Abstract
The central question of this book is how to deal with the multi-faceted problems of major cities in the global South. Pieterse argues that a second wave of urbanization is taking place, driven by globalization. This wave manifests itself most prominently in the South where public decision-makers are ‘forced to address both economic and social infrastructure imperatives from a very limited and constrained fiscus and invariably find themselves in the invidious position of having to make trade-offs, or at best sequencing decisions, about where public resources will be invested’. (Pieterse, 2008: 17). Pieterse aims to present an alternative approach to dealing with the problems of those cities, without pretending to hold the one best solution to solve everything. This approach is developed in a clear and concise way throughout the book. Pieterse’s main argument is against urban policies that are built on the premise of a stable and unambiguous urban landscape. He wants to ‘draw attention to the fact that unless the complex, dynamic, highly improvising and generative actions of the urban poor are acknowledged and explored, it is foolish to come to conclusions about what is going on in a city, or what may or may not work’ (2008: 3). If we are to address the problems of those cities, he argues, we should start from the messy, dynamical and paradoxical daily reality of the city: ‘There is no single answer to the global challenge […]. All we have is a way of ‘walking’/traversing the city, which in turn immediately changes shape as one moves through its folds and shadows, trying to figure out what combinations of strategies and tactics can be summoned to thicken the energies for transformation and renewal.’
Given this point of departure, it is no surprise that Pieterse builds on the work of, for example, David Byrne (1998; 2005) and Patsy Healey (1997; 2007). The work of Byrne provides a framework of situated complexity that accepts that each city is a particular configuration of local conditions coinciding with global developments. That means that cities are simultaneously similar across a certain set and very specific to a certain location. The work of Healey informs how to deal with this complexity in terms of strategic urban planning processes. Thinking in terms of systemic complexity and paradoxes underlies the argument throughout the book, even though the storyline never gets into the scientific debate about this. Pieterse first and foremost addresses the practitioners and policy-makers of the urban and he uses a clear and crisp writing style that moves away from the academic jargon of urban planning. The book has eight chapters. Having set out his theoretical foundations in Chapter 1, Pieterse then proceeds by giving an overview of the current trends in urbanization in the global South, followed by an extensive discussion of current policies, in particular the UN ‘shelter-for-all’ and ‘good governance’ policy targets. This is followed by a reconceptualization of how urban politics work, a chapter on the daily experience in the urban and the presentation of the alternatives to the current policies.
Throughout the book, Pieterse is highly critical of UN policies and practices regarding housing and urbanization in the global South. He laments the implicit and explicit assumptions on which the policies are built and analyses how good intentions fail to address the intractable, paradoxical realities of the urban. He dissects those policies at length and evaluates them against his own point of departure as expressed in the first chapter. Time and again, he stresses that we ‘have to step back, climb outside our mental cages and completely rethink the ways in which we talk about, imagine and seek to impact on life and desires in slums’ (2008: 111). If we aim to make some progress in the life conditions of urban dwellers, we need to embrace the complexity of the urban. Here, Pieterse has a convincing argument, but it is clear that he is somewhat indecisive about whether he should press forward and present a clear solution or keep back and leave it up to the reader to think about solutions themselves. After all, presenting an alternative solution is necessary if one criticizes current practices but it is exactly ‘clear or unambiguous solutions’ of which Pieterse is highly critical: ‘The drawback of any conceptual model is that it superimposes a false sense of structure on complex and fluid social realities’ (2008: 103).
The two main pillars on which Pieterse builds his recommendations are radical incrementalism and a multi-faceted notion of power. Radical incrementalism seeks to balance the need for radical change and the acknowledgement that the current situation is not changed overnight. It refuses to assume that a particular solution is better than other possible solutions, much in line with the work of, for example, Marshall (2008). What works is something that has to be found out in practice. Moreover, it should be accepted that what works in one particular case may not work in a different (but seemingly similar) case. With regard to power, Pieterse advocates adopting a perspective that understands that power is present in many places, ranging from the formal hierarchies of bureaucracies to local, spontaneous and once-only movements. The multiple dimensions of urban governance come together in Chapter 5 where Pieterse presents a conceptual model of political engagement in a relational city. Furthermore, while current policies pay much attention to what should be achieved, less attention is spent on how it should be achieved. Thus, Pieterse argues, the focus should be on ‘process rather than outcome, contingency as opposed to homogeneity’ (2008: 133). It leads to a normative framework that is linked ‘to concrete pressure points that can alter at a systemic level the logic of urban processes’ (2008: 160).
Pieterse is at its best when he analyses the seemingly chaotic state of daily reality in the South’s major cities. His argument for solutions that are rooted in this daily reality and the situated complexity that characterizes this reality is convincing. For example, the chapter on ‘everyday urbanism’ features a well-crafted argument, based on accounts of people living in the slums through improvization and particular ideals. It provides clear and persuasive evidence for an urban planning approach that builds on situated complexity. His directions for solutions, as presented in Chapters 7 and 8, are also clear and apt. I appreciate his focus on the existing fabrics and routines in those cities and his attention to the time-dimension of urban policies.
A considerable part of the book features a critical discussion of UN policies. I found myself wondering about the added value of this. I understand and appreciate Pieterse’s criticism of those policies and agree with the policy items he values. However, I’m somewhat puzzled by this extensive discussion. Not only does it not really appeal to readers who are not familiar with those particular policies, it is also not clear whether it matters much because it is argued elsewhere in the book that UN policies as written in policy documents bear little relevance to the people who live in those cities and who manage to survive on very different strategies. Policy documents, especially those of organizations that are quite removed from daily practices such as in the case of the UN, are not particularly interesting for understanding and dealing with the urban. They are more a reflection of the inner workings and power struggles of such organizations than a real measure of what happens in cities. They are littered with clichés about what is good – and it is hard to disagree with that – but they are bland and often bear little resemblance to the real world of urban struggle. The discussion about the UN policies could have been shorter without the danger of compromising the central argument.
My second comment concerns the focus on process – or rather lack thereof. I fully subscribe to Pieterse’s positioning within the realm of situated complexity and to his emphasis on the paradoxical character of the urban. I do agree that thinking in terms of processes rather than goals is important. The point is that Pieterse could have gone much further with regard to such processes by going into more detail about how planning works in the capricious world of the cities in this book. There is scientific work available, both conceptual and empirical, that fleshes out the way such processes are developed over time. Such work usually covers urban planning in the relatively rich global North so there is a chance for any author to do similar work in the global South – bearing in mind the warnings about the ineffectiveness of generically applied frameworks. The book should have paid more attention to that. I would not have minded trading some of the discussions of UN policies for more empirical work on the daily experience of planning processes in the global South.
To conclude: the book is most interesting for those – practitioners, policy-makers and scientists – who deal with cities in the global South and who struggle to understand how current (UN) policies could match the messiness of urban reality. Pieterse does a great job of analysing how this urban reality works and what urban planning and policy making should be like in the face of this reality. The book does not really target audiences outside the group mentioned above. For them, the book is a useful reminder but the focus on cities in the global South means that it is less applicable in the global North – something which is exactly the point, according to Pieterse.