paper about prosperity

Write about urban prosperity .. check attachment for instructions (structure word file)

APA style

Double space

15 pages

Add the 5 pages in (City prosperity 2) word file so the total will be 20 pages

City Prosperity

Introduction:

UN habitat developed City Prosperity Index in the year 2012 in order to assess the ability of the cities to avoid consumption of natural resources while making development. CPI works along with a matrix that is called as the Wheel of Urban Prosperity. Actually, CPI was constructed after the studies that were regulated in 54 cities of the growing world. These surveys were regulated to for the concepts of affluence and recognize the most significant elements of prosperity (Paulo, N.D). Specialists from various countries like Africa, Asia, Latin America and UAE accepted the idea that six important elements are necessary for prosperity of the cities that are standard of life, development of infrastructure, yield, fairness and communal inclusion, sustainability of environment, and rules and law. The central governments and regional powers requested the UN habitat in 2013 to evaluate their relevant CPIs (Paulo, N.D). So, the CPI was changed into an international enterprise named as the City Prosperity Initiative.

The City Prosperity Initiative:

The City Prosperity Initiative offers values and indices that are pertinent to the cities. Besides, this CPI permits the authorities of cities, and regional and state stakeholders to recognize the possibilities and prospective regions of their cities to make interventions and trigger prosperity. The developing cities and their residents cannot make informed decisions without utilizing indices and information that is approved at global level (Paulo, N.D). The knowledgeable decisions are important for determining the types of policies, areas for allocation of state and private wealth, ways for identifying issues and possibilities and measuring the change. The prosperity initiative is formulated on the basis of basic rights of the people. It takes into account the contemplation that procedure of urbanization should stick to notions of human rights. Whereas, the cities should fulfill the merits of human rights (Paulo, N.D).

Therefore, approach to suitable residence, sanitation and water which are arranged in different human rights settlements, are an intrinsic part of CPI metrics and measures. The concept of metropolitan sustainability and prosperity by UN habitat contemplates that every aspect of city extension and spread is included in the six groups that are distinguished in section 1 (Paulo, N.D). These six categories or aspects symbolically indicate six unique dimensions. These dimensions are productivity that constitutes towards expansion and growth of the economy, quality of life that provides communal services to enhance living standard and ensures protection, physical infrastructure is concerned with utilization of physical assets, governance and its supports, Justice and social inclusion refers to equal division of resources and facilities and elimination of poverty and the sixth dimension is sustainability of environment that emphasizes on protecting natural resources while creating profitability.

It is important to note here that an equitable growth is a significant characteristic of welfare. So a single aspect should not dominant other aspects of prosperity and all features should be retained at equal level (Paulo, N.D). However, practically it is very difficult to realize such a city where all six categories are practiced at equitable level. So, it is important to demand for strategy involvement as advised by the Wheel of Urban Prosperity (Paulo, N.D). Different metropolitan authority roles for instance, metropolitan planning, regional system of control and management involving civil community intercessions guarantee that a single aspect of prosperity should not achieve pervasiveness over the other aspects.

1. CPI and the wheel of metropolitan prosperity:

A greatly profitable city should function in a sustainable manner otherwise it will disintegrate automatically. A richest city will not be considered as a prosperous city if it does not exhibit equal diffusion of material welfare (Sands, 2015). If some of the regions in a richest city have no access to free facilities and services then this city will not be termed as an affluent city. The wheel of city welfare is specifically applicable. The center of this wheel is important to keep the estimates together at one place. The various metrics of each aspect of prosperity should achieve a commensurable level of productivity because it is essential for the smooth functioning of the wheel (Sands, 2015). The five features of prosperity are called as “Spokes” of the ring. These spokes are infrastructure, quality of life, productivity, stability of environment and justice and communal inclusion (Wong, 2015). Each of these spokes is determined individually and it further assists in recognizing robustness and deficiencies of the society and the regions that need interventions.

The metropolitan operations such as civil community involvement, metropolitan planning and regional and governmental institutions of development are united by the center of the wheel that are linked with regional metropolitan growth (Wong, 2015). Furthermore, the center of the prosperity wheel indicates human performance in all dimensions and grasp all spokes at one place struggling to manage the stability and unity of those spokes. There are four main roles that are performed during this struggle. First role is to make sure that public is preferred over any kind benefit. Second role emphasizes on commanding speed, momentum and regulation of wheel (Wong, 2015). Third role considers the stability of 5 spokes and the synergies that are linked to these spokes. Fourth role is to reduce the impacts of the shocks which are generated by these spokes.

Metropolitan is directly associated with the growth of populace because if the number of the individuals will be increased in a city then there will be more demand for residential buildings, offices and shopping malls. In other words, there exist a sound linear relationship between population increase and urban development at national level (Fodor, 2012). Therefore the development in the units of housing can trace the development in pollution almost in a precise way. The notion of “Prosperity” is linked with welfare of the economy that is computed through the elements like frequency of poverty, unemployment and income. Prosperity can also be quantified by GDP which calculates economic undertaking of a nation, region or state on overall basis (Fodor, 2012). There are many other representations of prosperity that considers those elements which are irrelevant to an economic activity like happiness, health and contentment.

1. CPI framework added features:

City Prosperity Initiative provides holistic approach for sustainable metropolis growth. CPI assists in interpreting connections between various features of city expansion. It also offers a compound value. The regional and state governments can understand the concepts of inclusive, sustainable, safe and strong cities in an un-segregated way. The methodology of CPI aims to develop benchmarks at international level for every indicator that makes it possible to compare various measures. It also discovers the constructive effect of a chosen strategy on the development of a city.

UN habitat defines the city prosperity as a condition that is linked with sufficient provision of public areas and streets. As stated by the UN habitat, the cities which have good quality of environment and life are those cities that offer superior street linkage (City Prosperity Initiative, N.D). While the underdeveloped and slums regions have almost half of the total proportion of the roads in comparison to stronger regions of the metropolis. An indicator is developed by UN habitat to gauge this basic feature. This measure is dependent on three key variables that are street mass, crossing mass and dry land that is allotted for roads and streets. City Prosperity Initiative generates data at metropolitan level but it also offers data at regional level. This data is very helpful and significant for making important decisions regarding main regions of growth in a city like mechanism of administration and reinforcement of metropolitan law, utilization of metropolis economy and developing work possibilities for everyone, strengthening metropolitan finance and enhancing housing and fundamental delivery of services (City Prosperity Initiative, N.D).

1. City Prosperity Initiative and City Prosperity Index:

In order to enhance the functioning of City Prosperity Initiative, city prosperity index is developed that link the contextual features of the metropolises. This index is calculated according to three different situations or frameworks (Paulo, N.D). First is the basic city prosperity index. This index is used for those cities that make comparison of their productivity and extent of growth with the cities in international and regional sphere. It uses those measures which are commonly accessible among all metropolises. The Extended City Prosperity Index uses those measures that are not commonly accessible among all metropolises. Therefore, comparison is not the main goal of this index. The specific features of the metropolis and accessibility of regional data decides the abundance of the measures that are intended to be used (City Prosperity Initiative, N.D). The Contextual City Prosperity Index is the advanced type of extended prosperity index. In this type of index, some variables are also used along with fundamental and larger measures.

Conclusion:

In spite of all these initiatives and undertakings, the knowledge about urban development is still narrow in some ways. For example, many reports cover limited geographic regions at international level (Wong, 2015). Most of the reports emphasize on ranking and offer a specific feature of communal change. Furthermore, it can be concluded that extension is linked with the success of economic growth but it is not the main reason of that successfulness. An effective program of economic growth produces new work opportunities. These new work opportunities lead towards population development because more people move towards the cities to avail these opportunities. Thus it triggers production of employment (Wong, 2015). The cities that grow rapidly in terms of population can be seen as prosperous cities just because of more population. But the fact is that such cities have low level of prosperity. For example, when more people shift towards cities to avail job possibilities then basically they are decreasing those prospects (Wong, 2015).

References

1. Paulo, S. (N.D). “Measurement of City Prosperity: Methodology and Metadata” UN Habitat.

1. Sands, G. (2015) ‘Measuring the prosperity of cities, Habitat International, 45, pp. 1-2.

1. Wong, C. (2015). ‘A framework for ‘City Prosperity Index’: Linking indicators, analysis and policy, Habitat International, 45, pp. 3-9.

1. Fodor, E. (2012) ‘Relationship between Growth and Prosperity in the 100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas’ Economic Development Quarterly 26(3) 220– 230.

1. “City Prosperity Initiative” [Brochure]. (N.D), Kenya: UN-Habitat.

1. “The global goals for sustainable development and city prosperity initiative” [PDF]. Pages 1-16. UN Habitat.

Global City Report

THE CITY PROSPERITY INITIATIVE

Caracas, Venezuela © Regina Orvañanos

UN-Habitat is the United Nations programme
working towards a better urban future. Its mission is
to promote socially and environmentally sustainable
human settlements development and the achieve-
ment of adequate shelter for all. UN-Habitat, the
United Nations programme for human settlements, is
at the helm of that change, assuming a natural
leadership and catalytic role in urban matters.

Partners

International City Leaders (ICL) works with partners
to build capacity to manage urban growth throug

strategy development, organizational gap analysis
and training and conference design at local, national
and global levels. It aims to bridge the knowledge
gap between local and central governments, cit

leaders and academia by creating a space for mayors,
elected officials and city leaders to gain knowledge
and expertise on a host of innovative developments
in the field of sustainable urban development.

Credits

City Prosperity Initiative Coordinators: Eduardo López Moreno, Regina Orvañanos Murguía

Global City Report: Eduardo López Moreno, Regina Orvañanos Murguía, Giulia Lavagna

Data Collection: Robert Ndugwa, Anthony Abilla, Sandy Okth, Irene Maina, Regina Orvañanos Murguía

Design and Layout: Giulia Lavagna

Country Projects
Mexico: Erik Vittrup, Alfonso Iracheta
Colombia: Edgar Cafaño, Alfredo Bateman
Saudi Arabia: Tarek El-Sheik, Dr. Abdul Rahman Al-Sheikh
Kenya: Cecilia Anderson, Jose Luis Chong

International City Leaders – CPI Metropolitan

Reza Pourvaziry, President

John Hogan, Executive Director

Prabha Khosla, Director of Programmes

DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever o

the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or
concerning delimitations of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. The analysis, conclu-
sions and reccomendations of this reports do not necessarely reflect the views of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme or
its Governing Council. The Report is produced with official data provided by governments and additional information gathered by the
Global Urban Observatory. Cities and countries are invited to update data relevant to them. It is important to acknowledge that data
varies according to definitions and sources.

Content
A summary of the City Prosperity Initiative results

Introduction
The City Prosperity Initiative………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Methodology
CPI Framework…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Conceptualizing Prosperity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Indicators…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

15 Global City Report
Overview of cities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
CPI

dimensions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Prosperity Index classification………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2015 Prosperity Index
Cities with very solid prosperity index……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Cities with solid prosperity index……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cities with moderately solid prosperity index……………………………………………………………………………………………
Cities with moderately weak prosperity index…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Cities with weak and very weak prosperity index………………………………………………………………………………………

2015 Regional Index
Africa………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
America…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Asia and Oceania………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Europe………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2015 Dimension Index
Productivity………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Infrastructure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Quality of Life…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Equity and Inclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Environmental sustainability………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Governance and legislation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2015 Global CPI Implementation
CPI Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
CPI Framework…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Linking Data to Policy Making……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
CPI as Strategy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
A way foward to more prosperous cities…………………………………………………………………………………………………
The CPI as monitoring tool for SDG

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Lisbon, Portugal © Giulia Lavagna

pg. 1

pg.

pg. 1

pg.

pg. 1

pg.

pg. 2

pg.

In 2012, UN-Habitat created a tool to measure the
sustainability of cities. This tool known as The City
Prosperity Index was accompanied by a conceptual
matrix, the Wheel of Urban Prosperity. In 2013, UN-
Habitat received numerous requests from local autho-
rities and central governments to estimate their
respective prosperity indexes.

Mayors and other decision-makers wanted to know
how their cities feature in comparison with other
cities. This included knowledge on how to improve
ratings and measurements of cities towards the
prosperity path, including gaining critical insights into
which programmes and policies work, and the possi-
ble impacts these actions may have.

CPI – Introduction

The City Prosperity Initiative

As a result of these demands, UN-Habitat transformed the
City Prosperity Index into a global initiative known as the
City Prosperity Initiative. This initiative is both a metric and a
policy dialogue, which offers cities from developed and
developing countries the possibility to create indicators and
baseline information. It also serves to define targets and
goals that can support the formulation of evidence-based
policies, including the definition of city-visions and long-
term plans that are both ambitious and measurable.

UN-Habitat’s City Prosperity Initiative (CPI) not only
provides indices and measurements relevant to cities, i

also enables city authorities, as well as local and natio-
nal stakeholders, to identify opportunities and poten-
tial areas of intervention for their cities to become
more prosperous.

A tool to measure sustainable urban development

Lima, Perù © Giulia Lavagna

CPI – Methodology

CPI Framework

GLOBAL CITY MONITORING

– Global Monitoring is the starting point for the compari-
son of cities, using a limited number of indicators that are
representative of Prosperity and Sustainable Urban
Development;

– The Global City Report uses official data from cities and
countries in most cases. However, UN-Habitat validates
and in some cases looks for other official or reliable
sources to complement the data gathering;

– In some cases official data are not reliable or comparable
because cities and countries use different local/national
definitions for some indicators (i.e. unemployment, pover-
ty..)

– More governance indicators are required for better
diagnosis and comparability because they create some
distorsion in values of cities like Vienna, Tokyo or Sao
Paulo;

– UN-Habitat invites cities to participate in the City Prospe-
rity Initiative to advance the data collection and the policy
analysis to higher levels as described in the last section;

– For the 2016 edition of The Global City Report,
UN-Habitat will strive to expand the use of comparable
indicators in various dimensions that requires further
analysis:
– municipal finance within Governance and Legislation
– mobility within

Infrastructure

– public spaces within Quality of Life.

GLOBAL CITY RANKING
Global and Regional Monitoring

The CPI is constructed incrementally favouring, at the basic
level, the regional or global comparison and at the advan-
ced level providing the possibility to integrate contextual
aspects of cities. This incremental approach includes the
potential to understand and measure cities comparative
advantages, as well as policies and actions which the CPI is
intended to assess. Thus, the CPI is measured according to
four scenarions:
– Global City Ranking
– The Basic City Prosperity Index
– The Extended City Prosperity Index
– The Contextual City Prosperity Index

BASIC CPI
Initial Diagnosis
Internationally Comparable

EXTENDED CPI
In-depth Diagnosis
Comparable within country

CONTEXTUAL CPI
Policy performance
and urban monitoring tool

CPI – Methodology

Conceptualizing Prosperity

Productivity

A prosperous city contributes to economic growth
and development, generating income, employment
and equal opportunities that further provide adequa-
te living standards for the entire population.

Infrastructure

A prosperous city deploys the infrastructure, physical assets
and amenities – adequate water, sanitation, power supply,
road network, information and communications techno-
logy, etc. – required to sustain both the population and the
economy, and provide better quality of life.

Quality of life

Prosperous cities provide amenities such as social
services, education, health, recreation, safety and
security required for improved living standards,
enabling the population to maximize individual
potential and to lead fulfilling lives.

Equity and Social Inclusion

A city is only prosperous to the extent that poverty
and inequalities are minimal. No city can claim to be
prosperous when large segments of the population
live in abject poverty and deprivation. This involves
reducing the incidence of slums and new forms of
poverty and marginalization.

Enviromental

Sustainability

The growth of cities and their economic development do
not destroy or degrade the environment; instead, the city’s
natural assets are preserved for the sake of sustainable
urbanization. Well-planned cities promote environmental
sustainability.

Governance and Legislation

Cities are best able to combine sustainability and
shared prosperity through effective urban governance
and transformational leadership, deploying appro-
priate and effective policies, laws and regulations,
and creating adequate institutional frameworks with
strong local institutions and sound institutional arran-
gements.

