URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN LATIN AMERICA.

SHIFTS IN POLICY APPROACHES SINCE THE 1970S.

Paul van Lindert

Utrecht University
Department of Human Geography and Planning
p.vanlindert@geo.uu.nl

Paper prepared for delivery at the

2009 Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - June 11-14, 2009.

Abstract

Since the early days of the self-help construction school that gave a definite switch to the urban
housing debate in Latin America, the urban development discourse has shown some marked
variations. Major multilateral agencies – especially the World Bank, UNCHS (Habitat) and UNDP –
played a key role in the evolution of this discourse. These institutions have also dominated the
normative agendas that have brought about some definite shifts in urban policies and planning
practices. Allowing for the differences between these international agencies’ discourses, consensus
was reached on the desired enabling roles of national and local governments. This article systematizes
the switches in paradigms, central concepts, and planning approaches as witnessed by experience in
the cities of Latin America over the past four decades.

Keywords: Self-help housing, housing policies; urban development; urban governance; Latin
America

1
Introduction

More than three decades ago, in the year 1976, the first UN Habitat Conference was held in
Vancouver. In the next year, as a follow-up of ‘Habitat-1’, the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (UNCHS-Habitat) was founded in Nairobi. It is no exaggeration to state that these two
events have been very important milestones in the gradual shift from a principally rural-focused
development model towards a paradigm that allows for more attention to the urban question in
development. Before the 1970s, both national and international institutions had always primarily
targeted their development strategies at rural development. For a long time it had been held that by
creating better work and living conditions in the rural areas, the peasant households would stay where
they were, and stop migrating to the ever-growing cities. The logic of this approach was as simple as it
was misleading. The migration to the cities was seen as the most important cause of urban poverty,
and thus it was held that the allocation of more resources to the rural areas would strike at the root of
the structural poverty question. However, in reality it was proved that massive investments in
agriculture and other rural-based sectors did not diminish the flow of migrants from the countryside.
In addition, it became more and more obvious that the inflow of migrants into the cities was
no longer the prime cause of the urbanisation process in developing countries. Certainly, in many
intermediate cities and small towns it is still the case that the demographic increase is primarily caused
by an influx of migrants who arrive from the surrounding rural areas. In the large metropolises,
however, the natural increase of the population has had a larger impact on the population growth than
the net effect of migration. By now it is generally recognized that the growth of urban poverty in these
metropolises and primate cities, where the largest share of the national urban population lives, has
become a primarily endogenously driven process.
One of the key forces behind the gradual reconsideration of the urban problems in developing
countries was the World Bank. In 1972, the World Bank formulated its first urban programme. In the
following years, its role was important because it rejected the traditional notions of blueprint planning
in the developing countries and their use of western models of social housing. The World Bank
quickly became the most authoritative international development institution that formulated urban
development policies, and as such it has had an undeniable impact on the ongoing international debate
on urban development (Zanetta, 2001, p. 514). Indeed, with their urban lending programmes, the
World Bank, and especially the various regional development banks that jointly form the World Bank
Group, set the scene for the urban planning and management approaches of the many developing
nations that contracted such loans.
The focus of this paper is on the recent history of international development thinking with
respect to urban development and urban policies in Latin America. This history only spans about four
decades, but yet there are a number of interesting variations over this period that go hand in hand with
changes in the overall development paradigm. Important landmarks on the historical map of the urban

2
development debate are some major UN conferences that aimed at devising new strategies to solve the
increasingly complex problems in this urbanizing world. In addition to the first Habitat Conference
(1976), two major conferences in the decade of the 1990s have been the most important for the agenda
setting of the urban question: the Earth Summit (1992) and the City Summit (1996). A distinction will
be made between the various decades, each of which is characterized by its own core concepts,
strategic foci, and actual urban policies and practices (Box 1).

Self-help housing and settlement upgrading

The first urban programme of the World Bank originated from the growing awareness that the
governments in developing countries, by following the traditional Western models of social housing in
combination with self developed policies for squatter settlement removal, were utterly incapable to
offer adequate housing solutions for the urban masses. Building upon the fresh insights of self-help
housing pioneers like Charles Abrams (1966), William Mangin (1967) and John Turner (1972), the
World Bank developed a set of policies that matched better with the common practices of the urban
poor in developing countries. These scholars rejected the expensive standard solution of turnkey
housing projects. Instead, they made a convincing plea for a new approach in which direct
governmental involvement would be drastically reduced. The urban poor had proven to be perfectly
capable of building their own dwellings if they were not being hindered by oppressive regulatory
systems. Such self-managed building had the great advantage that the households could decide for
themselves when to expand their dwelling or when to improve its quality, in accordance with their
needs and priorities. Obviously, the housing priorities of households vary according to their changing
needs, dependent on such factors as, for example, their phase in the household cycle, the stability and
location of their sources of income, and the savings capacity of the households. It follows that a
standard solution for ‘the’ urban poor really does not exist. The emerging self-help school considered
housing security as the prime requirement for such self-build processes to succeed.

Perhaps a bit contrary to general knowledge, it should be recognized that in the first decades after the
Second World War, some of the most relevant international agencies, e.g. the British Colonial Office,
the World Bank and the United Nations, were never the vanguards of public housing schemes for the
poor in the developing world. In fact, the efforts of the self-builders had already been valued and
supported by these international agencies (Harris & Giles, 2003). The national authorities of these still
colonial or recently independent territories, however, favoured the neat Western style housing
solutions and blueprint planning approaches, and most of them were very reluctant to accept the
chaotic growth of spontaneous settlements in their burgeoning cities. In an attempt to counterbalance
such conventional national housing policies, the World Bank started in 1972 to promote the self-help
school’s approach to self-managed incremental housing construction, albeit with its own emphasis on

3
Box 1 – The changing views on urban development and policies

AGENDA CONCEPTS STRATEGIC FOCUS POLICIES & PRACTICES

SETTING
1960s • Modernization • Physico-spatial planning and • Blueprint planning
public sector social housing • Housing supply for the middle
• Spatial engineering classes
• Eviction of squatters
• Self-help housing school • Housing priorities
1970s ‘Housing as a verb’ • Housing needs
1976 • Affordability • Support for self-help initiatives • Sites and services
HABITAT -1 • Cost Recovery • Security of land tenure • Settlement upgrading
• Replicability • Recognition of the informal • Subsidies for land, housing,
sector transport
• Tolerance of squatter
settlements
1985

1986 Urban Management Programme • Strengthening of markets • Urban management

• Strengthening of financial sector • Capacity building
1990 Global Shelter Strategy • Private sector construction • Institutional strengthening
• Neighbourhood-based • National Housing Banks
1991 enterprises • Public-private partnerships
The Urban Agendas for the 1990s
• Community-based action • Participation of civil society
• State withdrawal
1992 • State as ‘enabler’ – not
UNCED -1 ‘provider’
(EARTH
SUMMIT) ‘Enabling Housing Markets to
Work’
1995
Local Agenda 21
1996 • Holistic planning frameworks • Urban governance
HABITAT -2 Habitat Agenda • Nation-wide and city-wide • Metropolitan municipal
(CITY strategies instead of project- and cooperation
SUMMIT) neighbourhood focused • Integrated development
• Housing rights
interventions planning
• Decentralisation
• Collaboration between local • Strategic planning
POVERTY • Good local governance
governments and with central • Capacity strengthening
REDUCTION • Sustainable urban
government • Participatory planning
STRATEGY development:
• Institutionalised multi- • Partnerships and networks
PAPERS - Poverty reduction
stakeholder, multi-sector • Microfinance
- Urban productivity
consultation mechanisms
- Environmental
management • Best practices

2000 • Millennium Development

MILLENNIUM Goals (MDGs) • ‘Scaling up of slum
SUMMIT upgrading’
• ‘Cities without Slums’
• Non-subsidised service
provision
2001 CITY Urban Development and Local • Performance based urban
SUMMIT+5 Government Strategy • Environment, Safety, Security, management
Health • Improvement of productive
2002 • Liveability • Integrity of local government environment
UNCED -2 • Good governance and • Efficient factor markets (land, • Competent and transparent
management capital, labour) management of municipal
2005 • Competitiveness • Municipal finance budgets
MILLENNIUM • Bankability • Participatory budgeting
SUMMIT + 5

Sources: Pugh (1994); UNCHS (1997); Smets (1999); World Bank (2000); Zanetta (2001); Harris & Giles (2003); Jenkins,
Smith & Wang (2007).

