Effect)

Figure 2: Characteristics of Urban Sprawl (Author’s illustration)

1.4 Urban Shrinkage

Figure 3: Urban Shrinkage Conceptualized (Author’s Construct).

1.4.1 Shrinking to Resilience

1.5 Competitiveness, Social Cohesion and Social Capital

1.6 Migration, Diversity, Creativity

governments have responded to migration fears by trying to be less accommodating to low-income

gentrification in Harlem and to “expand” gentrification in Williamsburg—processes of commercial

View publication stats

You might also like