CPI – Methodology

Indicators

PRODUCTIVITY INFRASTRUCTURE QUALITY OF LIFE

EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE AND LEGISLATION

1. Economic Streght
– City Product per capita

2. Employment
– Unemployment Rate

1. Housing Infrastructure
– Improved Shelter
– Access To Improved Water

2. Social Infrastructure
– Physicians Density

3. ICT
– Internet Access

4. Urban Mobility
– Traffic Fatalities

1. Health
– Life Expectancy at birth
– Under-Five Mortality Rate

2. Education
– Literacy Rate
– Mean Years of Schooling

3. Safety and Security
– Homicide Rate

1. Economic

Equity

– Gini Coefficient
– Poverty Rate

2. Social Inclusion
– Slum Households
– Youth Unemployment

3. Gender Inclusion
– Equitable Secondary School
Enrolment

1. Air Quality
– PM2.5 Concentration

2. Waste Management
– Waste Water Treatment

3. Energy
– Share of Renewable Energy
– CO2 Emissions

1. Participation
– Voter Turnout

2. Institutional Capacity
– Days to Start a Business

The City Prosperity Index (CPI) is, by definition, a multidimensional index. Hence, the prosperity of a city is determined based on a collection of factors or dimensions that are related
to conceptualizations of a prosperous city. Each dimension is composed of sub-dimensions, which are defined from a group of variables (or indicators) that are measured for each city.
When sub-dimensions are made-up by two or more indicators, they are aggregated into one single value. Indicators are standardized using internationally-observed benchmark
(UN-Habitat, 2015). A clear definition of each indicator is presented in the CPI Methodological Guide – Measurament of Cities: Methodology and Metadata.

CPI – 2015 Global City Report

Overview of Cities

More than 60 cities around the world

America

Buenos Aires

Ciudad Obregon

Fortaleza

Guadalajara

Guayaquil

Guatemala City

Lima

Medellin

Mexico City

Montreal

New York

Panama City

Quito

Sao Paulo

Toronto

Africa

Accra

Addis Abeba

Cape Town

Dar es Salaam

Harare

Kampala

Lagos

Lusaka

Mekelle

Nairobi

Asia and Oceania

Abha

Almaty

Bangkok

Hong Kong

Jakarta

Karachi

Kathmandu

Manila

Melbourne

Osaka

Sydney

Tokyo

Yerevan

Ulaanbaatar

Europe

Amsterdam-Utrecht

Athens

Barcelona

Berlin

Brusels

Budapest

Copenhagen

Dublin

Helsinki

Lisbon

London

Madrid

Manchester

Milan

Oslo

Paris

Prague

Stockholm

Vienna

Warsaw

Zurich

The City Prosperity Initiative proposes a fresh approach to urban prosperity and sustainability.
One that is holistic, integrated and essential for the promotion of collective well- being and fulfilment of all.

This new approach helps cities to steer the world towards economically, socially, politically and environmentally urban futures.

CPI – 2015 Global City Report

CPI 6 Dimensions

A Flexible Monitoring framework

The CPI is not a rigid blueprint; it is a living framework – one that intentionally leaves room for cities to respond to contextual needs, and to move creatively according to their possibili-
ties, challenges and opportunities. As part of this flexible approach, the CPI has a double function. Firstly, it serves as a platform for global comparability in which cities can assess
their situation, and compare their rate and present performance with other cities worldwide. Secondly, it acts as a strategic policy tool where the data and information is adapted to
local or contextual needs, and used to measure progress and identify deficiencies in the different dimensions of prosperity.

City
Oslo

Copenhagen
Stockholm

Helsinki

Paris
Vienna
Melbourne
Montreal
Toronto
Sydney
Berlin
Milan
Amsterdam-Utrecht

Brussel

Tokyo
Manchester
Prague
London
Osaka
Zurich

Rank
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
12

15
16

86.76

84.79

83.

81.

80.67

80.53

80.30

79.88

79.80

79.77

79.27

79.20

78.93

78.

77.82

77.50

77.39

77.06

76.99

76.50

CPI

Lisbon
Madrid
New York
Hong Kong
Dublin
Budapest
Barcelona
Athens
Warsaw
Buenos Aires
Mexico City
Lima
Almaty
Ciudad Obregon
Guadalajara
Medellin
Panama City
Guayaquil
Sao Paulo
Jakarta

Rank
21

22
23

76.10

74.78

74.

73.35

73.23

73.22

72.88

70.79

70.57

68.56

68.07

67.82

67.

64.35

64.21

62.

61.17

59.35

57.23

CPI

Bangkok
Ulaanbaatar
Guatemala City
Manila

Quito

Abha
Yerevan
Fortaleza
Nairobi
Cape Town
Kathmandu
Accra
Mekelle
Kampala
Dar es Salaam
Lagos
Karachi

Addis Ababa

Lusaka
Harare
41

43
44

56.71

56.58

56.19

55.81

55.50

54.25

53.23

50.96

47.77

47.32

46.98

44.28

44.16

43.27

40.75

37.45

37.00

36.72

35.99

35.68

CPI CityRank CPI CityRank CPI

CPI – 2015 Global City Report

Prosperity Index Classification

100 CPI

90 CPI

80 CPI

70 CPI

60 CPI

50 CPI

40 CPI

30 CPI

20 CPI

10 CPI

0 CPI

VERY

SOLID

VERY

WEAK

SOLID
WEAK

MODERATELY SOLID

36% of the analyzed cities has a solid prosperi-
ty index and present an overall balanced
development of the prosperity dimensions

6% of the analyzed cities have a very weak
prosperity index and they mainly belong to the
African region

MODERATELY WEAK

11% of the analyzed cities have a weak prospe-
rity index and feature contrasted patterns among the
dimensions in the CPI

81% of cities with a moderately solid prosperi-
ty index belong to the Latin American region and
exhibit a less-cordinated development of the prospe-
rity dimensions

35% of the analyzed cities from Asia and
Ocenania has a moderately weak prosperity index

Udaipur, India © Giulia Lavagna

85% of cities with a very solid prosperity index
belong to Europe

2015 Prosperity Index

Sao Paulo, Brazil © Giulia Lavagna

CPI – Prosperity Index

Cities with very solid prosperity index
CPI above 80 points

CPICity Productivity Infrastructure
Quality
of Life Equity Sustainability

Governance

86.76

84.79

83.47

80.67
80.53
80.30

81.41

Oslo
Copenhagen
Helsinki
Paris
Vienna
Melbourne
Stockholm

87.39

74.72

77.21

72.71

75.51

77.51

75.88

90.69

83.13

89.61

84.88

89.93

81.52

88.68

90.95

93.49

94.43

91.59

90.63

91.51

90.32

87.46

87.15

84.75

82.44

86.02

84.00

89.10

85.39

88.64

89.16

72.62

85.52

58.83

85.00

79.24

82.84

68.51

81.44

60.23

93.85

63.25

In the world’s cities with a very solid prosperity index
the six dimensions of Urban Prosperity are well
developed overall, with very little variations among
them. The strong integration and homogeneous
balance of all the dimensions show that these cities
have achieved a good sinergy between urban
planning, urban governance and nance for the
collective interest. It allows them to be ‘hubs’ of
prosperity thank to the high production of good and
services within a safe and secure environment.
Not surprisingly, the prosperity dimensions of ‘Quality
of Life’ and ‘Equity and Social Inclusion’ are the ones
that present higher average values, re ecting a well-
educated population, with higher life expectancy,
living in an equitable and inclusive society.

Oslo Copenhagen Stockholm Helsinki Paris
Vienna Melbourne

–

100

CPI Productivity Infrastructure Quality of Life Equity Sustainability Governance
Copenhagen, Denmark © Giulia Lavagna

CPI – Prosperity Index

Cities with solid prosperity index
CPI between 79 and 70 points

Montreal Toronto Sydney Berlin Milan
Amsterdam-Utrecht Brussels Tokyo Manchester Prague

The cities with a solid prosperity index show well-
connected dimensions of Urban Prosperity, genera-
ting a self-reinforcing, cumulative momentum. Even if
the cities with solid prosperity factor belong to
countries with different cultures and development
background, they all show relatively strong institu-
tions and large availability of public goods.
While the dimension of ‘Quality of Life’ still presents
high average values – in specific cases – ‘Productivity’
and ‘Environmental Sustainability’ strongly affect the
performance of the city in the global ranking of the
CPI. A responsive and effective urban governance and
regulation on urban planning will contribute to the
growth of employment and economic strength that
will positively impact on the productivity dimension.

CPICity Productivity Infrastructure
Quality
of Life Equity Sustainability Governance

79.88

79.80
79.77
79.20
78.93
77.82
77.50
78.32
77.39
79.27
Montreal
Toronto
Berlin
Milan
Amsterdam-Utrecht
Brussel
Tokyo
Manchester
Prague
Sydney

73.71

74.17

76.77

73.83

78.02

84.07

70.53

69.98

75.16

71.57

75.57

76.46

81.41

79.47

82.81

81.82

82.04

86.45

89.01

87.25

91.38

92.41

89.42

92.89

86.92

95.18

91.84

87.74

92.58

94.95

88.13

85.81

84.86

79.42

88.68

89.40

83.47

74.90

91.97

87.93

82.66

82.00

58.83

73.37

60.98

65.71

68.90

66.59

68.37

74.31

70.04

92.37

77.69

79.64

57.73

70.88

87.20

55.17

64.05

–
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

CPI Productivity Infrastructure Quality of Life Equity Sustainability Governance

Sydney, Australia © Pablo Petrini

CPI – Prosperity Index

Buenos Aires Mexico City Lima Almaty Ciudad Obregon
Guadalajara Medellin Panama City Guayaquil

A moderately solid prosperity index is symptom of a
less balanced development between the six dimen-
sions of Urban Prosperity, in fact, cities within this
group present urban management practices under-
going a process of consolidation.
‘Infrastructure’ is the dimension that is mainly
affected by less solid institutions and regulatory
framework, together with ‘Productivity’ and ‘Gover-
nance’. This often reflects a poor Housing and Social
infrastructure as well as mobility problem throughout
the city, as in the case of Lima for example.
It is interesting to notice that the moderately prosperi-
ty index group is mainly characterized by cities from
Latin America and Caribbean, despite the fact that is
the most urbanized region in the world.

Cities with moderately solid prosperity index
CPI between 69 and 60 points

–
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CPI Productivity Infrastructure Quality of Life Equity Sustainability Governance
CPICity Productivity Infrastructure
Quality
of Life Equity Sustainability Governance
68.56
68.07
67.82
64.35
64.21
61.17
61.17

62.49

67.44

Buenos Aires
Mexico City
Almaty
Ciudad Obregon
Guadalajara
Medellin
Panama City
Guayaquil
Lima

72.06

61.19

58.63

63.93

62.77

50.49

48.12

54.87

68.46

74.48

63.18

53.99

48.90

51.64

61.51

48.47

63.51

64.77

77.66

75.06

77.76

67.76

70.10

68.65

76.08

65.83

73.78

67.64

69.66

80.05

80.93

75.26

56.60

73.56

66.92

89.29

61.22

70.91

57.41

67.56

72.20

58.01

59.58

68.49

43.31

60.18

69.43

85.99

61.33

56.39

74.87

67.36

56.64

74.35

Lima, Perù © Giulia Lavagna
11

CPI – Prosperity Index

Cities with moderately weak prosperity index present
wider discrepancies among the six dimensions of
Urban Prosperity, which show a less balance
development of the urban system, often due to
institutional and structural failings.
The dimension of ‘Infrastructure’ is the one that
shows the lowest average value, followed by ‘Produc-
tivity’. While the dimensions of ‘Quality of Life’ and
‘Equity and Social Inclusion’ still have a higher perfor-
mance when compared to general values, cities with
moderately weak prosperity index feature contrasted
patterns, with a neat division between rich and poor.
The city of Yerevan in Armenia particularly stands out
for the low value of ‘Environmental Sustainability’,
due to the lack of renewable energy consumption.

Cities with moderately weak prosperity index
CPI between 59 and 50 points

Sao Paulo Jakarta Bangkok Ulaanbaatar Guatemala City
Manila Quito Abha Yerevan Fortaleza

CPICity Productivity Infrastructure
Quality
of Life Equity Sustainability Governance
59.35
57.23
56.71
56.19
55.81
54.25
53.23
55.50
56.58
Sao Paulo
Jakarta
Ulaanbaatar
Guatemala City
Manila
Quito
Abha
Yerevan
Bangkok

62.68

48.67

66.30

48.79

45.60

57.03

37.87

46.72

61.57

66.83

49.54

33.51

45.59

57.67

31.95

60.98

50.16

51.88

75.10

74.45

74.78

54.99

64.67

85.43

84.56

77.34

66.50

58.63

63.58

66.22

66.18

51.79

64.10

64.31

73.21

65.15

69.79

67.78

67.01

69.82

66.45

43.83

25.33

58.82

36.44

33.84

45.42

45.15

55.68

51.62

58.27

71.55

37.46

65.02

–
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CPI Productivity Infrastructure Quality of Life Equity Sustainability Governance
12
Sao Paulo, Brazil © Giulia Lavagna

50.96Fortaleza 57.06 49.28 62.14 47.23 68.65 30.90

CPI – Prosperity Index

Cities with weak and very weak prosperity index
CPI below 49 points

In most cities with weak and very weak prosperity
index, much remains to be done especially in terms of
‘Infrastructure’ and ‘Productivity’. In fact, the produc-
tion of goods and services is still too low, often as
reflection of underdevelopment.
Historic structural problems and chronic inequality of
opportunities are critical factors that strongly impact
on the degree of urban prosperity of the city in these
brackets. Most of the cities perform better on
environment indicator, thank to lower emissions
when compared to more developed countries.
Dysfunctional systems, institutional failings and inade-
quate capital investment in public goods are reflected
in high dispersion of the index values across the
dimensions, which show deep discrepancies.

Nairobi Cape Town Kathmandu Mekelle
Kampala Dar es Salaam Lagos Karachi

Accra
Addis Ababa

CPICity Productivity Infrastructure
Quality
of Life Equity Sustainability Governance
47.77
47.32
46.98
44.16
43.27
37.45
37.00
40.75
44.28
Nairobi
Cape Town
Accra
Mekelle
Kampala
Dar es Salaam
Lagos
Karachi
Kathmandu

36.49

46.06

27.26

24.92

25.70

25.58

41.53

36.89

21.30

40.93

47.32

30.83

35.38

27.41

38.42

49.15

15.57

28.49

57.54

49.67

57.19

49.62

51.21

47.80

37.19

52.21

55.37

38.28

45.51

65.41

45.50

61.74

25.96

68.66

60.75

62.73

61.35

50.03

53.75

58.67

60.29

46.99

9.14

57.41

52.44

58.84

45.56

63.59

63.45

48.88

48.14

53.86

43.80

68.22

–
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CPI Productivity Infrastructure Quality of Life Equity Sustainability Governance

Kampala, Uganda © Regina Orvañanos

36.72Addis Ababa 9.31 27.31 58.77 46.00 58.74 60.73

2015 Regional Index
Minas Gerais, Brazil © Giulia Lavagna

Stone Town, Zanzibar © Giulia Lavagna

CPI by Region

Africa

Among the 10 African cities included in the 2015
Global City ranking, Nairobi, Cape Town and Accra
are the ones presenting higher prosperity indexes. In
fact, urbanization in Africa features the concentration
of significant proportions of the national urban popu-
lation in one or a very small number of cities. Basic
infrastructure and communication networks have
undergone tangible improvements in many cities,
while public transport still features as a major issue on
the urban development agenda. Inequalities and
poverty still remain at the heart of Africa’s problems.
South African cities have experienced significant
economic growth, but in the past two decades life
expectancy has declined substantially, affecting quali-
ty of life. Cape Town for example presents the more
balanced development between the dimensions of
Urban Prosperity.