4
financial viability and cost-recovery. This meant that the self-help projects should be affordable for the
poor and that the beneficiaries themselves were to be held responsible for the repayment of the loans.
Ideally, these repayments should lead to revolving or rotating funds. Such funds were deemed
important because they formed a type of guarantee for the replicability of the projects. In this way, the
terms affordability, cost recovery, and replicability were added to the World Bank’s jargon.
Very soon World Bank financed sites-and-services and settlement upgrading projects
mushroomed in many of the largest cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In sites-and-services
projects, low-income groups were given plots of land which included some basic infrastructure
services such as electricity, drinking water, and sewerage. In general, these projects were small-scaled
and always situated on the cities’ peripheries. The main reason for this was the relatively low land
value in these urban fringe zones, which enabled governments to reduce costs in the acquisition of
land. Due to this peripheral position, however, the provision of infrastructure in many cases became
disproportionately expensive. Often, kilometres of piping had to be laid down to connect with the
city’s main networks. Thus, in spite of the relatively low land prices, in most of the cases the total
acquisition costs simply proved to be too high for the urban poor. This was even worsened when the
peripheral location made it necessary to include a core-housing unit on each of the plots, from which
the new residents would be able to start their self-managed building without having to travel to the
project area from far and wide.
The settlement upgrading schemes had a larger impact. Before these schemes, the
consolidation of the self-build dwellings often stagnated in the urban slums and squatter settlements as
a direct consequence of the lack of housing security. Without solid proof that such informal
settlements were accepted by the authorities and that they were no longer threatened to be removed,
the inhabitants considered additional investments in time and money too risky an affair. The
settlement upgrading projects acknowledged this all-important element of housing security, and for
that reason the regularization of land tenure was the first priority of such schemes. As such, an
essential barrier for housing consolidation was eliminated.
The second vital element in such settlement upgrading schemes was the provision of basic
services and a social and physical infrastructure. Both these types of interventions nearly always
resulted in an immediate construction boom of informal settlements.
Such housing schemes, in which the governments’ major role was to create a favourable
environment for a full development of the self-build initiatives of the urban poor, became
characteristic for the 1970s and much of the 1980s. This implied a major breaking point with the
earlier period, when state intervention with spontaneous settlements basically meant the eviction of the
inhabitants and the clearing of their provisional shacks. In that sense the gradual transition towards a
more permissive environment for the poor was a substantial change for the better. Yet, there were also
many sceptics towards the new strategies. The doubts especially referred to the fact that there was no
evidence that these interventions did, eventually, indeed reach the original target groups. Although it

5
was widely acknowledged that the physical improvements of the dwellings and neighbourhoods were
often nothing short of spectacular, critics claimed that it was certainly not self-evident that the
beneficiaries were the same households as the ones who had initiated the settlement process in the
spontaneous neighbourhoods in the first place. It was held that these settlement schemes and their
ensuing neighbourhood dynamics would easily lead to a social filtering-up process which also entailed
the expulsion of the most vulnerable groups. Thus, individual projects would righteously deserve the
most prestigious international awards, but an objective assessment of the results on the ground would
often show grim conclusions (Verma, 2000). Moreover, the new approach still focused very much on
small-scale pilot projects. Allowing for some exceptions, such as the Kampung Improvement
Programme in Indonesia and perhaps some positive experiences in Jordan and Tunisia, neighbourhood
upgrading projects never had a knock-on effect that stretched into the adjacent districts.
For these reasons, many of such self-help schemes never went beyond the rank of ‘symbolic
schemes’ (Rothenberg, 1981). Due to the lack of financial resources and also because the allocation of
the available resources was always the outcome of a political process, such interventions were too
incidental and too small to be effective in coping with the urban challenge. Also, there was no positive
relation at all between these housing policies and the overall urban socio-economic conditions. The
sheer size of the exploding cities and the alarming growth of poverty called for other solutions beyond
such self-help pilot projects restricted to the housing sector.

Towards an enabling strategy

A groundbreaking change in the common view on urban habitat policy occurred with the Global
Shelter Strategy that was accepted by the United Nations in the year 1988. Already tested before
through experimental self-help housing projects in the larger metropolises of the developing world, the
so-called enabling approach now gained its own permanent place in the habitat discourse (UNCHS
1990). Helmsing (2000, p.9) argues that enablement nowadays is a familiar concept that is being
applied in many policy domains, but that it remains rather vague as to what it really means in practice.
In seeking a common denominator for enablement, it may be held that ‘the government is no longer
the prime actor, and it seeks to establish cooperative relations with other actors, such as the private
sector, NGOs or civil society organisations’ (RAWOO, 2005, p. 35). It was not coincidental that this
shift took place in an international ideological environment of neo-liberal supremacy. In this context
of renewed market thinking and the gradual retreat of the state, it was not surprising that central
governments and multilateral development institutions also preached the ideology of a restrained role
of the public sector in habitat sector policies. The new concept was seamlessly dovetailed with the
growing practice of governmental pruning on collective expenditure. Priority was given to the
development of more efficient finance systems for housing construction by the formal sector, e.g. the
National Housing Banks.

6
 There thus was an increasing awareness that the state could not – and should not – fulfil its
part as provider of housing, if only for the ever-increasing magnitude and complexity of the urban
housing problem. This new insight was accompanied by the acknowledgement that the state does carry
the responsibility to establish the appropriate financial, legal, and regulatory frameworks that will
support the initiatives from the civil sector and private enterprises.
In the 1990s much work was done on the coding of a new system of roles, values, and
responsibilities of governments with respect to urban habitat. The leading motive was that self-build
initiatives by households and communities, which account for the lion’s share of total urban housing
supply and neighbourhood upgrading, should be stimulated as much as possible by means of a pro-
active attitude on behalf of the government. As such, the role of the government was to shift towards
other activities, such as: the guaranteeing of housing security; the supply of land for housing; the
supply of credit facilities; the development of an appropriate public transport system; adequate solid
waste management, etc. In addition, the local government should be better equipped to complement
the many neighbourhood level initiatives and interventions in a strategy of citywide inclusive
development.

From the housing question to the urban question

This breakthrough in the general view on the role of the state towards the urban housing question was
paralleled by another major shift of the international development agenda with respect to the urban
question as a whole. By the mid-1980s, the major international players had dissociated themselves
from the former perspective that had reduced the urban question to the problems surrounding
qualitative and quantitative housing shortages. With united efforts, the UNCHS (Habitat), UNDP
(United Nations Development Programme), and the World Bank introduced the Urban Management
Programme (UMP) in 1986. In its first six years, the UMP staff carried out a thorough identification of
the most significant urban problems in the various regions of the South, which resulted in numerous
research- and policy papers. This initial phase of the UMP was completed with the publication of three
important documents that became very influential both for the future urban development agendas and
the international urban cooperation agendas (UNHCS, 1990; World Bank, 1990; UNDP, 1991). From
1992 onwards, a coordinated effort was made to apply the research findings in different regional and
policy contexts. In addition to the three initiators of the Urban Management Programme, at least some
twenty other bilateral and multilateral institutions have been participating in it. As such, the UMP
became one of the world’s largest multilateral partnerships for urban development cooperation.
The strength of UMP is its emphasis not on the housing sector, but instead on the
integrated approach of the various urban sectors that are essential for sustainable
development. The programme’s activities cover the following mutually related and cross-
sector thematic fields: local governance and financial management; the management of urban

7
infrastructure; land management and environmental management; and urban poverty
alleviation. One of UMP’s principles is that by means of a long-term technical assistance
programme, the role of cities in fostering economic growth, social development, and the
reduction of poverty in developing countries can be strengthened. It is held that by increasing
urban productivity – and in particular the productivity of the urban poor – the tendency
towards deepening urban poverty can be reversed. This calls for a local government that is
legitimate and capable and is less dependent on the central government. Therefore, capacity
building and institutional strengthening were two important elements of the UMP in the
second (application) phase, the idea being that through decentralisation policies and municipal
reform laws the local authorities would become more capable to generate their own income.
Hence, for example, well-organized urban land registry systems with up-to-date information
became vital to municipal management (Cohen & Leitmann, 1994; Jones & Ward, 1994).

Good local governance

In the 1990s and 2000s the acknowledgment of the important role that local governance has to play in
development became firmly rooted in development thinking. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to state that
the recognition of good local governance as a key factor for sustainable urban development has
implied a fundamental paradigm shift. In this day and age, the focus on good local governance has
clearly become mainstreamed in all major internationally funded urban development programmes.
The concept has been developed since the beginning of the 1990s. In this decade, two UN
conferences were particularly important in this respect. The first one was the UN Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was soon coined ‘the
Earth Summit’. The result of the conference was an action programme for sustainable development,
the so-called Agenda 21. Chapter 28 of this document focuses explicitly on the role of municipal
governments in urban or local development, and affirms that local governments must initiate and
stimulate consultative processes among their inhabitants and communities. This Local Agenda 21
(LA21) primarily aims at an enhanced involvement of the civil society and the private sectors, in order
to arrive at truly participatory planning processes at the municipal level (Metropolis 1994). A
consultative body (platform or forum) that includes the relevant local and central state bodies,
parastatal organisations, community-based organisations (CBOs), non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), the private sector, research groups, professional associations, and other relevant
representatives from society, is responsible to jointly discuss and develop a shared vision for the
sustainable development of their city or municipality. The next step in the LA21 process is ‘to move

8
the agenda to action’, according to the priorities set. That was also the catchphrase of the UNCED-2
conference at Johannesburg in 2002.
The same notions of good local governance are evident in the Habitat Agenda, which is the
result of the so-called City Summit (Habitat-2) that was held in Istanbul in 1996. Starting from the
principles of partnerships, capacity strengthening, and the exchange of knowledge, the Habitat Agenda
expressly claims that cooperation between all actors, from public to private, CBOs, NGOs, and
individuals, is necessary in order to arrive at sustainable development. The Agenda attaches major
significance to the strengthening of the civil society on all levels, and to the participation of all actors
in the process of decision-making (UNCHS, 1996b).
Indeed, the large international development agencies, such as the World Bank, UN-Habitat,
and UNDP, have performed key roles in the development and subsequent promotion of such concepts
of local governance (UNDP, 1997; World Bank, 1999). Time and again these agencies have stressed
the crucial importance of local governance that should be capable and effective in managing
sustainable urban development, while at the same time prioritising criteria such as transparency,
accountability, equity, ownership, and participation: ‘The new orthodoxy is that active participation by
local policy-makers and citizens must be sought in planning and designing policies and programs, for
this ensures local commitment and action in implementing and maintaining them’ (Woods 2000, p.
824).
However, when it comes to making the new paradigm constructive in terms of policies and
practices, recognition should also be given to the numerous local initiatives of grassroots
organisations, NGOs, and local authorities in developing countries (Abbott, 1996; Gilbert et al., 1996).
The many positive experiences of in-house developed mechanisms and strategies by local
governments in Latin America, like the participatory budgeting experience, implemented in a great
many Brazilian cities and definitely impressive. There are also municipalities in Uruguay, Argentina,
Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Mexico with similar institutional arrangements, which have developed
into a permanent process of consecutive consultation rounds at the levels of neighbourhoods, districts,
and the city as a whole.

Entering the new millennium

By the turn of the millennium, after nearly three decades of systematising experiences of urban
development interventions, it had become generally accepted that the design of urban development
strategies should be based on the following three basic principles.
Firstly, it was recognized that sustainable urban development will only be possible if policies
and strategies are embedded in a multi-disciplinary, holistic, and pluralist approach, and that long-term
programme support is needed for institutional capacity building. As such, good local governance and

9
urban management, appropriate regulatory frameworks, sustainable environmental management, and
the development of local – often neighbourhood-based – economic activities, are essential
preconditions to reduce urban poverty and to redistribute resources in such a way as to include the
urban poor in the formal city.
Secondly, an essential ingredient for successful development programmes is the active
involvement and participation of the inhabitants. Ownership and empowerment, both important
catchwords in the general development discourse, have also secured first rank positions on the urban
development agenda. Without an outspoken population that has access to decision making in all stages
of project and policy formulation, from the very first stages of needs assessments until the final
implementation phase, the chances of attaining sustainable solutions are slim.
A third key principle, partnership, focuses on the cooperation between the public, civic, and
private sectors. Local multi-sector partnerships may create the synergies that are absolutely necessary
for a successful approach to the complex urban question (Corrêa de Oliveira, 2004; Payne, 1999).
External partnerships are just as important, as strategic alliances with donor organisations may provide
complementary human and material resources that are so indispensable for urban development
programmes.

The Strategy for Urban Development and Local Government

Building upon the above principles, the World Bank launched a new strategy for Urban and Local
Government in 1999. With this strategy, the World Bank aims at achieving a bigger impact with
respect to the following three ‘R’s: Replicability, Relevance, and Reach (World Bank, 2000, p. 45).
While the first two ‘R’s refer directly to the sustainability and importance of the interventions, the
third one refers to the scale and scope of the interventions. Through its new strategy, the World Bank
aims to reach a larger number and a greater range of local governments, in a more direct way than ever
before. It is now no longer a requirement for local authorities that their loan contracts pass via the
central government. This does depend on the extent to which administrative and fiscal decentralisation
has been implemented nationally. Also, the central governments must give their formal approval to
local governments to become a direct client of the World Bank. The replicability, relevance, and reach
are enhanced through active networks and partnerships with other international donor agencies.
Local governments are eligible for direct World Bank loans if local stakeholders demonstrably
share a joint vision and strategy for sustainable urban development, and if that strategy really aims at
combating poverty, inequality, and exclusion through integrated programmes. Such strategies, also
taking into account the environment, economic development, and urban management, had already in
1997 been labelled as ‘City Development Strategies’ (CDS) (Harris, 2002). Another prerequisite for
loans are the creditworthiness and bankability of the local governments. The local treasurers must be

10
able to show that adequate measures have been taken in order to increase the municipal resources and
solvency. Bankability assumes sound financial management and a commercial attitude towards urban
service delivery.
The strategy is built upon four pillars, including one that aims at the proliferation of City
Development Strategies all over the world (Box 2). Interestingly, each of those pillars contains
elements which, with the adoption and dissemination of the LA21 and Habitat Agenda principles in
previous years, have become common property among other development agencies as well. Therefore,
the strategy seems to be fitting well with current urban development practices, which certainly
facilitates the formation of partnerships with other organisations. It is also obvious that ingredients of
this new Urban and Local Government Strategy mirror the actual academic views on the processes of
urbanisation and social change in the developing countries (UN-Habitat, 2004). For instance, the
explicit recognition of the role of (usually very dynamic) extended metropolitan regions which include
both the various urban nodes and the peri-urban and rural transition zones or corridors, reflects the
ideas presented in academic literature (Ginsburg et al, 1991; McGee, 1991; Scott, 2001).

Box 2 – the four pillars of the World Bank Strategy for Urban Development and Local Government

1. National urban strategies

The national urban strategies should expressly include urban-rural linkages. The major objective of such a focus
is to gain, together with the national and local partners, an improved understanding of the rural-urban dynamics
and their possible contribution to national economic growth and the reduction of poverty. Eventually, the
expected result of such a formulation of national urban strategies is that the urban agenda will become
effectively included in the national macroeconomic debate.