City
Nairobi

Cape Town
Accra
Mekelle
Kampala
Dar es Salaam
Lagos
Addis Ababa
Lusaka
Harare
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
47.77
47.32
44.28
44.16
43.27
40.75
37.45
36.72
35.99
35.68
CPI

Africa, urbanization and positive change

Economies of agglomeration, location advantages, and diversification of the economic base are some of the typical
factors of prosperity still developing in the ongoing urban economic momentum in Africa. The data shows that most of
the African cities are still lacking of basic infrastructure and communication networks and face serious public transport
deficiencies, that inevitably also affect the productivity dimension. African cities must connect to regional and global
business networks to enhance quality of life and respond to inequality and poverty issues, if they are to turn into real
engines of national growth and prosperity.

Nairobi Cape Town Accra

Mekelle Kampala

–

20,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

CPI 6

Productivity

Infrastructure

Quality of life Equity and Social Inclusion

Enviromental
Sustainability

Governance and
Legislation

40,00

Buenos Aires, Argentina © Giulia Lavagna

16
CPI by Region
America

In North America, most of the growing cities corre-
spond to the most dynamic regions and those
experiencing population losses are located in less
dynamic regions. Cities and the surrounding regions
are typically interdependent economically and tend to
share similar socio-economic and demographic
trends. Montreal, Toronto and New York from North
America region are good example. On the other side
in the Latin America and the Caribbean, small- and
medium-size cities in the region are not only growing
faster, but are also becoming destinations of choice
for people who were living in larger agglomerations.
In fact, in many Latin American cities, economies have
diversified through de-industrialization and the
expansion of tertiary activities.

City
Montreal

Toronto
New York
Buenos Aires
Mexico City
Lima
Ciudad Obregon
Guadalajara
Medellin
Panama City
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
79.88
79.80

74.43

68.56
68.07
67.82
64.35
64.21
62.49
61.17
CPI
–
20,00

40,00

60,00
80,00
100,00
CPI 6
Productivity
Infrastructure
Quality of life Equity and Social Inclusion
Enviromental
Sustainability
Governance and
Legislation

Montreal Toronto New York

Buenos Aires Mexico City

The Americas: one region, different challenges

While cities in North America must create capacities that will enable them to understand and anticipate trends as well as
develop appropriate strategies to harness the growth and offset the decline of some areas or regions, Latin American
cities must become more productive and generate local jobs, while improving transport infrastructure and living condi-
tions. In both sub-regions the dimension of Governance and Legislation has still to be improved in order to better articula-
te their strategic advantages with national economic policies and creative capital in order to increase the prosperity index.

Osaka, Japan © Giulia Lavagna

17
CPI by Region
Asia and Oceania

No developing region has invested more than Asia in
advanced knowledge infrastructure for economic
development. A combination of public and private
sector capital expenditure has provided the modern
infrastructure required for industrial expansion,
research and development, innovation and entrepre-
neurship. This in turn has enhanced the economic
potential and competitiveness of so many cities in
Asia. Over the last two decades the Asian infrastruc-
ture development focused on improving productivity,
which has gone hand in hand with economic growth
and urbanization. The dimension of enviromental
sustainability has been often neglected and it is the
one at the moment impacting the most on the overall
performance of Asian cities in the CPI ranking.

City
Melbourne

Sydney
Tokyo
Osaka
Hong Kong
Almaty
Jakarta
Bangkok
Ulaanbaatar
Manila
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
80.30
79.77
77.82
76.99
74.35
67.44
57.23
56.71
56.58
55.81
CPI
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00
100,00
CPI 6
Productivity
Infrastructure
Quality of life Equity and Social Inclusion
Enviromental
Sustainability
Governance and
Legislation

Melbourne Sydney Tokyo

Osaka Hong Kong

Asia, new economic geographies for cities

Half of the world’s urban population now lives in Asia. Large population concentrations in mega-cities are to remain a
prominent feature in urban Asia and the newly industrialized agglomerations tent to be more dispersed and less well
planned. In Arab States, there are very few large urban configurations. In the Near East, the evolution is from mono- to
polycentric or diffuse urban corridor formats, especially in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Trans-border cities are
expanding along highways and modern transportation networks and they tend to be linear along urban corridors.

Amsterdam, Netherlands © Giulia Lavagna

18
CPI by Region
Europe

Regional and national urban planning through central
government in collaboration with other key stakehol-
ders plays a critical role in determining the prosperity
and growth of cities. Cities like Oslo, Copenhagen
and Stockholm are doing well, as do the regions
where they are located. With their relatively well-
educated and fully employed populations, they base
their economic momentum on a combination of
factors, since they act as administrative and financial
as well as cultural capital cities. Urban planning has
had much more influence here than in any other
region of the world. Located along major transport
routes, urban configurations are specialized industrial
and business centres, but with less dense populations
than other cities in developing regions.

City
Oslo
Copenhagen
Stockholm
Helsinki
Paris
Vienna
Berlin
Milan
Amsterdam-Utrecht

Brussels

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
86.76
84.79
83.47
81.41
80.67
80.53
79.27
79.20

78,93

78,32

CPI

Oslo Copenhagen Stockholm

Helsinki Paris
CPI 6

Productivity
Infrastructure
Quality of life Equity and Social Inclusion
Enviromental
Sustainability
Governance and
Legislation

Europe, demographic aging and prosperity

There is no clear association between the demographic growth or decline of cities and their degrees of prosperity. Althou-
gh population numbers have declined in a number of cities in Western Europe, this did not affect living standards. In fact
the prosperity of entire regions is largely dependent on a primate conurbation and the concentration of services and
manufacturing that comes with it. On the other hand, and as might be expected, population declines in a number of
cities in Eastern Europe are strongly associated with economic decay.

20,00
40,00
80,00
100,00
60,00

2015 Dimension Index
Jodhpur, India © Giulia Lavagna

CPI by Dimension

Productivity

City
Oslo
Zurich
Tokyo
Hong Kong
Amsterdam-Utrecht
Melbourne
Stockholm
Sydney
Osaka
Helsinki
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
87.39

84.47

84.07

78.40

78.02
77.51
77.21
76.77
76.10
75.88
Productivity

A prosperous city contributes to economic growth and development, generating income, employment and equal opportunities
that further provide adequate living standards for the entire population.

Enhancing urban productivity is clearly desirable, as it
improves competitiveness and, ultimately, the prospe-
rity of any city. More productive cities are able to
increase output with the same amounts of resources,
generating additional real income that can raise living
standards through more affordable goods and
services. Raising urban productivity is not a goal in
itself, but a critical starting point to provide residents
with decent income for their basic needs and adequa-
te living standards.

New York – CPI 74.43
Productivity 75.12

Buenos Aires – CPI 68.56
Productivity 72.06

Cape Town – CPI 47.32
Productivity 46.06

Oslo – CPI 88.76
Productivity 87.39

Tokyo – CPI 77.82
Productivity 84.07

Melbourne- CPI 80.3

Productivity 77.51

100

Oslo Montreal Buenos Aires Jakarta Nairobi

Economic Strenght Employment Productivity
Index

World Map: Top Cities for
Productivity per world region

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia © Regina Orvañanos

CPI by Dimension
Infrastructure

City
Oslo
Vienna
Stockholm
Prague
Helsinki
Zurich
Madrid
Berlin
Brussels
London
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
90.69
89.93
89.61
89.01
88.68

87.81

87.32

87.25
86.45

86.16

Infrastructure

A prosperous city deploys the infrastructure, physical assets and amenities – adequate water, sanitation, power supply, road
network, information and communications technology, etc. – required to sustain both the population and the economy, and
provide better quality of life.

Infrastructure is crucial for the development, functio-
nality and prosperity of urban areas. It provides the
foundation on which any city will thrive. Adequate
infrastructure – improved water and sanitation,
reliable and sufficient power supply, efficient
transport networks and modern information and
communication technologies (ICTs) – contributes to
the sustainability and economic growth of urban
areas, promotes the competitiveness of local busines-
ses and improves labour productivity.

New York – CPI 74.43
Infrastructure 77.06

Buenos Aires – CPI 68.56
Infrastructure 74.48

Cape Town – CPI 47.32
Infrastructure 47.32

Oslo – CPI 88.76
Infrastructure 90.69

Tokyo – CPI 77.78
Infrastructure 81.82

Melbourne- CPI 80.30
Infrastructure 81.52

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oslo Montreal Buenos Aires Jakarta Nairobi

Housing Infrastructure Social Infrastructure ICT
Mobility Infrastructure Index

World Map: Top Cities for
Infrastructure per world region

Lisbon, Portugal © Giulia Lavagna
21

CPI by Dimension

Quality of Life

City
Zurich

Osaka
Tokyo
Berlin
Stockholm
Copenhagen
Milan
London
Prague
Toronto
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

95.40

95.19

95.18
94.95
94.43
93.49
92.89

92.72

92.58
92.41
Quality of Life

Prosperous cities provide amenities such as social services, education, health, recreation, safety and security required for
improved living standards, enabling the population to maximize individual potential and to lead fulfilling lives.

Toronto – CPI 79.80
Quality of Life 92.41

Lima – CPI 67.82
Quality of Life 77.76

Addis Ababa – CPI 36.72
Quality of Life 58.77

Zurich – CPI 76.50
Quality of Life 95.40

Osaka – CPI 76.99
Quality of Life 95.19

Melbourne – CPI 80.30
Quality of Life 91.51

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oslo Montreal Buenos Aires Jakarta Nairobi

Safety Education Health
Quality of Life Index

Quality of life underpins the functionality of cities: the
notion is at the crossroads of all policies and actions,
and represents a synthesis of all the dimensions of
prosperity. Inhabitants value assurances to live and
work freely, good quality of education, adequate
housing with basic services, public spaces and
meaningful employment with decent income as the
most important factors promoting quality of life and
prosperity in their cities. It remains that the quality of
urban life is a broader concept that includes a full
range of factors.

World Map: Top Cities for Quality
of Life per world region

Zagreb, Croatia © Regina Orvañanos

CPI by Dimension
Equity and Social Inclusion

City
Prague

Tokyo

Amalty

Helsinki
Amsterdam-Utrecht
Osaka
Montreal
Berlin
Oslo
Zurich
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
91.97
89.40
89.29
89.10
88.68

88.59

88.13
87.93
87.46

87.27

Equity

A city is only prosperous to the extent that poverty and inequalities are minimal. No city can claim to be prosperous when large
segments of the population live in abject poverty and deprivation. This involves reducing the incidence of slums and new forms
of poverty and marginalization.

Equity involves systematic re-distribution of the
economic benefits of growth or development, with
legal frameworks ensuring a ‘level playing field’ and
institutions protecting the rights of the poor, minori-
ties and vulnerable groups. Promotion of equity also
involves enhancing socioeconomic equality and provi-
ding for civic participation by all in the social, political
and cultural spheres. When actively pursued, equity
can act as a powerful catalyst for prosperity, exerting
multiplier effects on other prosperity factors.

Montreal- CPI 79.88
Equity and Social Inclusion 88.13

Lima – CPI 67.82
Equity and Social Inclusion 80.05

Accra- CPI 44.28
Equity and Social Inclusion 62.73

Prague – CPI 77.39
Equity and Social Inclusion 91.97

Tokyo – CPI 77.82
Equity and Social Inclusion 89.40

Sydney CPI 79.77
Equity and Social Inclusion 84.86

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oslo Montreal Buenos Aires Jakarta Nairobi

Economic Equity Social inclusion Gender
Equity and Social Inclusion Index

World Map: Top Cities for Equity and
Social Inclusion per world region

Buenos Aires, Argentina © Giulia Lavagna
23

CPI by Dimension

Enviromental Sustainability

City
Stockholm

Zurich
Copenhagen
Lisbon
Vienna
Oslo
Helsinki

Montreal

Toronto
Barcelona
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
89.16

88.69

88.64

86.81

85.52
85.39
85.00
82.66
82.00

78.50

Sustainability

The growth of cities and their economic development do not destroy or degrade the environment; instead, the city’s natural
assets are preserved for the sake of sustainable urbanization. Well-planned prosperous cities tent to protect the environment
and preserve biodiversity.

The prosperity and environmental sustainability of
cities are inextricably linked. Environmental sustaina-
bility is central to the qualitative changes necessary to
transform cities and urban lives, particularly the lives
of the urban poor. This is due to the fact that
environmentally sustainable cities are vibrant and
offer good quality of life. Such cities are more likely to
attract the skills and entrepreneurship essential for
growth and prosperity.

Montreal – CPI 79.88
Sustainability 82.66

Mexico City – CPI 68.07
Sustainability 70.91

Nairobi – CPI 47.77
Sustainability 61.35

Stockholm – CPI 83.47
Sustainability 89.16

Jakarta – CPI 57.23
Sustainability 67.78

Sydney – CPI 79.77
Sustainability 58.83

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oslo Montreal Buenos Aires Jakarta Nairobi

Air Quality Energy Waste
Enviromental Sustainability Index

World Map: Top Cities for Environmental
Sustainability per world region

Tokyo, Japan © Giulia Lavagna

CPI by Dimension
Governance and Legislation

City
Melbourne
Sydney
Brussels
Lima
Copenhagen
Paris
Amsterdam-Utrecht
Oslo
Milan
Panama City
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
93.85
92.37
87.20
85.99
82.84
81.44
79.64
79.24
77.69
74.87
Governance

Cities are best able to combine sustainability and shared prosperity through effective urban governance and transformational
leadership, deploying appropriate and effective policies, laws and regulations, and creating adequate institutional frameworks
with strong local institutions and sound institutional arrangements.

The success of some of the cities is based on specific
combinations of laws, regulations, institutions and
processes. They act as the levers that can optimize the
social function of property and balance it out with
private rights and assets.
Institutions and regulations can revitalize ‘Rights to
the Commons’ and expand the public realm. The
capacity for a city to maintain extensive and quality
shared spaces and facilities provides a good indication
of its degree of prosperity.

New York – CPI 74.43
Governance 70.25

Lima – CPI 67.82
Governance 85.99

Accra – CPI 48.38
Governance 68.22

Brussels- CPI 78.32
Governance 87.20 Almaty – CPI 67.44

Governance 74.35

Melbourne – CPI 80.30
Governance 93.85

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oslo Montreal Buenos Aires Jakarta Nairobi

Participation Institutional Capacity
Governance and Legislation Index

World Map: Top Cities for Governance
and Legislation per world region

Brasilia, Brazil © Giulia Lavagna

2015 Global CPI Implementation
Pushkar, india © Giulia Lavagna

CPI – Implementation

CPI Conclusions

A multi-scale decision-making tool

The CPI’s objective is to support decision-making for multi-scale levels of government ranging from national urban policies to regional and metropolitan strategies; and city-wide
interventions to sub-city districts or neighborhoods. The CPI gives decision-makers the ability to make adequate and evidence-based decisions from a territorial perspective, thus articu-
lating different tiers of government and sectoral interventions in urban areas.

Prosperity Index CPI by Region CPI by Dimension

The comparison by dimension reinforces the impor-
tance of the relation between the overall prosperity
level of cities and a homogeneous development of all
the dimensions. In most cases the different dimen-
sions interact and in uence each other through
various, quasi-automatic linkages. While cities like
Helsinki and Melbourne present better values in more
than one dimensions of Urban Prosperity, other cities
such as Fortaleza and Lagos have divergent values.

Boston, United States © Giulia Lavagna

The cities classification according to the Prosperity
Index allows the comparison between cities with
similar prosperity level and shows the strong
relationship between balanced development of all
the dimensions of prosperity and the overall perfor-
mance of cities. Cities like Oslo, Copenhagen and
Stockholm offer a high provision of public goods,
have strong institution and god balance between
private and public sphere.

The Regional Ranking shows the comparison between cities
of the same geographical area and puts in evidence how
often common challenges are shared by several cities among
the same world regions. For example, while African cities still
are facing an important challenge on the development of
proper infrastructure and growth of productivity levels, most
of the cities from the Asian and Pacific region are dealing
with issues related to environmental sustainability and sustai-
nable urbanization.