2. City development strategies (CDS)

Strategic urban development plans should be based on city-wide needs assessments and a joint vision that is
shared by the many different stakeholders – and it is these stakeholders who should also discuss and set the
priorities for action plans. The city development strategies focus on those aspects of urban liveability,
management, and productivity that are identified by the stakeholders as priority fields. Opportunities for local
economic development are mapped in order to enhance the competitiveness of the urban economy and to
generate more employment for the population. It is expressly recognised that for such urban development
planning, the entire urbanizing region is to be taken into account, including the settlements beyond the city’s
formal administrative limits. By using the concept of functional urban – or metropolitan – regions, this approach
thus responds to the articulated mutual relationships between inhabitants and economic activities in the cities and
their rural hinterlands

3. Scaling up of basic services for the urban poor

Based on the earlier experiences with isolated settlement upgrading schemes, it is now acknowledged that a more
robust approach is needed to improve urban liveability at a much larger scale. This approach has been made
operational in the Cities without Slums action plan. The ultimate aim is to ‘move to city-wide and nationwide
scales of action – we have done enough pilot projects’ (World Bank & UNCHS, 2000a).

4. Capacity building
In addition to previous projects that integrated service delivery with on-the-job training in local administration
and urban management, capacity strengthening is expanded through partnerships and networks with other
institutions that have a proven track record in this respect (e.g.: local government associations, research- and
training institutes, North-South city-to-city linkages, etc).

11
Another important change compared to former approaches is that the urban strategy no longer
exclusively focuses on the primate cities or the capital cities. Indeed, many studies have demonstrated
that the intermediate and the smaller cities can significantly contribute to national economic and social
development in general, and to regional development in particular (Hardoy & Satterthwaite, 1986;
Titus & Hinderink, 1998). Furthermore, the importance of small towns for rural-urban transformation
processes has also been documented in recent literature in numerous contexts (Van Lindert &
Verkoren, 1997; Satterthwaite & Tacoli, 2003). The synergy between the rural and urban economies
has proven to be an important channel through which urbanising areas can contribute to national
development. The explicit recognition of these realities in the strategy can be seen as yet another
indicator for the new realism within the World Bank.

The Cities Alliance: towards cities without slums?

We have seen above that in the 1970s, the international development agencies had come completely
under the spell of the self-help housing school. In many of the largest cities in the developing world,
experimental settlement upgrading projects and sites-and-services schemes had been implemented.
However, with only a few exceptions, the outcomes of such projects were quite questionable. In the
first place, this applies to the practical consequences for the inhabitants themselves. As was explained
before, settlement upgrading certainly may have led to the exclusion – and expulsion – of the most
vulnerable groups (Engelhardt, 1988). Second, there was a sharp and ideologically inspired debate on
the very principles of self-help. Adversaries maintained that the self-help activities of the poor were to
be equated with self-exploitation. In their view, the acceptance of informal housing by the authorities
provided them with an alibi for their totally deficient housing supply policies (Burgess, 1985; Ward,
1982). A third critique points to the peculiar ways of citizen participation. Top-down management of
such self-help projects was usually coupled with a purely instrumental and cost-saving kind of
community participation, i.e. their supply of labour to the project. When confronted with the poor
overall project results, some World Bank officials reacted as follows:
‘Participation has often been equated with explaining the project to key stakeholders (individuals
and groups who stand to gain or lose from the project), instead of involving them in decision-
making. Their ‘ownership’ has been sought by making them responsible for preparation and
implementation, instead of ensuring that the impetus for the project is local and that the process
provides explicit opportunities for consensus building’ (Piciotto & Weaving 1994, as cited by
Woods 2000, p. 825).
These questions have now again become pertinent with the appearance of the ambitious ‘Cities
without Slums’ programme.

12
 The Cities Alliance was launched on the eve of the new millennium and began as a partnership
between the World Bank and UN Habitat. From its very start the purpose of the Cities Alliance was to
develop a truly multi-donor partnership, including a broad range of multilateral, bilateral, and non-
government partners. The Alliance is regarded as a first move towards the implementation of the
Urban and Local Government Strategy, in particular with respect to the framing of city development
strategies and service provision to the urban poor. The first task ahead is to give broad support to local
processes of community participation, in order to assess the direct needs and priorities and to provide
viable solutions through strategic urban and/or metropolitan development plans. At the same time,
city-wide and nation-wide programs are being supported that will improve the daily living conditions
of the many millions of people living in slums and squatter settlements (World Bank & UNCHS,
1999, p. 9).
The initiative of the Cities Alliance ran parallel to the framing of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), which were adopted at the 2000 Millennium Summit by some 150 heads of state.
Indeed, target 11 of the MDGs expresses the explicit commitment to achieve a significant
improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by the year 2020. The Cities Alliance
mission statement is no less ambitious and includes the alleviation and prevention of urban poverty,
good local governance, and sustainable development, in order to arrive at ‘prosperous cities without
slums’ (World Bank & UNCHS, 2000, p. 6; UN-Habitat, 2003). Today, the Alliance counts 24
members, including 14 national governments, 8 multilateral organisations, and 2 international local
government associations.

The local governance experience in Latin America

The above overview of the major shifts in international paradigms and policies over the past few
decades may hold for most of the developing world, but it is certainly mirrored in the Latin American
region. Starting from the 1980s, the whole subcontinent witnessed a sustained democratisation
process, as evidenced by the fact that popularly elected governments gradually came to replace the
once so powerful military-controlled bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes. In the year 1980, the crisis of
state legitimacy was still reflected by the fact that out of the 18 countries in Latin America only 6 had
regular elections. The democracies of 3 of these countries – Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela – were
still based on one- or two-party systems (Lora 2007). In contrast, at the start of the new millennium,
all nations of the region had elected governments and most had pluriform party structures put in place.
Admittedly, during much of the 1980s and even in the next decade, armed conflicts, state repression
and violation of human rights continued in too many parts of the region, especially in Colombia, Peru
and in some of the poorest Central American countries that were still ruled by patrimonialist
governments. In other countries, the transition to representative democracy had triggered the

13
participation of marginalized social groups, albeit often channelled through new political movements
with a notorious populist flavour. During the last decade, such populism caused high levels of political
instability which in some cases – e.g. Bolivia, Ecuador – resulted in the deposition of consecutive
presidents, whereas Venezuela presents an exceptional case by which the president gained almost
absolute and indefinite power sanctioned through plebiscites. Thus, while it is a fact that as of the
1980s most Latin American nations have restored their representative democracies, many struggle
with the challenges ‘to reduce the democratic deficits’ (Greig et al. 2007, p. 229).
An important step on the road towards a gradual consolidation of democracy in Latin America
was the introduction of municipal elections. The link between the transition to democracy and the
introduction of municipal elections is clearly established by Daughters & Harper (2007, p. 218-219;
see Table 1). Between 1991 and 1995, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Chile and Panama were the last countries
in the region to make the change from appointed to elected mayors and councillors. In addition to that
– and depending on preceding municipal arrangements – new administrative and territorial municipal
jurisdictions were defined through the promulgation and implementation of so-called ‘organic laws’1.
In some countries, such as in Bolivia, these laws indeed tackled one of the traditional democratic

Table 1 – Latin America: Year of democratic transition and first municipal elections
COUNTRY YEAR OF DEMOCRATIC YEAR OF FIRST
TRANSITION MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mexico 1917 1917

Costa Rica 1949 1949
Colombia 1958 1988
Venezuela 1958 1989
Ecuador 1979 1983
Peru 1980 1980
Belize 1981 1981
Bolivia 1982 1985
Honduras 1982 1982
Argentina 1983 1983
El Salvador 1984 1985
Guatemala 1985 1985
Uruguay 1985 1984
Brazil 1985 1985
Paraguay 1989 1991
Panama 1989 1995
Nicaragua 1990 1992
Chile 1990 1992
After: Daughters & Harper (2007, p. 218-219)