CPI – Implementation
CPI Framework

A multi-scale decision-making tool

NATIONAL. The CPI supports the development and imple-
mentation of integrated national urban policies. Decision-
makers are provided with the knowledge to make oppor-
tune decisions about their cities small, medium or large –
as part of a national system of cities. This helps to amalga-
mate the dispersed energy and potential of urban centers,
establishing a synergetic connection between urbaniza-
tion and national development. This is the case with Mexi-
can, Colombian and Saudi Arabia programs.

METROPOLITAN. The CPI provides information at the
regional and metropolitan levels building linkages betwe-
en municipal governments, articulating responses that
contemplate city regional development and better integra-
tion of sectors. The Metropolitan CPI can detect which
municipalities or districts are more advanced in the prospe-
rity path, proposing solutions for a more harmonious
urban development. The metropolitan area of Guadalajara
is a good example.

CITY. The CPI produces information at city level, and
when data allows, at sub-city level. This information is
critical to support local decision-making in key priority
areas of development, such as the strengthening of urban
legislation and systems of governance, harnessing the
urban economy and enhancing urban planning.

Global Monitoring
Instrument

National Initiative City level policies

Metropolitan
Strategies

Mexico
130 cities

Colombia
23 cities

Saudi Arabia
17 cities

Egypt
200 cities

Pictures: Mexico City, Mexico; Bogota, Colombia; Cairo, Egypt; Riyad, Saudi Arabia © Regina Orvañanos

CPI – Implementation

Linking Data to Policy-making

A framework that promotes integration: UN-Habitat three legged approach
The CPI is based on the fundamental principles of human rights. It considers that urbanization, as a process, should adhere to human rights principles, while the city, as an outcome,
should meet specific human rights standards that need to be measured. The CPI promotes integration in the implementation of a more sustainable urbanization model, in order to
address the environmental, social and economic objectives of sustainability. This integration looks at the mutually reinforcing aspects of the different components of the urbanization
process. The CPI proposes a limited number of key, transformational, interventions, which are designed using the essence of the New Urban Agenda main components: the
UN-Habitat’s 3 legged approach – urban legislation, urban economy and urban planning. CPI + 3 legged approach are part of the equation of sustainable solutions.

1. Planning and Urban Design

A reinvigorated planning involves political choices and
commitments, which must be turned into tools and
sustainable technical solutions. The City Prosperity
Initiative identifies a number of these interventions
that can help cities to move on the prosperity path,
such as plan infill development and guided city expan-
sions, multimodal mobility development strategies,
neighborhood planning for enhanced social diversity
and mixed-land uses, etc.

2. Urban legislation and governance

Laws and institutions provide the normative and organiza-
tional underpinnings of urban change and the power and
rigor for enabling action, granting authority, defining
relations and generally sustaining continuity or triggering
change. The City Prosperity Initiative identifies transformati-
ve actions in areas such as the reform of urban legal
systems, regulations on urban planning, building regulations
and zoning laws, and participatory and inclusive land
readjustments.

3. Urban economy and municipal finance

The City Prosperity Initiative identifies transformative
actions that can help local and national governments
develop revenue enhancement plans which can
leverage innovative tools and simple, transparent
revenue collection mechanisms. These mechanisms
can harness and support growth while garnering
community buy-in for public sector revenue collection
efforts.

DATA INFO POLICY

The three legged approach is a policy formulation framework that avoids that action plans and strategic solutions follow a sectoral approach.
CPI connects these three strategic interventions in a way that maximizes benefits and possible impacts.

CPI – Implementation

CPI as Strategy – Mexico

Implementation of the CPI for 130 cities in Mexico

The Mexican Housing Bank (INFONAVIT) and UN-Habitat committed to implement the Urban Prosperity Initiative in Mexico, working on the implementation of the CPI for 130 munici-
palities, where most of the mortgage loans are generated. The CPI was used as a strategy to evaluate how the housing sector can impact on urban prosperity and contribute to design
more integrated housing policies.

130 Cities (Urban Area)
130 Municipalities (Non-Urban Area)

– Rapid urbanization in Mexico have increased the demand for affordable
housing and urban infrastructure and services, which cities struggle to

cope with. However, housing has not been properly integrated into urban
policies in spite of its importance –

Assessing Urban
Prosperity

Urban Prosperity
Analysis

Institutional
strategy

Action Plan
Definition

Urban Prosperity Action Plans
will allow local governments
to monitor their progress and
take each task step-by-step,
therefore allowing them to
handle the project efficiently.

The results will strengthen the new
housing approaches, including new
comprehensive solutions, with
enhanced institutional coordination
towards shaping better and more
sustainable cities cities.

Results

– Better Infrastructure: urban mobility and public spaces
will be improved and welfare will be increased by a new
integrated approach.
– Improved Urban Services: Urban services will improve
its efficiency and an enhanced public policies framework
will allow local managers to be more effective in decision
making.
– Improved Monitoring Data: Improved data will be
available for housing developers, urban planners and local
authorities, in order to define proper location for new
housing developments that make cities more compact,
socially diverse and functional.

C
iu

d
ad

d
e

M
ex

ic
o
,M

ex
ic

o
©

J
o
se

L
u
is

C
h
o
n
g

CPI – Implementation

CPI as Strategy – Colombia

Implementation of the CPI for 23 cities in Colombia

The Decalogue of Prosperity: results and
reccomandations
1. Mobility and sustainability are hardly evaluated. The main
obstacle is the absence of territorial information.
2. 20 out of 23 colombian cities are part of the group with
moderate prosperity index.
3. The prosperity is not determinate by geographic
conditions, regional localization or size of cities.
4. There are not remarkable differences between cities.
The system of cities is relatively balanced.
5. Rural development is not separated from urban
development. Instead, both aspects must be articulated.
6. Social inclusion is highly associated with
productivity’s dimensions.
7. Urban planning is a crucial factor to achieve prosperity.
8. It is essential to understand the correlations between
sub-dimensions to progress on the path of prosperity.
9. It is fundamental to promote the functional partnership
between regional and metropolitan territories.
10. Governance is the hub of prosperity that hold all the
dimensions together

Assessing Urban
Prosperity

Urban Prosperity
Analysis

National Urban
Strategy

Action Plan
for Regional Cluster

38,85

52,73

52,09 61,16

49,96

Productivity
Infrastructure

Quality of LifeEquity and Social Inclusion

Enviromental Sustainability

The State of the Colombian cities based on the CPI, provides clear information to support policy formulation in order to improve the levels of prosperity of the citizens.
Using an expanded CPI adapted to colombian city needs, the study proposes 10 reccomendations ranking from specific city interventions to regional integration and articu-
lation of a system of cities.

C
PI

IN
D

CITY POPULATION Bogota, Colombia © Regina Orvañanos

CPI – Implementation

CPI as Strategy – Saudi Arabia

Future Saudi Arabia cities Programme – measuring urban form through the City Prosperity Initiative in 17 cities

By implementing the City Prosperity Initiative – with a strong focus on spatial analysis and urban planning support – Saudi Arabian authorities will be able to identify opportunities and
potential areas of intervention for their cities to become more prosperous. Innovative spatial indicators of the CPI aim to measure these transformations in order to address them with
reinvigorated urban planning and design, adequate laws and institutions and local economic development solutions.

CPI, Street Connectivity and Spatial Capital

The study disaggregates the results of the Street
Connectivity Index in seven typologies grouped by
residential and non-residential. The residential type
includes formal and informal subdivisions, housing
projects and atomistic (organic) development. The
non-residential type is comprised of urban ameni-
ties, vacant land and open space.

Connectivity is not a goal in itself, but a mean to create successful and prospe-
rous cities. The role of the street is to connect spaces, people and goods, and
thereby facilitating commerce, social interaction and mobility. But not just
connectivity is an important spatial variable; cities consist of streets, buildings
and open space, their distribution and con guration constitute the spatial
capital of a city. Cities that have appropriate layouts, adequate street connecti-
vity and suf cient open public spaces are cities that have a spatial capital. This
capital can support development in various other areas and contribute to
enhance social cohesion and economic productivity.

Tabuk city, formal subdivisions Jeddah, atomistic development

Vacant Land

Open space

Intra-city District
Analysis

City Level
Assesment

Global
Monitoring

Central
Government

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia © Eduardo López Moreno

CPI – Implementation

CPI as Strategy – Kenya

Inventory and Assesment of Open Public Spaces

Open public spaces are important for the quality of life in cities, but solid information about them is needed in order to propose adequate policies. Because of the diffuse lack of data
in certain areas of non-traditional indicators, such as public spaces, new methodologies of data collection for inventory and assesment of open public spaces have been
developed by UN-Habitat. As one of the CPI indicators, the public spaces inventory has been implemented in various cities of Latin America, Africa and Middle East.

Data Collectors

Ward
Administrator

Nairobi City County
Planning team

UN habitat
Data Server

Open Public Spaces Assesment

Accessibility of Public Spaces assesment, Lima – Perù

The character of a city is defined by its streets and public
spaces and the connective matrix of streets and public
spaces forms the skeleton of the city upon which all else
rests. Streets and public space as drivers of economic
development: a good connective matrix of public space has
impact on economic productivity as it improves the
efficiency of the supply chain, reducing production costs and
promoting the mobility of goods and people. (UN-Habitat, 2013)
The Nairobi City County (NCC) together with UN-Habitat
started an open public spaces assesment project in two pilot
sub-counties of the 17 in Nairobi: Embakassi North and
Dagoretti North. The Open Public Spaces assesment began
from the identification of the open public spaces and their
accessibility, use, comfort, facilities, safety and green covera-
ge as core elements of the geo-reference localization and
questionary. The assessment of needs and the creation of a
baseline of data and information allows the formulation of
more effective and evidence-based policies, togheter with
the implementation of specific interventions from the
broader UN-Habitat programmes.

Nairobi, Kenya © Jose Luis Chong

CPI – Implementation

A way forward to more prosperous cities

Data Analysis, Best Practices and Policy Simulat

ion

The CPI allows cities to define targets and goals that can support the formulation of evidence-based policies and measurable long term plans. The compiled data of the CPI indicators
facilitate the analysis of trends and patterns of cities with similar prosperity indexes. At the same time UN-Habitat Best Practices database set up the comparison among a selection of
specific policies that have shown similar results to those that would be desired in implementation of a more prosperous city. Finally thank to the policy simulation is possible to predict
the impact of the alternative policies on the overall Urban Prosperity level. UN-Habitat is working with the University of Sydney to develop an automatized selection and use of best
practices for policy pourposes.

Data Analysis

As part of a broader worldwide initiative, the CPI does
not only provides a deep insight of the prosperity level
of the city analysed, but also allows a performances
comparison at the level of dimensions, subdimensions
or individual indicators, within multiple cities of the
same world region or with similar CPI prosperity
indexes. The City Prosperity Initiative through the
collection of city-level information generates an
unique bank of urban knowledge.

Best Practices

The CPI is developing a system based on artificial intelligen-
ce to help identifying areas of intervention, methods of
implementation and expected outcomes in order to achieve
a more prosperous city.
Through a methodical analysis of a database of best practi-
ces, examples of policy components and existing case
studies will be provided in order to meet the city needs
identified by the CPI.

Ex Ante Policy Evaluation

The strong integration and connection between the
different dimensions of the CPI allows an ex ante
policy evaluation. In fact, after the identification of
interrelated dimensions and sub-dimensions, suppor-
ted by the analysis of trends and patterns of a wide
sample of cities, is possible to anticipate the impact of
a positive improvement on a wider range of indicators
and corresponding dimensions of the CPI.

1,08

13,76

3,98
5,36 7,19

9,90

4,28

0
20
40
60
80
100

Ec
on

om
ic

Gr
ow

Ec
on
om
ic

Ag
lom

er
at

ion

Em
plo

ym
en

Ho
us

ing
In

fra
str

uc
tu

So
cia

l In
fra

stu
ctu

IC
T

Ur
ba

n
M

ob
ilit

St
re

et
C

on
ne

cti
vit

He
alt

Ed
uc

at
ion

Sa
fe

ty
an

d
Se

cu
rit

Pu
bli

c S
pa

Ec
on
om
ic

Eq
uit

y
So
cia

l In
clu

sio
n

Ge
nd

er
In

clu
sio

Ai
r Q

ua
lity

W
as

te
M

an
ag

em
en

Medellin Potential Influence of ICT +10%Selected Strategies

Areas of
intervention

Suggested
methods

Expected
Outcomes

CPI – Implementation

The CPI as monitoring tool for SDG 11

The CPI is proposed to become the monitoring system or tool of Goal 11 and any other targets that have or can have an urban basis. The analysis of the relationship between SDG
targets and CPI indicators shows many convergences. Therefore, it is possible to consider that the CPI, as local monitoring tool, can be used – with the necessary adjustments – to
identify, quantify, evaluate, monitor and report on progress made by cities and countries on Goal 11 of the 2030 Agenda.

1. Propose a systemic approach of the city. The CPI
offers a holistic view of sustainable urban
development. It allows establishing and understan-
ding interrelations between different dimensions of
city development.

2. Create baseline data and information. Cities
already implementing the CPI have been able to
create baseline data, propose local commitments for
improvement and monitor progress overtime.

3. Establish global benchmarks. The CPI methodology has
established global benchmarks for each one of the indica-
tors, with sound standardization methods that enable
comparisons among different indicators.

4. Provide a single composite value. As a composite
Index, the CPI allows to understand the state of
development of cities in a more integrated manner. This
helps local and national governments to visualize how
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human
settlements are.

5. Provide evidence-based for policy-making and
accountability.The CPI is not only a metric, it is also a
policy dialogue that supports the formulation of more
informed policies.

6. Identify priorities of sustainable urban deve-
lopment. The CPI allows to disaggregate the
different components of sustainable development in
such manner that it is possible to identify progress
and deficits. By isolating key development issues
hindering success, it is possible to adopt appropriate
policies and corrective measures.

11.1 Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable
housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

11.2 Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and
sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety,
notably by expanding public transport.

11.3 Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and
capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human
settlement planning and management in all countries.

11.7 Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessi-
ble, green and public spaces, in particular for women and
children, older persons and persons with disabilities

SLUM POPULATION

USE OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORT

LAND USE EFFICIENCY

PUBLIC SPACE &
STREET CONNECTIVITY

CPI – IndicatorsGOAL 11 – Targets (examples)

The advantages of adopting the CPI as global monitoring tool for Goal 11

MY FIRST OBJECTIVE IS FOR
OUR COUNTRY TO BE A
PIONEERING AND SUCCESSFUL
GLOBAL MODEL OF
EXCELLENCE, ON ALL FRONTS,
AND I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO
ACHIEVE THAT.

KING SALMAN BIN ABDULAZIZ AL SAUD
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques

All success stories start with a vision, and successful
visions are based on strong pillars.
The first pillar of our vision is our status as the heart of
the Arab and Islamic worlds. We recognize that Allah
the Almighty has bestowed on our lands a gift more
precious than oil. Our Kingdom is the Land of the Two
Holy Mosques, the most sacred sites on earth, and the
direction of the Kaaba (Qibla) to which more than a
billion Muslims turn at prayer.
The second pillar of our vision is our determination to
become a global investment powerhouse. Our nation
holds strong investment capabilities, which we will
harness to stimulate our economy and diversify our
revenues.
The third pillar is transforming our unique strategic
location into a global hub connecting three continents,
Asia, Europe and Africa. Our geographic position
between key global waterways, makes the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia an epicenter of trade and the gateway to
the world.
Our country is rich in its natural resources. We are not
dependent solely on oil for our energy needs. Gold,
phosphate, uranium, and many other valuable minerals
are found beneath our lands. But our real wealth lies in
the ambition of our people and the potential of our
younger generation. They are our nation’s pride and the
architects of our future. We will never forget how, under

IT IS MY PLEASURE
TO PRESENT SAUDI
ARABIA’S VISION
FOR THE FUTURE.
IT IS AN AMBITIOUS
YET ACHIEVABLE
BLUEPRINT, WHICH
EXPRESSES OUR
LONG-TERM GOALS
AND EXPECTATIONS
AND REFLECTS OUR
COUNTRY’S
STRENGTHS AND
CAPABILITIES

FOREWORD

MOHAMMAD BIN SALMAN BIN
ABDULAZIZ AL-SAUD
Chairman of the Council of Economic
and Development Affairs

tougher circumstances than today, our nation was
forged by collective determination when the late King
Abdulaziz Al-Saud – may Allah bless his soul – united
the Kingdom. Our people will amaze the world again.
We are confident about the Kingdom’s future. With all
the blessings Allah has bestowed on our nation, we
cannot help but be optimistic about the decades
ahead. We ponder what lies over the horizon rather
than worrying about what could be lost.
The future of the Kingdom, my dear brothers and
sisters, is one of huge promise and great potential, God
willing. Our precious country deserves the best.
Therefore, we will expand and further develop our
talents and capacity. We will do our utmost to ensure
that Muslims from around the world can visit the Holy
Sites.
We are determined to reinforce and diversify the
capabilities of our economy, turning our key strengths
into enabling tools for a fully diversified future. As such,
we will transform Aramco from an oil producing
company into a global industrial conglomerate. We will
transform the Public Investment Fund into the world’s
largest sovereign wealth fund. We will encourage our
major corporations to expand across borders and take
their rightful place in global markets. As we continue to
give our army the best possible machinery and
equipment, we plan to manufacture half of our military
needs within the Kingdom to create more job
opportunities for citizens and keep more resources in
our country.
We will expand the variety of digital services to reduce
delays and cut tedious bureaucracy. We will immediately
adopt wide-ranging transparency and accountability
reforms and, through the body set up to measure the
performance of government agencies, hold them
accountable for any shortcomings. We will be
transparent and open about our failures as well as our
successes, and will welcome ideas on how to improve.
All this comes from the directive of the Custodian of the
Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud,
may Allah protect him, who ordered us to plan for a
future that fulfills your ambitions and your aspirations.
In line with his instructions, we will work tirelessly from
today to build a better tomorrow for you, your children,
and your children’s children.
Our ambition is for the long term. It goes beyond

replenishing sources of income that have weakened or
preserving what we have already achieved. We are
determined to build a thriving country in which all
citizens can fulfill their dreams, hopes and ambitions.
Therefore, we will not rest until our nation is a leader in
providing opportunities for all through education and
training, and high quality services such as employment
initiatives, health, housing, and entertainment.
We commit ourselves to providing world-class
government services which effectively and efficiently
meet the needs of our citizens. Together we will
continue building a better country, fulfilling our dream
of prosperity and unlocking the talent, potential, and
dedication of our young men and women. We will not
allow our country ever to be at the mercy of a
commodity price volatility or external markets.
We have all the means to achieve our dreams and
ambitions. There are no excuses for us to stand still or
move backwards.
Our Vision is a strong, thriving, and stable Saudi Arabia
that provides opportunity for all. Our Vision is a tolerant
country with Islam as its constitution and moderation
as its method. We will welcome qualified individuals
from all over the world and will respect those who have
come to join our journey and our success.
We intend to provide better opportunities for
partnerships with the private sector through the three
pillars: our position as the heart of the Arab and Islamic
worlds, our leading investment capabilities, and our
strategic geographical position. We will improve the
business environment, so that our economy grows and
flourishes, driving healthier employment opportunities
for citizens and long-term prosperity for all. This
promise is built on cooperation and on mutual
responsibility.
This is our “Saudi Arabia’s Vision for

.” We will begin
immediately delivering the overarching plans and
programs we have set out. Together, with the help of
Allah, we can strengthen the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s
position as a great nation in which we should all feel an
immense pride.

OUR VISION

SAUDI ARABIA

THE HEART OF THE
ARAB AND ISLAMIC
WORLDS,
THE INVESTMENT
POWERHOUSE, AND
THE HUB
CONNECTING THREE
CONTINENTS

INTRODUCTION

A VIBRANT SOCIETY

A Vibrant Society.. with Strong Roots

A Vibrant Society.. with Fulfilling Lives

A Vibrant Society.. with Strong Foundations

A THRIVING ECONOMY

A Thriving Economy.. Rewarding Opportunities

A Thriving Economy.. Investing for the Long-term

A Thriving Economy.. Open for Business

A Thriving Economy.. Leveraging its Unique Position

AN AMBITIOUS NATION

An Ambitious Nation.. Effectively Governed

An Ambitious Nation.. Responsibly Enabled

HOW TO ACHIEVE OUR VISION?

INDEX

THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA IS
BLESSED WITH MANY RICH ASSETS.
OUR GEOGRAPHIC, CULTURAL,
SOCIAL, DEMOGRAPHIC AND
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES HAVE
ENABLED US TO TAKE A LEADING
POSITION IN THE WORLD

INTRODUCTION
12

To build the best future for our country, we have based
our Vision for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on three
pillars that represent our unique competitive
advantages. Our status will enable us to build on our
leading role as the heart of Arab and Islamic worlds. At
the same time, we will use our investment power to
create a more diverse and sustainable economy. Finally,
we will use our strategic location to build our role as an
integral driver of international trade and to connect
three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe.
Our Vision is built around three themes: a vibrant
society, a thriving economy and an ambitious nation.
This first theme is vital to achieving the Vision and a strong
foundation for economic prosperity. We believe in the
importance of a vibrant society. Members of this society
live in accordance with the Islamic principle of
moderation, are proud of their national identity and
their ancient cultural heritage, enjoy a good life in a
beautiful environment, are protected by caring families
and are supported by an empowering social and health
care system.
In the second theme, a thriving economy provides
opportunities for all by building an education system
aligned with market needs and creating economic
opportunities for the entrepreneur, the small enterprise
as well as the large corporation. Therefore, we will
develop our investment tools to unlock our promising
economic sectors, diversify our economy and create job
opportunities. We will also grow our economy and

improve the quality of our services, by privatizing some
government services, improving the business
environment, attracting the finest talent and the best
investments globally, and leveraging our unique
strategic location in connecting three continents.
Our nation is ambitious in what we want to achieve. We
will apply efficiency and responsibility at all levels. Our
third theme is built on an effective, transparent,
accountable, enabling and high-performing
government. We will also prepare the right environment
for our citizens, private sector and non-profit sector to
take their responsibilities and take the initiative in
facing challenges and seizing opportunities.
In each of these themes, we highlighted a selection of
commitments and goals, as a reflection of our ambition
and a representation of what we aim to achieve. This
Vision will be the point of reference for our future
decisions, so that all future projects are aligned to its
content.
To clarify our next steps, we have already prepared the
ground and launched some executive programs at the
Council of Economic and Development Affairs. We will
now launch a first portfolio of crucial programs with the
aim to achieve our goals and honor our commitments.

A VIBRANT
SOCIETY

1
14

LIVING
BY ISLAMIC
VALUES

Islam and its teachings are our way of life. They are the
basis of all our laws, decisions, actions and goals.
Following Islam’s guidance on the values of hard-work,
dedication, and excellence, Prophet Mohammed, Peace
Be Upon Him, said: “That Allah loves us to master our
work”.
Therefore, the principles of Islam will be the driving
force for us to realize our Vision. The values of
moderation, tolerance, excellence, discipline, equity,
and transparency will be the bedrock of our success.

WE HAVE ENORMOUS UNTAPPED
OPPORTUNITIES AND A RICH BLEND
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BUT OUR
REAL WEALTH LIES IN OUR PEOPLE
AND OUR SOCIETY. WE TAKE PRIDE IN
WHAT MAKES OUR NATION
EXCEPTIONAL: OUR ISLAMIC FAITH
AND OUR NATIONAL UNITY. OUR
NATION IS THE CORE OF THE ARAB
AND ISLAMIC WORLDS AND

A VIBRANT SOCIETY..
WITH STRONG ROOTS

FOCUSING OUR EFFORTS
TO SERVE UMRAH
VISITORS

Saudi Arabia has assumed a prominent place in the world
and has become synonymous with hospitality and a warm
welcome to all Muslims. As such, it has carved a special
place in the hearts of pilgrims and the faithful everywhere.
We have been given the privilege to serve the Two Holy
Mosques, the pilgrims and all visitors to the blessed holy
sites. In the last decade, the number of Umrah visitors
entering the country from abroad has tripled, reaching 8
million people. This is a noble responsibility. It requires us to
spare no effort in seeking to offer pilgrims with all they
need so we fulfil our duty to provide good hospitality to our
brothers and sisters.
In this context, we have recently begun a third expansion to
the Two Holy Mosques, as well as modernizing and
increasing the capacities of our airports. We have launched
the Makkah Metro project to complement the railroad and
train projects that will serve visitors to the Holy Mosques

REPRESENTS THE HEART OF ISLAM.
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT, GOD
WILLING, WE WILL BUILD A BRIGHTER
FUTURE, ONE BASED ON THE
BEDROCK OF ISLAMIC PRINCIPLES.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXCEL IN
PERFORMING OUR DUTIES TOWARDS
PILGRIMS TO THE FULLEST AND
PROMOTE OUR DEEP-ROOTED
NATIONAL IDENTITY

and holy sites. We have reinforced the network of our
transport system to facilitate access and help pilgrims
perform their visits with greater ease and convenience.
At the same time, we will enrich pilgrims’ spiritual journeys
and cultural experiences while in the Kingdom. We will
establish more museums, prepare new tourist and historical
sites and cultural venues, and improve the pilgrimage
experience within the Kingdom.

TAKING PRIDE
IN OUR NATIONAL
IDENTITY

We take immense pride in the historical and cultural legacy
of our Saudi, Arab, and Islamic heritage. Our land was, and
continues to be, known for its ancient civilizations and trade
routes at the crossroads of global trade. This heritage has
given our society the cultural richness and diversity it is
known for today. We recognize the importance of preserving
this sophisticated heritage in order to promote national
unity and consolidate true Islamic and Arab values.
We will endeavor to strengthen, preserve and highlight our national
identity so that it can guide the lives of future generations. We will
do so by keeping true to our national values and principles, as well
as by encouraging social development and upholding the Arabic
language. We will continue to work on the restoration of national,
Arab, Islamic and ancient cultural sites and strive to have them
registered internationally to make them accessible to everyone and,
in the process, create cultural events and build world-class
museums which will attract visitors from near and far. This will
create a living witness to our ancient heritage, showcasing our
prominent place in history and on the map of civilizations.

A VIBRANT SOCIETY..
WITH STRONG ROOTS

Rise in the number of pilgrims from
8 million to 30 million pilgrims

Increase number of registered
archaeological sites in UNESCO
from 4 to 8 the least

To more than double the number of Saudi
heritage sites registered with UNESCO

To increase our capacity to welcome Umrah
visitors from 8 million to 30 million every year

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY

2030

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

THE HONOR TO SERVE THE
INCREASING NUMBER OF
UMRAH VISITORS IN THE
BEST WAY POSSIBLE

We are honored to attend to pilgrims and Umrah
visitors’ needs, fulfilling a role bestowed on us by Allah.
Our expansion of the Two Holy Mosques has led to a
tripling in the number of foreign Umrah visitors over
the last decade, reaching eight million in 2015.
By increasing the capacity and by improving the quality
of the services offered to Umrah visitors, we will, by
2020, make it possible for over 15 million Muslims per
year to perform Umrah and be completely satisfied
with their pilgrimage experience.
We will achieve this by improving visa application
procedures which will smooth the visa process with the
aim of full automation. We will also further integrate
e-services into the pilgrims’ journey, which will enrich
the religious and cultural experience.
Both the public and private sectors will play a crucial
role in this project as we work to upgrade
accommodation, improve hospitality and launch new
services for pilgrims.

THE LARGEST ISLAMIC
MUSEUM

We have always taken – and will continue to take –
great pride in our heritage. Mohammad, the Last of
Prophets, Peace Be Upon Him, was from Makkah,
the birthplace of Islam. Medina is where the first
Islamic society was born.
We will build an Islamic museum in accordance with
the highest global standards, equipped with the
latest methods in collection, preservation,
presentation and documentation. It will be a major
landmark for our citizens and visitors, where they
will learn about the history of Islam, enjoy interactive
experiences and participate in cultural events.
Using modern technology, visitors to the museum
will take an immersive journey through the different
ages of Islamic civilization, as well as its science,
scholars and culture.
It will also be an international hub for erudition and
include a world-class library and research center.

PROMOTING
CULTURE AND
ENTERTAINMENT

We consider culture and entertainment indispensable
to our quality of life. We are well aware that the cultural
and entertainment opportunities currently available do
not reflect the rising aspirations of our citizens and
residents, nor are they in harmony with our prosperous
economy. It is why we will support the efforts of
regions, governorates, non-profit and private sectors to
organize cultural events. We intend to enhance the role
of government funds, while also attracting local and
international investors, creating partnerships with
international entertainment corporations. Land suitable
for cultural and entertainment projects will be provided
and talented writers, authors and directors will be
carefully supported. We will seek to offer a variety of
cultural venues – such as libraries, arts and museums –
as well as entertainment possibilities to suit tastes and
preferences. These projects will also contribute to our
economy and will result in the creation of many job
opportunities.

THE HAPPINESS AND FULFILLMENT
OF CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS IS
IMPORTANT TO US. THIS CAN ONLY
BE ACHIEVED THROUGH PROMOTING
PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
SOCIAL WELL-BEING. AT THE HEART

LIVING HEALTHY,
BEING
HEALTHY

A healthy and balanced lifestyle is an essential mainstay
of a high quality of life. Yet opportunities for the regular
practice of sports have often been limited. This will
change. We intend to encourage widespread and
regular participation in sports and athletic activities,
working in partnership with the private sector to
establish additional dedicated facilities and programs.
This will enable citizens and residents to engage in a
wide variety of sports and leisure pursuits. We aspire to
excel in sport and be among the leaders in selected
sports regionally and globally.

A VIBRANT SOCIETY..
WITH FULFILLING LIVES

DEVELOPING
OUR
CITIES

Our cities already enjoy high levels of security and
development. Despite the current turmoil in the region
and the wide expanse of our territories, our country
and citizens are safe and secure. Our cities are among
the safest in the world with annual crime rates that are
less than 0.8 per 100,000 people, far below the
international rate of 7.6. We will maintain our safety and
security by supporting ongoing efforts to fight drugs
abuse, as well as by adopting further measures to
ensure traffic safety, reduce traffic accidents and
minimize their tragic consequences.
Our cities have grown significantly in recent decades; a
growth which has been accompanied by the steady
development of their infrastructure. To ensure we can
continue to enhance the quality of life for all and meet
the needs and requirements of our citizens, we will
continue to ensure high quality services such as water,
electricity, public transport and roads are properly
provided. Open and landscaped areas will also be
developed further, to meet the recreational needs of
individuals and families.

ACHIEVING
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY

By preserving our environment and natural resources,
we fulfill our Islamic, human and moral duties.
Preservation is also our responsibility to future
generations and essential to the quality of our daily
lives. We will seek to safeguard our environment by
increasing the efficiency of waste management,
establishing comprehensive recycling projects, reducing
all types of pollution and fighting desertification. We
will also promote the optimal use of our water resources
by reducing consumption and utilizing treated and
renewable water. We will direct our efforts towards
protecting and rehabilitating our beautiful beaches,
natural reserves and islands, making them open to
everyone. We will seek the participation of the private
sector and government funds in these efforts.