1
A ‘ley orgánica’ in Latin America creates a new institutional regime.

14
deficits by directly incorporating the formerly excluded rural populations in the municipal political
structures, which hitherto had always been dominated by the urban population. In the next step
towards the consolidation of democratisation, the central governments transferred more political
power to the sub-national governments and reformulated the respective public responsibilities for each
of the various tiers of government.
Even if there is increased political autonomy from the centre, however, this does not mean that
decentralisation policies also have brought financial autonomy to the local governments. According to
the principles of subsidiarity, the various roles and functions of the state at the different levels of
government should be mutually complementary and decentralized to the lowest administrative level at
which their implementation is the most effective. In many cases of service provision, the
local/municipal level would be the most appropriate. In practice, however, the required transfer of
fiscal resources from the national to the local governments, combined with measures to increase
revenues from local taxes, did not keep pace with the delegation and devolution of responsibilities. As
Nijenhuis (2008) shows, fiscal decentralisation in the countries with a federal state structure primarily
focused on strengthening the intermediate levels, such as the provinces (Argentina) and the states
(Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela). In the unitary states of the sub-continent, the main focus of
decentralisation policies was on the municipal level. Whereas in the federal states sub-national
spending varies between 32 and 42 per cent, the average equivalent in the unitary states is quite
modest. Even today, after roughly two decades of decentralisation in Latin America, the share of
national resources that is reassigned to municipal budgets is in most nations still lower than 10 per
cent of the central state budget, while only a few countries show a fiscal decentralisation from the
central to the local governments of 15 to 25 per cent (IDB 2000; Nijenhuis 2008).

The analysis of the relative distribution of all governmental expenditure between national
government, intermediate government (states, provinces) and local government (municipalities)
presents an even bleaker picture for the latter (Table 2). For the first half of this decade, the table
shows the performance of decentralizing expenditure in Latin American countries. While around 1980
the simple average decentralized expenditure in the region was some 12 per cent of total government
spending, this figure increased to an estimated 19 per cent between 2002 and 2005 (UCLG 2008, p.
182). These aggregate figures are undoubtedly influenced by the relatively high proportions of
intermediate government expenditure in the federal states of Latin America. The relatively high
figures for government expenditure by provinces and departments in Peru and Bolivia (both unitary
states) may be explained by these countries’ regimes for the redistribution of a percentage of the
profits on natural resources (e.g. gold, gas, oil, etc). On the whole, municipal expenditure in only six
countries (Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala) exceeds 10 per cent of general
government expenditure. Then follow four countries (El Salvador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina) with

15
 Table 2 – Latin America: Relative distribution of expenditure by National, Intermediate and
Local Governments, 2002-2005

Percentage
expenditure of
Local Intermediate National Total
total government
government government government government
by sub-national
governments expenditure expenditure expenditure expenditure
Country

Brazil 42.1 16.6 25.5 57.8 100

Argentina 41.6 7.8 33.0 59.1 100
Mexico 31.9 4.3 27.5 68.1 100
Colombia 29.8 17.0 12.8 70.2 100
Bolivia 29.5 8.5 21.0 70.5 100
Peru 26.8 8.5 18.3 73.2 100
Ecuador 22.1 17.2 4.9 77.8 100
Chile 15.0 13.2 1.8 85.0 100
Uruguay 13.2 13.2 -- 86.8 100
Guatemala 13.0 13.0 -- 87.0 100
El Salvador 8.7 8.7 -- 91.3 100
Dominican Republic 7.0 7.0 -- 93.0 100
Paraguay 7.0 5.2 1.8 93.0 100
Costa Rica 6.0 6.0 -- 94.0 100
Honduras 5.6 5.6 -- 94.4 100
Nicaragua 3.8 3.8 -- 96.2 100
Panama 3.8 3.8 -- 96.2 100
Source: UCLG (2008, p. 183)

municipal expenditure over 7 per cent of general government expenditure and the remaining countries
range even lower on this indicator of financial decentralization. Evidently, the decentralisation of
functions and responsibilities to the municipalities only occasionally coincides with the new
distribution of resources, diverting resources from the central government to those municipalities. This
is especially the case for the countries of the Central American region (Estado 2008, pp. 365-383).

In recent academic literature on the Latin American metropolises there has been quite some
attention for the promising experiences of public management in for example Bogotá (Gilbert 2006),
Monterrey (Paiva 2003), Buenos Aires (de Luca et al. 2002), Montevideo (Canel 2001; Chavez 2004),
and – perhaps most notorious of all – Curitiba (Schwarz 2004) and Porto Alegre (Abers 1998; Fedozzi
2001; Souza 2001). These studies show that the municipalities that cover the large metropolises of
Latin America can at times demonstrate an admirable performance in terms of efficiency and

16
effectiveness in urban planning and management, despite the existence of interlocking and overlapping
structures within metropolitan areas which makes coordination among the local governments a
challenging task indeed (Paiva 2003).

Many of these municipalities have also been successful in generating funds. They have been
able to use their newly established or increased powers to raise local taxes directly, obtain funds from
other sources, and attract national or foreign investment. After a thorough and systematic comparison
of governments in some important capital cities of the region, Meyers and Dietz concluded that
citizens become less resistant to paying taxes when they perceive that the municipal apparatus is likely
to act in a fair and accountable way: ‘in a few cases, elected municipal governments in capital cities
have gained, at least momentarily, the reputation for collecting taxes honestly, impartially, and
transparently – and for using tax revenues to fund needed urban improvements’ (Meyers & Dietz
2002, p. 336).

In the smaller towns of the region, not to mention the predominantly rural municipalities, the
municipal balance sheets tend to show quite a different picture. Here, the transfer of financial
resources from the central government is vital for the local governments if they are to perform their
new roles properly, if only to cover the expenses of services now provided to the citizens by them on
behalf of the central government (Estado 2008, p. 372). This is even more important as many
municipal authorities in Latin America lack the necessary capacities to raise their own revenues (van
Lindert & Verkoren 2004). By and large these local administrations suffer from a lack of competent
staff, who would normally be held responsible for setting up and maintaining administrative
information systems, analyzing local development opportunities, project planning, providing
infrastructure and public services, collecting local taxes, development fees and user charges, etc. On
top of that the small cities do not have the same opportunities as their big sisters to engage in debt
financing (e.g. through municipal development funds) in order to contract additional means for
investment. As the lion’s share of the small local budgets is spent on personnel costs (in some cases up
to 70-80 per cent), it is hardly surprising that many of the tasks that were transferred from the central
government to the local government cannot be carried out properly (Van Lindert 2005). A truly
functioning subsidiarity principle calls for more than ‘just’ political decentralisation; it must be
completed with a genuine and meaningful form of fiscal decentralisation.

Local government and citizen participation in Latin America

One of the traditional primary roles of local government is to secure the smooth and efficient
functioning of the public services, which are generally managed by its technical-administrative
apparatus. As a matter of fact, this was one of the fundamental arguments of the first generation of
decentralisation proponents, who also claimed that it would be easier to tailor local-level services to

17
local needs and preferences. Implicitly, however, this raises the question as to how such local needs
and preferences are to be identified. The current decentralisation doctrine firmly holds that ‘the only
feasible way is to have an inclusive process of local governance through which each segment of the
population can express and fight over their preferences’ (Osmani 2000, p. 6).