OF OUR VISION IS A SOCIETY IN
WHICH ALL ENJOY A GOOD QUALITY
OF LIFE, A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE AND
AN ATTRACTIVE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT

A VIBRANT SOCIETY..
WITH FULFILLING LIVES

Naming three Saudi cities
Among the top 100 cities
In terms of quality of life*

Polarization of household spending on
culture And entertainment into the
kingdom to rise from % 2.9 to 6%

Increase percentage of sports
practitioners At least weekly from
13% to

Naming three Saudi cities
Among the top 100 cities
In terms of quality of life*

To increase the ratio of individuals exercising at least
once a week from 13% of population to 40%

To increase household spending on cultural and entertainment activities
inside the Kingdom from the current level of 2.9% to 6%

To have three Saudi cities be recognized in the top-ranked
100 cities in the world

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

By 2020, there will be more than

0 registered
and professionally organized amateur clubs
providing a variety of cultural activities and
enter tainment events.

“DAEM”
MEANINGFUL
ENTERTAINMENT FOR
CITIZENS

We will increase the number and variety of
cultural and enter tainment activities with the
aim of opening dedicated venues to showcase
our citizens’ myriad talents. We will also review
our regulations to simplify the establishment and
registration of amateur, social and cultural clubs.
We will launch and provide the necessar y
financial suppor t for “Daem”, a national program
to enhance the quality of cultural activities and
enter tainment. The program will create a national
network of clubs, encourage the exchange of
knowledge and international experiences and
promote better awareness of a wide range of
hobbies and leisure activities.

CARING FOR
OUR FAMILIES

Families are the key building block of a society,
protecting it from social breakdown across generations,
and acting as both its children’s sanctuary and the main
provider of their needs. One of the defining
characteristics of the Kingdom is its adherence to
Islamic principles and values, together with the unity
and extended family relations. Building on these key
characteristics, we will provide our families with all the
necessary support to take care of their children and
develop their talents and abilities. In particular, we
want to deepen the participation of parents in the
education process, to help them develop their children’s
characters and talents so that they can contribute fully
to society. Families will also be encouraged to adopt a
planning culture, to plan carefully for their future and
the futures of their children.
We recognize each family’s aspiration to own a home
and the important role ownership plays in strengthening
family security. Even though

percent of Saudi
families already own their homes, we aim to increase
this rate by five percentage points by 2020. This would
be a substantial achievement given the high increase in
the number of new entrants to the housing market. We
will meet this target by introducing a number of laws
and regulations; encouraging the private sector to
build houses; and providing funding, mortgage
solutions and ownership schemes that meet the needs
of our citizens.

OUR GOAL IS TO PROMOTE AND
REINVIGORATE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO BUILD A
STRONG AND PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY.
WE WILL STRENGTHEN OUR FAMILIES,

DEVELOPING OUR
CHILDREN’S CHARACTER

We intend to embed positive moral beliefs in our
children’s characters from an early age by reshaping
our academic and educational system. Schools,
working with families, will reinforce the fabric of
society by providing students with the compassion,
knowledge, and behaviors necessary for resilient and
independent characters to emerge. The focus will be
on the fundamental values of initiative, persistence
and leadership, as well as social skills, cultural
knowledge and self-awareness. We will also promote
cultural, social, volunteering and athletic activities
through empowering our educational, cultural and
entertainment institutions.

A VIBRANT SOCIETY..
WITH STRONG FOUNDATIONS

EMPOWERING
OUR SOCIETY

We will continue modernizing our social welfare system
to make it more efficient, empowering and just.
Subsidies for fuel, food, water and electricity will be
better utilized by redirecting them towards those in
need. We will provide our most vulnerable citizens with
tailored care and support. Together with the private
sector and non-governmental organizations, we will
offer preparation and training to those unable to find
employment so they can smoothly join the workforce
whenever possible.

CARING FOR
OUR HEALTH

Our health care system has benefited from substantive
investment in recent decades. As a result, we now
have 2.2 hospital beds for every 1,000 people, world-
class medical specialists with average life expectancy
rising from

years to

years in the past three
decades. We are determined to optimize and better
utilize the capacity of our hospitals and health care
centers, and enhance the quality of our preventive
and therapeutic health care services.
The public sector will focus on promoting preventive
care, on reducing infectious diseases and in
encouraging citizens to make use of primary care as
a first step. It will deepen collaboration and
integration between health and social care, as well as
supporting families to provide home care when
necessary for their relatives. The public sector will
focus on its planning, regulatory and supervisory
roles in health care. We intend to provide our health
care through public corporations both to enhance its
quality and to prepare for the benefits of privatization
in the longer term. We will work towards developing
private medical insurance to improve access to
medical services and reduce waiting times for
appointments with specialists and consultants. Our
doctors will be given better training to improve
treatment for chronic diseases such as heart disease,
diabetes and cancer that threaten our nation’s health.

PROVIDE THE EDUCATION THAT
BUILDS OUR CHILDREN’S
FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERS AND
ESTABLISH EMPOWERING HEALTH
AND SOCIAL CARE SYSTEMS

A VIBRANT SOCIETY..
WITH STRONG FOUNDATIONS
30

Raise Social capital index from
position 26 to position

Increase the average of life
expectancy from 74 to

years

To increase the average life expectancy from 74 years to 80 years

To raise our position from 26 to 10 in the Social Capital index

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

“IRTIQAA”
A MORE PROMINENT ROLE
FOR FAMILIES IN THE
EDUCATION OF THEIR
CHILDREN

The engagement of parents in their children’s
education is one of the main principles of success.
Our goal by 2020 is for 80 percent of parents to be
engaged in school activities and the learning
process of their children.
We will launch the “Irtiqaa” program, which will measure
how effectively schools are engaging parents in their
children’s education. We will establish parent-led boards
in schools, to open discussion forums and further
engage with parents. Teachers will receive training to
raise their awareness of the importance of
communicating with parents and equip them with
effective methods to do so successfully. We will also
collaborate with private and non-profit sectors to offer
innovative educational programs and events that can
improve this academic partnership.

CORPORATIZATION:
EFFICIENT AND HIGH
QUALITY HEALTH CARE

Our goal is to enhance the standard and quality of
health care services. Our aim is a health care sector that
promotes competition and transparency among
providers. This will enhance the capability, efficiency
and productivity of care and treatment and increase
the options available to our citizens.
To achieve this goal, we will introduce corporatization
into the sector by transferring the responsibility for
health care provision to a network of public companies
that compete both against each other and against the
private sector. This will provide our citizens with the
highest quality of health care while, at the same time,
allowing the government to focus on its legislative,
regulatory and supervisory roles. Corporatization shall
also promote and prioritize specialization in health care
services and enable citizens to choose their preferred
service provider.

A THRIVING
ECONOMY

2
34

LEARNING
FOR
WORKING

We will continue investing in education and training so
that our young men and women are equipped for the
jobs of the future. We want Saudi children, wherever
they live, to enjoy higher quality, multi-faceted
education. We will invest particularly in developing
early childhood education, refining our national
curriculum and training our teachers and educational
leaders.
We will also redouble efforts to ensure that the
outcomes of our education system are in line with
market needs. We have launched the National Labor
Gateway (TAQAT), and we plan to establish sector
councils that will precisely determine the skills and
knowledge required by each socio-economic sector. We
will also expand vocational training in order to drive
forward economic development. Our scholarship
opportunities will be steered towards prestigious
international universities and be awarded in the fields
that serve our national priorities. We will also focus on
innovation in advanced technologies and
entrepreneurship.

THE SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES OF OUR
CHILDREN ARE ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT AND CHERISHED ASSETS. TO
MAKE THE MOST OF THEIR POTENTIAL,
WE WILL BUILD A CULTURE THAT
REWARDS DETERMINATION, PROVIDES
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL AND HELPS
EVERYONE ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY

BOOSTING OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND
PRODUCTIVE FAMILIES

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are among
the most important agents of economic growth; they
create jobs, support innovation and boost exports.
SMEs in the Kingdom are not yet major contributors to
our GDP, especially when compared to advanced
economies. Therefore, we will strive to create suitable
job opportunities for our citizens by supporting SME
entrepreneurship, privatization and investments in new
industries. To help us achieve this goal, we have
established the SME Authority and we will continue
encouraging our young entrepreneurs with business-
friendly regulations, easier access to funding,
international partnerships and a greater share of
national procurement and government bids.
Our productive families now enjoy vast marketing
opportunities through social media and digital
platforms. We will facilitate access to these channels,
enable microfinance and motivate the non-profit sector
to build the capabilities of our productive families and
fund their initiatives.

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
REWARDING OPPORTUNITIES

PROVIDING
EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES

Our economy will provide opportunities for everyone – men and
women, young and old – so they may contribute to the best of
their abilities. We will place a renewed emphasis on lifelong
training and we will seek to make the most of the potential of our
workforce by encouraging a culture of high performance. These
efforts will be coordinated by the recently established Job
Creation and Anti-Unemployment Commission.
One of our most significant assets is our lively and vibrant youth. We will
guarantee their skills are developed and properly deployed. While many
other countries are concerned with aging populations, more than half of
the Saudi population is below the age of 25 years. We will take advantage
of this demographic dividend by harnessing our youth’s energy and by
expanding entrepreneurship and enterprise opportunities.
Saudi women are yet another great asset. With over 50
percent of our university graduates being female, we will
continue to develop their talents, invest in their productive
capabilities and enable them to strengthen their future and
contribute to the development of our society and economy.
We will also enable those of our people with disabilities to
receive the education and job opportunities that will ensure
their independence and integration as effective members of
society. They will be provided with all the facilities and tools
required to put them on the path to commercial success.

ATTRACTING THE
TALENTS
WE NEED

Achieving our desired rate of economic growth will
require an environment that attracts the necessary
skills and capabilities both from within the Kingdom
and beyond our national borders. We will seek to
improve living and working conditions for non-Saudis,
by extending their ability to own real estate in certain
areas, improving the quality of life, permitting the
establishment of more private schools and adopting an
effective and simple system for issuing visas and
residence permits.
Our goal is to attract and retain the finest Saudi and
foreign minds, and provide them with all they need.
Their presence in the Kingdom will contribute to
economic development and attract additional
foreign investment.

SKILLS TO ACHIEVE THEIR PERSONAL
GOALS. TO THIS END, WE WILL
REINFORCE THE ABILITY OF OUR
ECONOMY TO GENERATE DIVERSE JOB
OPPORTUNITIES AND INSTITUTE A NEW
PARADIGM IN ATTRACTING GLOBAL
TALENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS.

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
REWARDING OPPORTUNITIES

Reducing the
unemployment rate from
12% to the World rating
7%

High input of Small and
medium facilities from
20% to 35% of GDP

Raise the percentage of
the Saudi women
employment rate from
12% to 40%

To increase SME contribution to GDP from 20% to 35%

To increase women’s participation in the workforce from 22% to 30%

To lower the rate of unemployment from 11.6% to 7%

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

AN EDUCATION THAT
CONTRIBUTES TO
ECONOMIC GROWTH

We will close the gap between the outputs of higher
education and the requirements of the job market. We
will also help our students make careful career
decisions, while at the same time training them and
facilitating their transition between different
educational pathways. In the year 2030, we aim to
have at least five Saudi universities among the top 200
universities in international rankings. We shall help our
students achieve results above international averages
in global education indicators.

To this end, we will prepare a modern curriculum
focused on rigorous standards in literacy, numeracy,
skills and character development. We will track
progress and publish a sophisticated range of
education outcomes, showing year-on-year
improvements. We will work closely with the private
sector to ensure higher education outcomes are in line
with the requirements of job market. We will invest in
strategic partnerships with apprenticeship providers,
new skills councils from industry, and large private
companies. We will also work towards developing the
job specifications of every education field. Furthermore,

A BIGGER ROLE FOR SMALL
AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ENTERPRISES

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) contribute
only 20 percent of our GDP whereas, in advanced
economies, this contribution can reach up to

percent.
Despite the efforts made to improve the business
environment in the Kingdom, SMEs can still endure
unnecessarily slow and complex legal and administrative
procedures. They also struggle to attract the necessary
skills, capabilities and funding with financial institutions
providing no more than 5 percent of the overall funding
– a far lower percentage than the global average. We will
strive to facilitate enhanced access to funding and to
encourage our financial institutions to allocate up to 20
percent of overall funding to SMEs by 2030.
The recently established SME Authority plans to review
laws and regulations thoroughly, remove obstacles,
facilitate access to funding, and enable youth and
entrepreneurs to market their ideas and products. At the
same time, we will establish additional new business
incubators, specialized training institutions and venture
capital funds. These will aid entrepreneurs in developing
their skills and networks. We will also support SMEs in
marketing and help export their products and services,
by leveraging e-commerce and collaborating with
international stakeholders.

we will build a centralized student database tracking
students from early childhood through to K-12 and
beyond into tertiary education (higher and vocational)
in order to improve education planning, monitoring,
evaluation, and outcomes.

DIVERSIFYING OUR ECONOMY IS VITAL
FOR ITS SUSTAINABILITY. ALTHOUGH OIL
AND GAS ARE ESSENTIAL PILLARS OF
OUR ECONOMY, WE HAVE BEGUN
EXPANDING OUR INVESTMENTS INTO
ADDITIONAL SECTORS,
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
COMPLICATED CHALLENGES AHEAD BUT
WE HAVE LONG-TERM PLANS TO
OVERCOME THEM. IN THE PAST 25 YEARS,
THE SAUDI ECONOMY HAS GROWN BY
AN ANNUAL AVERAGE RATE OF MORE
THAN 4 PERCENT, CONTRIBUTING TO
THE CREATION OF MILLIONS OF NEW

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
INVESTING FOR THE LONG-TERM

MAXIMIZING
OUR INVESTMENT
CAPABILITIES

The ongoing privatization of state-owned assets, including
leading companies, property and other assets, will bring in
new and more diverse revenues for the Saudi government.
This will further enhance our financial resources and
economic stability, which will be reinvested for long-term
impact.
We will develop further the sophistication of our investment
vehicles, particularly after transferring the ownership of
Aramco to the Public Investment Fund, which will become

the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. We will
increase the efficiency of the fund’s management and
improve its return on investment, with the aim of diversifying
our government resources and our economy.
The Public Investment Fund will not compete with the
private sector, but instead help unlock strategic sectors
requiring intensive capital inputs. This will contribute towards
developing entirely new economic sectors and establishing
durable national corporations.

JOBS, ALTHOUGH WE ARE ALREADY
AMONG THE 20 LARGEST ECONOMIES IN
THE WORLD, OUR AMBITIONS ARE EVEN
GREATER. WE ASPIRE TO HAVE AN EVEN
HIGHER RANKING BY 2030, DESPITE THE
HEADWINDS OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC
SLOWDOWN AND THE EXPECTED IMPACT
OF OUR STRUCTURAL ECONOMIC
REFORMS. THIS REQUIRES US TO INVEST
IN ALL OUR RESOURCES IN ORDER TO
DIVERSIFY THE ECONOMY, UNLEASH THE
CAPABILITIES OF OUR PROMISING
ECONOMIC SECTORS AND PRIVATIZE
SOME GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Building on the Kingdom’s leading position and historic
alliances, we plan to enter long-term partnerships with
neighboring and friendly countries for knowledge transfer
and trade.
Our Vision is to maximize our investment capabilities by
participating in large international companies and emerging
technologies from around the world. This will ensure that we
become market makers in selected sectors, as well as a leader
in competitively managing assets, funding and investment.

All of this will require the formation of an advanced financial
and capital market open to the world, allowing greater
funding opportunities and stimulating economic growth. To
this end, we will continue facilitating access to investing and
trading in the stock markets. We will smooth the process of
listing private Saudi companies and state-owned enterprises,
including Aramco. This will require deepening liquidity in our
capital markets, fortifying the role of the debt market and
paving the way for the derivatives market.

LAUNCHING
OUR PROMISING
SECTORS

We will support promising sectors and foster their success
so that they become new pillars of our economy. In the
manufacturing sector, we will work towards localizing
renewable energy and industrial equipment sectors. In the
tourism and leisure sectors, we will create attractions that
are of the highest international standards, improve visa
issuance procedures for visitors, and prepare and develop
our historical and heritage sites. In technology, we will
increase our investments in, and lead, the digital economy.