Parallel to the recognition that citizen participation is an essential prerequisite for local
sustainable development, the vital role of the local government became also universally
acknowledged. In the current international development debate, local government is held to be the key
agent both with respect to local sustainability and to the eradication of poverty. The poverty reduction
strategy papers of the most indebted countries, for example, generally include a strategic focus on
local government, which is to become the main facilitator for the effective provision of social services
and the creation of a productive environment. Also, capacity strengthening projects for local
governments are now part and parcel of many international development aid programmes (UCLG
2008), including the so-called City-to-City partnerships that work through peer-to-peer approaches and
exchanges (Bontenbal 2009a,b; Bontenbal & Van Lindert 2009; Campbell 2009; Van Lindert 2009).
Most of such programmes focus on how local governments can become more effective agents for the
improvement of local production and living conditions.
As mentioned above, the new developmental role of the local governments implies that they
really open up to their constituencies for participation in decision-making, not only during election
times but especially when they have taken office. Latin America presents many interesting experiences
which demonstrate how local government may become the prime mover for civil society to effectively
participate in matters that concern their own living and production environments (Bontenbal & Van
Lindert 2008). Such restructuring of the relationships between government and citizens is crucial to
‘good governance’. According to Mitlin (2004, p.3), governance ‘encompasses the institutions and
processes, both formal and informal, which provide for the interaction of the state with a range of
other agents or stakeholders affected by the activities of the government’. Many authors, including
Mitlin (2004), Gaventa (2001), Osmani (2000), and Schneider (1999), use the notion of participatory
governance, which appears to carry a similar meaning as an earlier term: participatory democracy (as
opposed to representative democracy). Both terms imply institutionalised processes through which
stakeholders participate in activities such as needs assessments, agenda setting, decision-making,
inspection and monitoring. Defined in this way, participatory governance is a necessary, but not a
sufficient precondition for good governance. In addition to fostering participatory action, governance
should also be transparent, accountable and contribute to equality before it would duly deserve the
good governance certificate (UNDP 1998; Nijenhuis 2002). In this respect, Andrews & Shah (2005)
use the concept of citizen-centered governance. They give the following three distinguishing features:

18
 Box 3 – The role of local government under the new vision of local governance
‘old view’ (20th century) ‘new view’ (21st century)

Based on residuality and local
Based on subsidiarity and home rule

governments as wards of the state

Focused on government

Agent of the central government

Responsive and accountable to higher-
level governments

Direct provider of local services

Intolerance for risk

Depends on central directives

Bureaucratic and technocratic

Coercive

Fiscally irresponsible

Exclusive with elite capture

Focused on citizen-centered local governance

Primary agent for the citizens; leader and
gatekeeper for shared rule

Responsive and accountable to local voters;
assumes leadership role in improving local
governance

Purchaser of local services

Innovative; risk taker within limits

Autonomous in taxing, spending, regulatory,
and administrative decisions

Participatory; works to strengthen citizen voice
and exit options through direct democracy
provisions, citizens’ charters, and performance
budgeting

Focused on earning trust, creating space for
civic dialogue, serving the citizens, and
improving social outcomes

Fiscally prudent; works better and costs less

Inclusive and participatory

Source: A. Shah & S. Shah (2006), p. 43.

citizen empowerment through a rights-based approach, bottom-up accountability for results, and
evaluation of government performance (as the facilitator of a network of providers) by citizens (in
their multiple roles as governors, taxpayers, and consumers of public services). Box 3 presents the key
elements of this new role of local government, as summarised by Shah & Shah (2006).
When applied to the role of the local government as to development and poverty reduction,
participatory governance is seen to have considerably more potential than purely bureaucratic-
technocratic forms of governance. Schneider (1999) emphasises that joint decision-making by
politicians, civil servants and the relevant stakeholders (including the poor and other intended
beneficiaries) leads to more efficient (and just) outcomes, since decisions and policies will be based on
information that is more complete and of a better quality. A second rationale for citizen-centred
governance that is stressed by Schneider is the fact that all actors are accountable vis-à-vis all
stakeholders, and if effective mechanisms of sanctioning have been put in place, participatory
governance will result in high levels of commitment to poverty reduction and development (Schneider
1999, p. 523).
The accountability issue, including the associated sanctioning mechanisms, is also identified
by Blair (2000) as one of the major conditions for participatory governance to succeed. From an
analysis of six countries with relatively successful track records of decentralisation and participation
this author also stresses the importance of having a critical mass to participate in the political process.

19
Participatory democracy only works if participation is general, and not limited to only a few interested
stakeholders or the male segment of the population (Blair 2000).
Another important lesson learned from the Brazilian participatory budgeting experience is that
the process of participatory democracy is not sustainable or irreversible by itself. One condition for
irreversibility is that the population at large is aware of the importance of the process and its benefits
(Cabannes 2004, p. 45). This is demonstrated in the case of Porto Alegre, where, contrary to what
several other municipalities in Brazil have experienced, participatory budgeting proved to outlast a
change in government. Here, in the cradle of the participatory budgeting (PB) experience, the
Workers’ Party, which had introduced PB, had governed for an uninterrupted period of 15 years since
1989. The year-round PB-meetings involved ever-increasing numbers of participants who knew
exactly what their entitlements were and also noticed that there had been a substantial shift in spending
towards the poorest areas of the city (Wampler 2007). Remarkably, the conservative municipal
administration that came into power in the year 2004, carried on the PB process as before, initially
perhaps also out of fear that it would otherwise lose legitimacy. Since then, the local government has
successfully restructured its urban management system and parallel to this it sustains a further
institutionalisation of the PB process through the proposal for a Law on Participatory Budgeting2.
Whereas in Porto Alegre the PB process was institutionalised following its successful practice
– and not imposed by rules from above – Bolivia presents a different case. In Bolivia, the central
government promulgated various laws in order to force participatory governance on to the local
governments (Van Lindert & Nijenhuis 2002). After a hesitant start and some initial resistance from
the organised peasants’ segment in Bolivian society, the new legal and regulatory frameworks were
soon followed by a massive transformation of the country’s socio-political landscapes (Assies 2003).
Most importantly, the municipalities received relatively large amounts of money transferred from the
central government, provided that they would follow the mandatory participatory planning procedures
and follow up with formal municipal development plans. In sum, local governance ought to be
intimately related with a well-defined decentralisation program which, apart from its local
development goals, is specifically aimed to tackle democratic deficits (such as human-, gender-,
democratic/political rights), to achieve a proper transition from a representative democracy to a
participatory democracy and to bring about effective local decision making (see e.g. Gill 2000; UNDP
2002; Greig et al. 2007).

2
Projeto de Lei Orçamentaria [www2.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/op/default.php?p_secao=1] and
[www.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/portaldegestao].

20
Concluding remarks

This article on the shifts in the international urban development debate only partly reflects the more
general trends and changes in development paradigms. Thus, on the one hand, the switch from typical
modernisation theories in the 1960s to the ‘redistribution with growth’ and ‘basic needs’ approaches of
the 1970s has also become visible in an increased acceptance and understanding of the self-help
development potential of squatters. In this reorientation, the Habitat-1 conference played an important
role. On the other hand, however, the politico-economic analyses of that decade, e.g. the views of the
Latin American dependency scholars or the insights resulting form the ‘modes-of-articulation’ debate,
never made their way into the international agencies’ offices in Washington, New York, or Nairobi.
The politico-economic approaches were probably simply too radical and – even when their analyses
were correct – they were not considered really relevant for policy formulation. In any case, the neo-
liberal realities that characterised the next decade soon made any prospect for radical societal
engineering illusive. The economic structural adjustment programmes that were enforced upon many
of the developing countries in the 1980s left no room for adequate social government policies. Only
the effectiveness and efficiency of market functioning could fit in the neo-liberal development
thinking. The emphasis of urban development policies moved entirely towards the growth of urban
productivity and the strengthening of the financial sector. The enabling approach went hand in glove
with the ideological principles of state retreat.
The 1990s marked a height in the promulgation of administrative decentralisation laws in
Latin America. In many nations, at least part of the central state’s duties and responsibilities were
passed down to the local governments, although often such delegation of authority was not matched
with a related transfer of financial resources. The principle of subsidiarity, meaning that the various
government echelons should focus solely on their own tasks that cannot be performed at lower
government levels, is in most of the cases not yet fully translated into actual practice. The effect of
such incomplete decentralisation processes has been that it became essential for local governments to
become more independent, both with respect to municipal finance and to their technical and
managerial capabilities.
The same decade witnessed the gradual paradigm shift towards sustainable development and
local governance. There was general agreement that, in order to secure sustainable urban futures, the
social, economic, and environmental components of urban development were to be incorporated into
holistic planning frameworks. The 1992 Earth Summit was at the same time the reflection of and the
catalyst for initiatives in this field. The resulting Local Agenda 21 symbolises the importance of local
action for sustainable development. A few years later, on the occasion of the City Summit in 1996, the