In mining, we will furnish incentives for and benefit from
the exploration of the Kingdom’s mineral resources.
At the same time as diversifying our economy, we will
continue to localize the oil and gas sector. As well as
creating a new city dedicated to energy, we will double our
gas production, and construct a national gas distribution
network. We will also make use of our global leadership
and expertise in oil and petrochemicals to invest in the
development of adjacent and supporting sectors.

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
INVESTING FOR THE LONG-TERM

PRIVATIZING
OUR GOVERNMENT
SERVICES

Although we believe strongly in the important role of the private
sector, it currently contributes less than 40 percent of GDP. To
increase its long-term contribution to our economy, we will open
up new investment opportunities, facilitate investment, encourage
innovation and competition and remove all obstacles preventing
the private sector from playing a larger role in development.
We will continue to improve and reform our regulations, paving
the way for investors and the private sector to acquire and deliver

services – such as health care and education – that are currently
provided by the public sector. We will seek to shift the
government’s role from providing services to one that focuses on
regulating and monitoring them and we will build the capability
to monitor this transition.
We will seek to increase private sector contribution by encouraging
investments, both local and international, in healthcare, municipal
services, housing, finance, energy and so forth.

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
INVESTING FOR THE LONG-TERM

Increase the value of
assets run by the
Public investment
fund to More than 7
trillion Saudi Riyal

To increase the localization of oil and gas sectors from 40% to

To increase the Public Investment Fund’s assets,
from SAR

0 billion to over 7 trillion

To move from our current position as the 19th largest
economy in the world into the top 15

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030
47

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

LOCALIZED
DEFENSE INDUSTRIES

The benefits of localizing our own defense industries are not
limited to solely reducing military spending. It also stimulates
other industrial sectors such as industrial equipment,
communications and information technology, which in turn
creates more job opportunities.
Although the Kingdom is the world’s third biggest military
spender, only 2 percent of this spending is within our Kingdom.
The national defense industrial sector is limited to only seven
companies and two research centers.
Our aim is to localize over 50 percent of military equipment
spending by 2030. We have already begun developing less
complex industries such as those providing spare parts, armored
vehicles and basic ammunition. We will expand this initiative to
higher value and more complex equipment such as military
aircraft. We will build an integrated national network of services
and supporting industries that will improve our self-sufficiency
and strengthen our defense exports, both regionally and
internationally.
Localization will be achieved through direct investments and
strategic partnerships with leading companies in this sector. These
moves will transfer knowledge and technology, and build national
expertise in the fields of manufacturing, maintenance, repair,
research and development. We will also train our employees and
establish more specialized and integrated industrial complexes.

A MINING SECTOR
CONTRIBUTING TO THE
NATIONAL ECONOMY AT
FULL POTENTIAL

We have been blessed with rich mineral resources such
as aluminum, phosphate, gold, copper, uranium and
other raw materials. Although the mining sector has
already undergone improvements to cater to the needs
of our industries, its contribution to GDP has yet to meet
expectations. As such, we are determined to ensure it
reaches SAR 97 billion by 2020, creating 90,000 job
opportunities in the process.
We are planning a number of structural reforms, which
include stimulating private sector investments by
intensifying exploration, building a comprehensive
database of the Kingdom’s resources, reviewing the
licensing procedures for extraction, investing in
infrastructure, developing funding methods and
establishing centers of excellence.
We will also form strategic international partnerships and
raise the competitiveness and productivity of our
national companies. This will boost their contribution to
the sector’s growth, as well as to the localization of
knowledge and expertise.

A RENEWABLE
ENERGY MARKET

Even though we have an impressive natural potential for
solar and wind power, and our local energy consumption
will increase three fold by 2030, we still lack a competitive
renewable energy sector at present. To build up the
sector, we have set ourselves an initial target of
generating 9.5 gigawatts of renewable energy. We will
also seek to localize a significant portion of the renewable
energy value chain in the Saudi economy, including
research and development, and manufacturing, among
other stages.
From inputs such as silica and petrochemicals, to the
extensive expertise of our leading Saudi companies in
the production of different forms of energy, we have all
the raw ingredients for success. We will put this into
practice with the forthcoming launch of the King Salman
Renewable Energy Initiative. We will review the legal and
regulatory framework that allows the private sector to
buy and invest in the renewable energy sector. To localize
the industry and produce the necessary skill-sets, we will
also encourage public-private partnerships. Finally, we
will guarantee the competitiveness of renewable energy
through the gradual liberalization of the fuels market.

OPENING SAUDI ARABIA FURTHER
FOR BUSINESS WILL BOOST
PRODUCTIVITY AND SMOOTH OUR
JOURNEY TO BECOME ONE OF THE
LARGEST ECONOMIES IN THE
WORLD. WE WILL IMPROVE OUR

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
OPEN FOR BUSINESS

IMPROVING
THE BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENT

We will further pursue public-private partnerships, continue
to facilitate the flow of private investment and improve our
competitiveness. We will develop the necessary capabilities
to increase the quality and reliability of our services. We will
coordinate with legislative authorities to review current
regulations with the aim of improving the business
environment and enforcing contracts.
Where it exists in strategic locations, we will also capitalize on
the government’s reserves of real estate. We will allocate
prime areas within cities for educational institutions, retail
and entertainment centers, large areas along our coasts will
be dedicated to tourist projects and appropriate lands will be
allocated for industrial projects.
We will enable banks and other financial institutions to adapt
their financial products and services to the needs of each
sector, ranging from large project capital funding to short-
term working capital for small businesses. We will also
facilitate and expedite licensing procedures based on our
national economic priorities. We will apply international legal
and commercial regulations strictly and create a business
environment conducive to long-term investment.
We will strive to facilitate the movement of people and
goods, and to simplify customs procedures at our ports.
As a result, we will create an environment attractive to both
local and foreign investors, and earn their confidence in the
resilience and potential of our national economy.

REHABILITATING
ECONOMIC
CITIES

We are aware that the economic cities of the last
decade did not realize their potential. Work has halted
in several cities, and others face challenges that
threaten their viability.
We have worked in cooperation with Aramco to
restructure Jizan Economic City. We will strive to salvage
other economic cities, especially those with comparative
advantages. To achieve this, we will work with the
companies owning those cities to revamp them and
transfer vital facilities. This effort will depend on the
readiness of these companies to work with the
government. Our aim is for these cities to contribute in
the development of the economy and to attract quality
investments as well as local and international talent, all
kept in line with our national priorities.

ESTABLISHING
SPECIAL
ZONES

We will create special zones in exceptional and
competitive locations. We shall take into account the
comparative advantages of the Kingdom’s different
regions, assess their feasibility for promising sectors,
and then establish special zones, such as logistic,
tourist, industrial and financial ones. Special commercial
regulations to boost investment possibilities and
diversify government revenues will be applied to these
zones.

INCREASING THE
COMPETITIVENESS OF OUR
ENERGY SECTOR

We plan to raise the efficiency of the government’s support
system and make the best use of its benefits by redirecting it
and targeting eligible citizens and economic sectors. For
example, we understand that providing subsidies with no
clear eligibility criteria is a substantial obstacle to the energy
sector’s competitiveness. Free market prices shall, in the long
term, stimulate productivity and competitiveness among
utility companies and open the door to investment and
diversification of the energy mix in the Kingdom. We will also
seek to set clear subsidy criteria based on the maturity of
economic sectors, their ability to compete locally and
internationally and their actual need for subsidies, without
endangering promising and strategic sectors.

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT,
RESTRUCTURE OUR ECONOMIC
CITIES, CREATE SPECIAL ZONES AND
DEREGULATE THE ENERGY MARKET
TO MAKE IT MORE COMPETITIVE

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
OPEN FOR BUSINESS

Having the contribution
of the private sector
reach from 40% to 60%
of the total local
production

To increase foreign direct investment from 3.8% to the
international level of 5.7% of GDP

To increase the private sector’s contribution from 40% to 65% of GDP

To rise from our current position of 25 to the top 10 countries on the
Global Competitiveness Index

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

A RESTRUCTURED KING
ABDULLAH FINANCIAL
DISTRICT

In the last decade, works started at the King Abdullah
Financial District, without consideration of its economic
feasibility. The objective was to prepare the land in
order to allow the business and financial communities
to invest and build real estate. When this objective was
not reached, the government decided back then to
develop and rent the real estate. Challenges were
deepened by the development of the real estate project
in one single phase, which caused a significant increase
in construction costs and several delays in delivery. This
resulted in large oversupply of commercial space for
the years to come. Without any dramatic shift in
direction, renting the three million square meters of
built-up areas at reasonable prices, or even achieving
decent occupancy ravtes, will be very challenging.
With this in mind, we have reviewed the economic
feasibility of and designed a new fundamental strategy
for the district in order to increase the chances of
profitability and success. We will seek to transform the
district into a special zone that has competitive
regulations and procedures, with visa exemptions, and
directly connected to the King Khaled International
Airport.

We will also seek to repurpose some of the built-up
areas and change the real estate mix, increasing the
allocation for residential accommodation, services and
hospitality areas. We will seek to build and create an
integrated and attractive living and working
environment. The district will be the headquarters of
the Public Investment Fund, the largest sovereign
wealth fund, which will contribute to creating an
environment attractive to financial, investment and
other corporations.

AMONG OUR COMMITMENTS..

A FLOURISHING
RETAIL SECTOR

Over the past decade, the retail sector achieved an
annual growth rate in excess of 10 percent. It currently
employs 1.5 million workers, of which only 0.3 million
are Saudis. Traditional retail also still dominates 50
percent of the market in the Kingdom compared to 20
percent in a number of countries in the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC), with our retail market suffering from
limited penetration of modern trade and e-commerce.
We aim to provide job opportunities for an additional
million Saudis by 2020 in a growing retail sector that
attracts modern, local, regional, and international
brands across all regions of the country. We also aim to
increase the contribution of modern trade and
e-commerce to 80 percent of the retail sector by 2020.
This will be achieved by attracting both regional and
international retail investors and by easing restrictions
on ownership and foreign investment.
To this end, we will facilitate local and regional flow of
goods and develop necessary sectoral regulations. We
will also increase financing of small retail enterprises to
stimulate their growth and development.

A DEVELOPED DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE

A sophisticated digital infrastructure is integral to
today’s advanced industrial activities. It attracts
investors and enhances the fundamental
competitiveness of the Saudi economy.
We will partner with the private sector to develop the
telecommunications and information technology
infrastructure, especially high-speed broadband,
expanding its coverage and capacity within and around
cities and improving its quality. Our specific goal is to
exceed 90 percent housing coverage in densely
populated cities and 66 percent in other urban zones.
We will also develop building standards to facilitate the
extension of broadband networks.
We will strengthen the governance of digital
transformation through a national council. Additionally,
we will improve our regulations and establish an
effective partnership with telecom operators to better
develop this critical infrastructure. We will also support
local investments in the telecommunications and
information technology sectors.

SAUDI ARABIA IS RIGHT AT THE
CROSSROADS OF IMPORTANT
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ROUTES,
BETWEEN THREE CONTINENTS: ASIA,
EUROPE AND AFRICA. WE WILL
THEREFORE MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS
FROM OUR EXCEPTIONAL AND
STRATEGIC GEOGRAPHIC POSITION,
AGREE NEW STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIPS TO GROW OUR

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
LEVERAGING ITS UNIQUE POSITION

BUILDING A UNIQUE
REGIONAL
LOGISTICAL HUB

We have already invested heavily in the construction of
ports, railways, roads and airports. To take full advantage
of these investments, we plan to work with the private
sector and enter into a new series of international
partnerships to complete, improve and link our
infrastructure internally and across borders. We will also
unlock our “hard” infrastructure with systems that can
drive higher performance, including more rigorous
governance, leaner processes and a more efficient
customs system. We will improve and implement
existing laws and regulations. Air, maritime, and other
transport operators will be encouraged to make the
most of their capacity: achieving durable links between
existing trade hubs, as well as opening new trade
routes. This will reinforce our position as a distinctive
logistical gateway to the three continents.

INTEGRATING
REGIONALLY AND
INTERNATIONALLY

With a GDP of SAR 2.4 trillion, our economy is
already the largest in the Middle East. We enjoy
close economic ties with the Gulf Cooperation
Council and other Arab countries, as well as
constructive relations with Islamic and foreign
countries. We will seek to establish new business
partnerships and facilitate a smoother flow of
goods, people and capital.
Among our top priorities is to fortify and extend our
interconnectivity and economic integration with
other Gulf Cooperation Council countries. We will
strive to complete the process of implementing the
GCC common market, unifying customs, economic
and legal policies, and constructing shared road and
railway networks.
We will seek to effectively link with other countries
in the region, through enhanced logistics services

and new cross-border infrastructure projects,
including land transport projects with Africa
through Egypt. Logistical and trade exchanges will
be streamlined, further cementing our pre-eminent
position as a major trade hub.

ECONOMY AND HELP SAUDI
COMPANIES TO INCREASE EXPORTS
OF THEIR PRODUCTS. WE WILL
LEVERAGE THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF
ENERGY SOURCES AND OUR
DISTINCTIVE LOGISTICAL OFFER TO
STIMULATE A NEW PHASE OF
INDUSTRIALIZATION AND TO
CATALYZE EXPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS

SUPPORTING
OUR NATIONAL
COMPANIES

Rather than competing generically across the board,
we will concentrate on our comparative advantages,
national strengths and the areas that will assure
leadership status. Initially, our priority will be to fully
support major national companies, which have already
gained a leading market share, by promoting their
products and services regionally and globally, especially
in the fields of oil, petrochemicals, banking,
telecommunications, food, health care, and retail. We
will also seek to support Saudi companies with
promising growth opportunities so they develop into
new regional and global leaders. Finally, we will fully
support our national industries, assisting them to
market themselves abroad and to export their products.

A THRIVING ECONOMY..
LEVERAGING ITS UNIQUE POSITION
60

To raise the share of non-oil exports in non-oil GDP from 16% to 50%

To raise our global ranking in the Logistics Performance Index
from 49 to 25 and ensure the Kingdom is a regional leader

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030

AN AMBITIOUS
NATION

3
62

AN AMBITIOUS NATION..
EFFECTIVELY GOVERNED

THE ROLES AND REQUIREMENTS OF
GOVERNMENT HAVE GROWN
SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE KINGDOM
OF SAUDI ARABIA’S FOUNDING.
GOVERNMENT – ANY GOVERNMENT –
NEEDS TO EVOLVE AND IMPROVE
CONTINUOUSLY, IF ONLY TO KEEP
PACE WITH RISING EXPECTATIONS
AND NEW CHALLENGES. THIS
REQUIRES US TO MEET HIGH

STANDARDS OF TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. WE ARE
COMMITTED TO MANAGING OUR
FINANCES EFFICIENTLY AND
EFFECTIVELY, AND TO CREATING
AGILE PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS AND
TO TRACKING BOTH THEIR OWN
PERFORMANCE AND THAT OF THE
GOVERNMENT OVERALL

EMBRACING
TRANSPARENCY

PROTECTING
OUR VITAL RESOURCES

We will continue to build safe and sufficient
strategic food reserves, to better guard against
emergencies. Aquaculture will be promoted, as
will strategic partnerships with countries
blessed with natural resources such as fertile
soil and water reserves. In Saudi Arabia, the use of
water in agriculture will be prioritized for those
areas with natural and renewable water sources. We
will also continue to collaborate with consumers, food
manufacturers and distributors to reduce any
resource wastage.