21
Habitat Agenda was proclaimed with a twofold focus: ‘sustainable human settlements development’
and ‘the right to adequate shelter for all’.
The drive for sustainable local development, under the primary responsibility of local
governments but constrained by their small budgets and often poorly developed administrative
capacities, led to an increased demand for training support, knowledge exchange, capacity building,
and institutional strengthening. The Urban Management Programme and subsequent international
donor programmes were adapted to meet these demands. In the rhetoric of the international
institutions, substance was given to good local governance by focusing on the integrity of local
authorities and on improved transparency and accountability, as well as improved ownership and
participation of all stakeholders. Additionally, and still against the background of the neo-liberal
enabling approach, public-private relationships started to thrive, leaving as much as possible to the
private sector. In their drive to provide services to their urban populations without relying on state
subsidies, and in a more commercial way than before, local authorities have often decided to either
outsource such service provisions, or privatise them altogether, without listening to the voices of their
citizens. In most countries the privatisation of resource exploitation and service provision was mainly
a matter of national politics. In the present decade, citizen mobilization evolved especially against the
(threat of) privatisation of collective resources like water, energy, and land. As a consequence of such
urban social movements struggling to safeguard their collective resources, various mayors and the
presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador, respectively, have been forced to resign – thus witnessing the limits
of the neo-liberal economic model in Latin America.
The desired improvement of citizens’ influence in local decision making has moved to the
centre stage of nearly all programmes of international cooperation, be it the multilateral or the bilateral
programmes, or those of non-governmental agencies. Independently from these international
cooperation programmes, however, Latin American cities are now performing pioneering roles in
developing highly original forms of citizen consultation on city-wide scales. After some initial
experimental ventures, many participatory planning and participatory budgeting models have already
been institutionalised in both small and large cities. Such innovative governance practices now are an
important source of inspiration to the cities of the North, rather than the other way around. Recent
studies of municipal governance in Europe are indeed witnessing a countermovement of traditional
North-South flows which bring Latin American participatory budgeting models to cities in Spain,
Italy, France, Germany, and other countries in Europe (Alegretti & Herzberg 2004; Sintomer 2004).

22
References
Abers, R. (1998) Learning Democratic Practice: Distributing Government Resources Through Popular
Participation in Porto Alegre, Brazil, pp. 29-65 in M. Douglas & J. Friedmann (eds): Cities for
Citizens. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Abbott, J. (1996) Sharing the City. Community Participation in Urban Management. London:
Earthscan.
Abrams, Ch. (1966) Housing in the modern world. London: Faber and Faber.
Alegretti, G. & C. Herzberg (2004) Participatory Budgeting in Europe. Between efficiency and
growing local democracy. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.
Andrews, M. & A. Shah (2005) Citizen-Centered Governance: a New Approach to Public Sector
Reform. Pp. 153-182 in A. Shah (ed.): Public Expenditure Analysis. Washington (DC): World
Bank.
Assies, W. (2003) La descentralización a la Boliviana y la économía política’ del reformismo, pp. 135-
160 in W. Assies (ed.): Gobiernos locales y reforma del Estado en América Latina: Innovando la
Gestión Pública. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán.
Blair, H. (2000) Participation and Accountability in the Periphery: An Assessment of Democratic
Local Governance, World Development 28, 1, pp. 21-39.
Bontenbal, M. (2009a) Cities as partners. The challenge to strengthen urban governance trough North-
South city partnerships. Delft: Eburon.
Bontenbal, M. (2009b) Understanding North-South municipal partnership conditions for capacity
development: a Dutch-Peruvian example, Habitat International 33, 1, pp. 100-105.
Bontenbal, M. & P. van Lindert (2008) Bridging local institutions and civil society in Latin America:
can city-to-city cooperation make a difference? Environment & Urbanization 29, 2, pp. 465-482.
Bontenbal, M. & P. van Lindert (2009) Transnational city-to-city cooperation: Issues arising from
theory and practice, Habitat International 33, 2, pp. 131-133.
Burgess, R. (1985) The limits of self-help housing programmes. Development and Change 16, pp.
271-312.
Cabannes, Y. (2004) Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy,
Environment and Urbanization, 16 (1) pp. 27-46.
Campbell, T. (2009) Learning cities: Knowledge, capacity and competetiveness, Habitat International
33, 2, pp. 195-201.
Canel, E. (2001) Municipal decentralisation and participatory democracy: building a new mode of
urban politics in Montevideo City? European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 71,
pp. 25-46.
Chavez, D. (2004) Polis & Demos: the left in municipal government in Montevideo and Porto Alegre.
Maastricht: Shaker.
Cohen, M. & J. Leitmann (1994) Will the World Bank’s real “new urban policy” please stand up?
Habitat International 18, 4, pp. 117-126.
Corrêa de Oliveira, M.T. (2004) Multi-sectoral partnerships in Brazil. A new scenario of its limits and
possibilitities, pp. 155-161 in D. Kruijt, P. van Lindert & O. Verkoren (eds.): State and
Development. Essays in honour of Menno Vellinga. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
Daughters, R. & L. Harper (2007) Fiscal and Political Decentralization Reforms. In: E. Lora (Ed.) The
State of State Reform in Latin America, pp. 213-261. Palo Alto/Washington, Stanford University
Press & World Bank.
Engelhardt, R. (1988) Verdrängerungstendenzen im Konsolidierungsprozesz randstädtischer
Elendsviertel: eine Fallstudie aus Salvador, Brasilien. Trialog 18, pp. 17-23.
Estado de la Nación (2008) Estado de la Región en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible. Un informe desde
Centroamérica para Centroamérica. San José: Programa Estado de la Nación-Región.
[www.estadonacion.or.cr].
Fedozzi, L. (2001) Orçamento Participativo. Reflexões sobre a experiência de Porto Alegre. Porto
Alegre/Rio de Janeiro: Tomo Editorial/FASE.
Gaventa, J. (2001) Participatory local governance: six propositions for development. IDS: paper
presented to the Ford Foundation.

23
Gilbert, A. (2006) Good Urban Governance: Evidence from a Model City? Bulletin of Latin American
Research 25, 3, pp. 392-419.
Gilbert, R., D. Stevenson, H. Girardet & R. Stren (1996) Making Cities Work. The Role of Local
Authorities in the Urban Environment. London: Earthscan.
Gill, G. (2000) The Dynamics of Democratization. Elites, Civil Society and the Transition Process.
Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Ginsburg, N., B. Koppel & T.G. McGee (eds.) (1991) The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition
in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Greig, A., D. Hulme & M. Turner (2007) Challenging Global Inequality. Development Theory and
Practice in the 21st Century. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hardoy, J. & D. Satterthwaite (eds.) (1986) Small and Intermediate Urban Centres: Their Role in
Regional and National Development in the Third World. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Harris, Nigel (2002) Cities as Economic Development Tools. Comparative Urban Studies Project
Policy Brief. Washington (DC): Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Harris, Richard & Ceinwen Giles (2003) A mixed message: the agents and forms of international
housing policy, 1945-1973. Habitat International 27, pp. 167-191.
Helmsing, A. (2000) Decentralization and Enablement : issues in the local governance debate.
Inaugural address. Utrecht: UU.
IDB (2000) Making decentralisation work in Latin America and the Caribbean; a background paper
for the subnational development strategy. Washington: IDB/Sustainable Development Department.
Jenkins, P., H. Smith & Y.P. Wang (2007) Planning and Housing in the Rapidly Urbanising World.
London/New York: Routledge.
Jones, G. & P. Ward (1994) The World Bank’s ‘new’ urban management programme: paradigm shift
or policy continuity? Habitait International 18, 3, pp. 33-51.
Lindert, P. van (2005) Local Government, pp. 415-417 in T. Forsyth (ed.): The Encyclopedia of
International Development. London: Routledge.
Lindert, P. van (2009) Transnational linking of loal governments: The consolidation of the Utrecht-
León municipal partnership, Habitat International 33, 2, pp. 173-180.
Lindert, P. van & G. Nijenhuis (2002) Popular Participation and the Participatory Planning Practice in
Latin America: Some Evidence from Bolivia and Brazil, pp. 175-196 in I.S.A. Baud & J. Post
(eds.): Realigning Actors in an Urbanizing World: Governance and Institutions from a
Development Perspective. London: Ashgate.
Lindert, P. van & O. Verkoren (eds.) (1997) Small Towns and Beyond. Rural Transformation and
Small Urban Centres in Latin America. Amsterdam: Thela Publishers.
Lindert, P. van & O. Verkoren (2004) Planificación del desarrollo local-regional en Bolivia. In:
Bustamante, F. (Ed.) Planificación y municipalización en Bolivia. Agentes y Actores, Municipio
Productivo y Sistemas Urbanos en Municipios de Cochabamba, pp. 353-366. Cochabamba,
Bolivia. PROMEC-UMSS.
Lora, E. (2007) State Reform in Latin America: A Silent Revolution. In: E. Lora (Ed.) TheState of
State Reform in Latin America, pp. 1-56. Palo Alto/Washington: Stanford University Press/World
Bank.
Luca, M. de, M.P. Jones & M.I. Tula (2002) Buenos Aires: The Evolution of Local Governance, pp.
65-94 in D.J. Meyers & H.A. Dietz (eds): Capital City Politics in Latin America: Democratisation
and Empowerment. Boulder (CO): Lynne Rieder.
Mangin, W. (1967) Latin American squatter settlements: a problem and a solution. Latin American
Research Review 2, 3, pp. 65-98.
McGee, T.G. (1991) The Emergence of Desakota Regions in Asia: Expanding a Hypothesis, pp. 3-25
in N. Ginsburg, B. Koppel & T.G. McGee (eds.): The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition
in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Metropolis (1994) Towards a Local “Agenda 21”. An urban synthesis of agenda 21; a guide for local
authorities. Paris: METROPOLIS/UTO/IULA/SUMMIT.
Meyers, D.J. & H.A. Dietz (eds) (2002) Capital City Politics in Latin America: Democratisation and
Empowerment. Boulder (CO): Lynne Rieder.
Mitlin, D. (2004) Reshaping local democracy, Environment & Urbanization 16, 1, pp. 3-8.

24
Nijenhuis, G. (2002) Decentralisation and Popular Participation in Bolivia. The Link between Local
Governance and Local Development. Netherlands Geographical Studies 299. Utrecht: KNAG/UU.
Nijenhuis, G. (2008) Political decentralisation and participatory governance in Latin America, Africa
and Asia: an overview. Journal of Development Alternatives and Area Studies 27, 3-4, pp. 117-
139.
Osmani, S.R. (2000) Participatory Governance, People’s Empowerment and Poverty Reduction.
SEPED Conference Series 7. New York: UNDP/SEPED.
[http://www.undp.org/seped/publications/conf_pub.htm].
Paiva, A. (2003) Relevance of Metropolitan Government in Latin American Cities. Inter-institutional
coordination in Caracas, Venezuela and Monterrey, Mexico. Delft: Eburon.
Payne, G. (ed.) (1999) Making Common Ground. Public-private partnerships in land for housing.
London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Piciotto, R. & R. Weaving (1994) A new project cycle for the World Bank? Finance and
Development, September.
Pugh, C. (1994) Housing policy development in developing countries; the World Bank and
internationalization, 1972-93. Cities 11, pp. 159-180.
RAWOO (2005) The urban challenge: a question of knowledge. Rethinking the role of knowledge in
poverty alleviation. RAWOO Publication 28. The Hague: RAWOO.
Rothenberg, I. (1981) ‘Symbolic schemes’ and housing policy for the poor: lessons from Colombia,
Mexico, Chile and Hong Kong. Comparative Urban research 2, pp. 48-75.
Satterthwaite, David & Cecilia Tacoli (2003) The urban part of rural development: the role of small
and intermediate urban centres in rural and regional development and poverty reduction. Working
Paper series in Rural-Urban Interactions and Livelihood Strategies # 9. London: IIED.
Schneider, H. (1999) Participatory Governance for Poverty Reduction, Journal of International
Development 11, pp. 521-534.
Schwartz, H. (2004) Urban Renewal, Municipal Revitalization. The Case of Curitiba, Brazil.
Alexandria (VA): Schwartz.
Scott, A. J., (ed.) (2001) Global City-Regions. Trends, Theory, Policy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Shah, A. & S. Shah (2006): The New Vision of Local Governance and the Evolving Roles of Local
Governments. Pp. 1-46 in Anwar Shah (Ed.): Local Governance in Developing Countries.
Washington (DC): World Bank.
Sintomer, Y. (2004) Los presupuestos participativos en Europa: retos y desafios. IX Congreso
Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública. Madrid,
España, 2-5 Noviembre.
Souza, C. (2001) Participatory Budgeting in Brazilian Cities: Limits and Possibilities in Building
Democratic Institutions. Environment and Urbanization, April, pp. 159-184.
Smets, P. (1999) Quite a bit, or a bit of self-help? The challenge to appraise housing finance policies
for the urban poor at the start of the third millenium. Paper presented at the seminar Housing and
Sustainability: Emerging trends for a new Millennium, 7 April 1999. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical
University.
Titus, M. & J. Hinderink (eds) (1998) Town and Hinterland in Developing Countries. Perspectives on
Rural-Urban Interaction and Regional Development. Amsterdam: Thela Publishers.
Turner, J. (1972) Housing as a verb. In: J. Turner & R. Fichter (eds): Freedom to build. London:
Macmillan.
UCLG (2008) Decentralization and local democracy in the world. First global Report.
Barcelona/Washington (DC): UCLG/World Bank
[www.cities-localgovernments.org/gold/gold_report.asp]
UNCHS (1990) The Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. Nairobi: UNCHS.
UNCHS (1996b) The Habitat Agenda. Goals and Principles, Commitments and Global Plan of Action.
Istanbul: UNCHS.
UNCHS (1997) Shelter for all: the potential of housing policy in the implementation of the habitat
agenda. [www.unchs.org/unchs/english/shelter]
UNDP (1991) Cities, people and poverty: urban development cooperation for the 1990s. New York:
UNDP.

25
UNDP (1997) Reconceptualising Governance. Management and Governance Division (discussion
paper 2). New York: UNDP.
UNDP (1998) UNDP priorities in support of good governance. New York: UNDP.UNDP (2002)
Human Development Report 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World. New York:
Oxford University Press.
UN-Habitat (2003) The Challenge of Slums. Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. London:
Earthscan.
UN-Habitat (2004) The State of the World’s Cities 2004/2005. Globalization and Urban Culture.
London: Earthscan.
Verma, G. D. (2000) Indore’s Habitat Improvement Project: success of failure? Habitat International
24, pp. 91-117.
Wampler, B. (2007) Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and
Accountability. University Park (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press.
Ward, P. (ed.) (1982) Self-help housing. A Critique. London: Mansell.
Woods, N. (2000) The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves.
World Development 28, pp. 823-841.
World Bank (1990) Urban Policy and Economic Development, an Agenda for the 1990s. Washington
D.C.: World Bank.
World Bank (1992) Housing: enabling markets to work. Washington: World Bank.
World Bank (1999) Entering the 21st Century. World Development Report 1999/2000. New York
N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
World Bank (2000) Cities in Transition: A Strategic View of Urban and Local Government Issues.
Washington D.C.: World Bank.
World Bank & UNCHS (1999) Cities Alliance for Cities Without Slums. Action Plan for Moving Slum
Upgrading to Scale… (World Bank Group Annual Meetings 1999 Special Summary Edition).
Washington D.C.: World Bank/UNCHS.
World Bank & UNCHS (2000) The Cities Alliance Vision. A Draft for Discussion and Debate.
Meeting of the Consultative Group. Montreal, Canada, June 12-13, 2000.
Zanetta, Cecilia (2001) The evolution of World Bank’s urban lending in Latin America: from sites and
services to municipal reform and beyond. Habitat International 25, pp. 513-533.

26