WITH AGILI

AN AMBITIOUS NATION..
EFFECTIVELY GOVERNED
66

20To raise our ranking in the Government Effectiveness Index, from 80 to 20

To increase non-oil government revenue
from SAR 163 billion to SAR 1 Trillion

To raise our ranking on the E-Government Survey Index from our current
position of 36 to be among the top five nations

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

KING SALMAN PROGRAM
FOR HUMAN CAPITAL
DEVELOPMENT

We have yet to identify and put into effect the best
practices that would ensure that public sector
employees have the right skills for the future. However,
by 2020, we aim to have trained, through distance
learning, 500,000 government employees. All ministries
and government institutions will be required to adopt
best practices in human capital development. We will
continue to hire individuals according to merit and
work towards building a broad talent base, so they may
become leaders of the future.
The King Salman Program for Human Capital
Development will establish HR centers of excellence in
every government agency, and provide training. We
will work to raise the productivity of employees to the
highest levels possible, by implementing proper
performance management standards, providing
continuous training for professional development, and
sharing knowledge. We will develop targeted policies
to identify and empower future leaders, and will furnish
a stimulating environment that provides equal
opportunities and rewards for excellence.

SHARED SERVICES TO
OUR GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES

We are working towards shared services across our
government agencies. This will contribute to achieving
our goal of increasing productivity and raising the
efficiency of government spending. Shared services in
our government will also aim to increase quality, cut
costs, unify our efforts, and provide a suitable work
environment for all parties at the lowest cost.
Shared services can be applied globally and locally in
many sectors. This is our long-term goal, and we will
implement it gradually. As a first step therefore, we will
examine the status of support services in government
sectors, set the scope of work and develop
comprehensive priorities and implementation plans.
We will follow best practices in employing shared
services, with a robust set of performance indicators
that will measure quality, workflow improvement, cost
reduction and knowledge transfer.

AMONG OUR COMMITMENTS..
70

“QAWAM”:
INCREASING SPENDING
EFFICIENCY

We are committed to making our public spending
radically more efficient, using our resources more
effectively, and limiting waste. We will launch the
“Qawam” program as a reflection of the Qur’anic verse
that calls for moderation in spending between excess
and parsimony. Allah the Almighty says: “And those who,
when they spend, are neither extravagant nor niggardly,
but hold a medium (way) between those (extremes)”
Through this program, we will comprehensively review
financial regulations in all government agencies. The
program is intended to move away from a narrow reliance
on process auditing, and move towards a more integrated
approach with effective and efficient spending controls,
and specific and measurable goals, while sustaining
resources and assets. We will raise awareness and reward
a culture of efficient spending throughout all
administrative levels. Specialized training for employees
and other key stakeholders will be provided as required,
boosting the performance of finance departments and
internal auditing.

EFFECTIVE
E-GOVERNMENT

We have made remarkable progress in e-government.
The scope of online services has already been expanded
over the last decade to include employment programs,
online job searches, e-learning services, traffic,
passports and civil affairs, online payment services,
online issuance of commercial registers, among others.
This has improved Saudi Arabia’s ranking on several
global indicators. In the UN e-Government Index, for
instance, we ranked 36 in 2014, up from 90 in 2004.
We will expand the scope of current online services
further to include areas such as geographic information,
health care and education. Quality will be improved by
streamlining processes, and diversifying communication
channels. We will also support the wider use of online
applications in government agencies, such as cloud
applications, data sharing platforms and HR
management systems. Finally, we will strengthen the
governance of online services within the government
itself.

THE NATION WE ASPIRE TO BUILD WILL
NOT BE REALIZED WITHOUT A GRAND,
COLLECTIVE NATIONAL EFFORT WHERE
EVERYONE CONTRIBUTES. WE ALL HAVE
ROLES TO FULFILL, WHETHER WE ARE
WORKING IN THE PUBLIC, PRIVATE OR

AN AMBITIOUS NATION..
RESPONSIBLY ENABLED

BEING RESPONSIBLE
FOR OUR LIVES

We have already faced and overcome many
challenges and accomplished much, by the grace of
Allah and our brotherhood. We have contributed to
building our country. We have been, and still are, a
great example in assuming responsibility. Today, as
we face fresh challenges, new roles and
responsibilities are required. We should feel great
confidence in our capabilities, in our understanding
of our obligations and in our ability to achieve
excellence for our nation, our society, our families
and ourselves.
We are each personally responsible for our own
futures. As such, we will develop ourselves and will
work to become independent and active members
of society, developing new skills in the process. We
will remember our lifelong obligations to our
families. In the workplace, we will be committed
and disciplined, acquire new experience and pursue
our ambitions.
We will create the right environment to enable us to
fulfill these responsibilities. We will promote greater
financial independence by providing planning tools
such as mortgages, savings portfolios, and
retirement options. We will set up a regulatory
framework that empowers the non-profit sector.

This will all be achieved by adhering closely to
Islamic principles, Arab values and our national
traditions. As we build our own long-term future, we
will remember our duty to respect these principles,
which include supporting the vulnerable and needy,
helping our neighbors, being hospitable to guests,
respecting visitors, being courteous to expatriates,
and being conscientious of human rights.

NON-PROFIT SECTORS. WE WILL
THEREFORE WORK CONTINUALLY TO
ACHIEVE OUR HOPES AND FULFIL OUR
ASPIRATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO
OUR COUNTRY, OUR SOCIETY, OUR
FAMILIES, AND TO OURSELVES

BEING RESPONSIBLE
IN BUSINESS

We aspire to have businesses that contribute to
developing our society and our country, not be
geared solely towards generating profits. We expect
our companies to observe their social responsibilities
and contribute to creating a sustainable economy,
including by creating the stimulating opportunities
for young men and women that can help them build
their professional careers. We will encourage the
businesses that follow through on this commitment
to participate in our country and to address national
challenges.

BEING RESPONSIBLE
TO SOCIETY

The values of giving, compassion, cooperation and
empathy are firmly entrenched in our society. We have
already played an influential role in providing social aid
locally, regionally and globally. In the future, we will
formalize and strengthen the organization of our social
and compassionate work so that our efforts have the
maximum results and impact.
Today, we have fewer than 1,000 non-profit foundations
and associations. In order to increase the resilience and
impact of this sector, we will continue to develop
regulations necessary to empower non-profit
organizations. We will review our regulations to
encourage endowments to sustainably fund the sector
and to encourage corporations and high net worth
families to establish non-profit organizations.
Government support will be directed to the programs
with highest social impact and we will support training
workers to encourage volunteering and careers in the
non-profit sector. Enabling non-profit organizations to
attract the best talents in order to ensure best
management practices and the transfer of knowledge,
which will strengthen these institutions over the long-
term. This will ensure that the non-profit sector plays an
enhanced and more efficient role in critical sectors such
as health care, education, housing, research, and
cultural and social programs.

AN AMBITIOUS NATION..
RESPONSIBLY ENABLED
74

Access household savings
From 6% to 10% of
disposable income of
households

To raise the non-profit sector’s contribution to GDP from less
than 1% to 5%

To increase household savings from 6% to 10% of total household income

To rally one million volunteers per year (compared to 11,000 now)

AMONG OUR
GOALS BY
2030
75

AMONG OUR
COMMITMENTS..

A MORE IMPACTFUL NON-
PROFIT SECTOR

Today, we have fewer than 1,000 non-profit and
charitable foundations and associations. They
contribute just 0.3 percent of our GDP, much less than
the global average of 6 percent. Currently, just 7 percent
of projects are focused on generating social impact or
are aligned with the long-term national priorities. By
2020, more than one third of our non-profit
organizations’ projects should have measurable and
deep social impact.
The recently published regulations on non-profit
organizations and on the General Authority for
Endowments will help the non-profit sector become
more institutionalized, formalized and more efficient.
We will accelerate this shift further by supporting
projects and programs with high social impact and by
facilitating the establishment of non-profit organizations
by high net worth families, which will promote rapid
growth of the non-profit sector. We will support this
growth by creating a supportive and cooperate
environment in which the sector’s institutions and
government agencies can collaborate.

At the same time, we will encourage the non-profit
sector to apply proper governance standards, facilitate
high quality training to staff and promote a culture of
volunteering and full-time careers in the sector.

HOW TO ACHIEVE
OUR VISION?

WE HAVE OUTLINED A
COMPREHENSIVE AND AMBITIOUS
VISION FOR SAUDI ARABIA UNTIL THE
YEAR 2030. IT IS THE FIRST STEP ON
OUR JOURNEY TOWARDS A BETTER,
BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR OUR
COUNTRY AND OUR CITIZENS. TO
ACHIEVE OUR ASPIRATIONS AND
HOPES, WE HAVE ALREADY
LAUNCHED MANY TRANSFORMATIVE
PROGRAMS THAT HAVE PAVED THE
WAY FOR THE VISION AND WILL HELP
US ACHIEVE OUR GOALS.
THESE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

THE GOVERNMENT
RESTRUCTURING PROGRAM

Around the world, governments are organizing
themselves with agility, continuously restructuring and
aligning their systems to national priorities. We have
already started moving along this path by eliminating
supreme councils and establishing the Council of
Political and Security Affairs and the Council of
Economic and Development Affairs. These reforms have
helped to speed strategy development and decision-
making, as well as enhance performance. We will
continue this careful restructuring, comprehensively
and gradually, based on our clear priorities.

THE STRATEGIC
DIRECTIONS PROGRAM

We have approved the strategic directions determined
by our government agencies. Existing roles have been
reviewed to align with our future economic and social
needs. Decisions are based on detailed studies and
benchmarks, as well as comprehensive analysis of each
agency’s programs, plans and relevant performance
indicators.

THE FISCAL
BALANCE PROGRAM

After the Council of Economic and Development Affairs
was established, we began examining our existing
capital expenditures, their approval mechanism and
their measureable economic impact. We have formed
committees and introduced new departments tasked
with reviewing relevant regulations and taking the
necessary action on the expenditures. As a consequence,
last year, we increased our non-oil revenues by 30
percent, and we plan to continue diversifying our non-
oil revenues in the coming years, by introducing new
measures.

THE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Kingdom’s agencies are currently undergoing a
wave of reforms and transformation. To manage this
momentum and ensure all efforts are coordinated, we
adopted an effective approach to project management
and established expert project management offices
(PMOs) in the Council of Economic and Development
Affairs and many other government agencies. We also
set up a central Delivery Unit.

THE REGULATIONS
REVIEW PROGRAM

Over the past year, we reviewed many current laws and
enacted new laws that have been years overdue. These
include the company law, the non-governmental
organizations’ law, the law concerning fees on non-
used lands, the General Authority for Endowments
(Awqaf ) law, among others. We will continue to review
all laws to ensure they are in line with the Kingdom’s
priorities.

THE PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT PROGRAM

We adopted the principle of performance measurement,
and made sure it is properly used in our evaluation of
all government agencies, their programs, initiatives and
executives. We established the Center for Performance
Management of Government Agencies to institutionalize
these efforts for the long-term and built performance
dashboards to promote accountability and
transparency.

THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT
FUND RESTRUCTURING
PROGRAM

Having worked on restructuring the fund, we are now
refining its investment capabilities and enabling the
fund to manage a broader portfolio of current and new
assets. We aim to transform it into the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world and will announce a
comprehensive plan to achieve this goal.

THE HUMAN
CAPITAL PROGRAM

Because human capital is a crucial factor in the success
of any substantial project, we aim to launch a thorough
program for nurturing our human talent. This program
will measure, assess and analyze the efficiency of our
civil service. It will also support our government
agencies with staff, studies, consultations, and strategic
partnerships related to human capital.

TO ENSURE THE
REALIZATION OF
SAUDI ARABIA’S
VISION FOR 2030,
WE ARE
PREPARING TO
LAUNCH A GROUP
OF EXECUTIVE
PROGRAMS THAT
WILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT ON
IMPLEMENTATION.
THESE INCLUDE،
BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING:

THE SAUDI ARAMCO
STRATEGIC
TRANSFORMATION
PROGRAM

We believe that Saudi Aramco has the ability to lead
the world in other sectors besides oil, and it has
worked on a sweeping transformative program that
will position it as a leader in more than one sector.

THE STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

We are working with our economic partners around the
world to build new strategic partnerships for the
twenty-first century, in harmony with our national
Vision, so that we can be a trade hub connecting three
continents and enhance our exports.

THE PRIVATIZATION
PROGRAM

We are in the process of determining additional sectors
suitable for privatization. Our goal is to create a
comprehensive privatization program. We will make
use of international best practices, transfer knowledge
and achieve our goals in a balanced and scientific
manner.

THE NATIONAL
TRANSFORMATION
PROGRAM

In a new approach, our government agencies have
been working through numerous workshops to
examine their role in implementing the initiatives
necessary for delivering on national priorities. We are
identifying opportunities for partnering with the
private sector, as well as innovative administrative and
funding approaches. We are detailing specific initiatives
that have clear performance indicators..

THE PROGRAM FOR
STRENGTHENING
PUBLIC SECTOR
GOVERNANCE

We will work on restructuring our government agencies
continuously and with flexibility. We will eliminate
redundant roles, unify efforts, streamline procedures
and define responsibilities. We shall also enable our
agencies to deliver on their mandate, to be accountable,
to ensure business continuity and to show adaptability
in the face of new challenges. Under the Council of
Economic and Development Affairs, we will establish a
strategic management office to focus on coordinating
all government programs and ensuring their careful
alignment with the national Vision. The office will also
prevent gaps, duplication or contradiction between
agencies’ policies and programs, and ensure that all
components of the Vision are detailed in proper sectoral
strategies. We will also establish a Decision Support
Center at the Royal Court to support decision-making
through analytical and evidence-based information
and reports.

OUR COMMITMENT TO
ACHIEVING THE GOALS
OF THESE PIVOTAL
PROGRAMS AND OUR
COLLECTIVE
CONTRIBUTION SHALL BE
THE FIRST STEP
TOWARDS ACHIEVING
SAUDI ARABIA’S VISION
FOR 2030. WE WILL
CONTINUE TO LAUNCH
NEW PROGRAMS IN THE
UPCOMING YEARS AS
REQUIRED, AND WE WILL
CONTINUOUSLY REVIEW
AND ASSESS OUR
PERFORMANCE IN
ACHIEVING THIS VISION

MAY ALLAH BLESS US
AND GUIDE US TO THE
RIGHT PATH.

www.vision2030.gov.sa

State of the World Cities

CPI_2015 Global City Report.compressed

Subheading	Sources name	pages
Introduction
Define the prosperity			State of the World Cities	11
Other sources	Find other information related
How prosperity is developing (from the past to now)	9 & 15
Prosperity and sustainability	35
Describe prosperity dimensions and its indicators (mention example from the world for each indicators)	State of the World Cities	18, 42, 55, 7 1, 83 and 93
And other sources that you mentioned in last homework submission
How to measure the prosperity	CPI METADATA.2016	6, only19, only33& 34 , only61&62, only85&86, only101&102, only115&116
Prosperity classification index				CPI_2015 Global City Report.compressed	7
Cases study of prosperity (mention for each classes the top 5 only)	9,10,11,12,13
Prosperity in Saudi Arabia and its 2030 vision	32
Saudi_Vision2030_EN
The future of prosperity	34
My thoughts about prosperity	Write 1 paragraph about hoe its good for city and have to be follow to ensure the future and human rights
Conclusion	Same what you wrote in last homework submission

*** All pages number as mention in the bottom of the pages in each documents.

** try to add or merge the text of last homework submission in these sections. SO the TOTAL WILL BE 20 PAGES.

STATE OF THE
WORLD’S CITIES
2012/2013
Prosperity of Cities
EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION
EN
VI
RO
NM
EN
TA
L S
UST
AINA
BILITY
PRODUCTIVITY
QU
AL
IT
Y
OF
L
IF
E
INFRASTRUCTURE
PROSPERITY

STATE OF THE
WORLD’S CITIES
2012/2013
Prosperity of Cities

First published 2013 by Routledge for and on behalf of the
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2013
All rights reserved
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7621 234
Fax: +254 20 7624 266/7
Website: www.unhabitat.org
DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this report do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the
United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of
its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding
its economic system or degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and
recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations
Human Settlements Programme or its Governing Council.
The Report is produced with official data provided by governments and additional
information gathered by the Global Urban Observatory. Cities and countries are invited
to update data relevant to them. It is important to acknowledge that data varies
according to definition and sources. While UN-Habitat checks data provided to the
fullest extent possible, the responsibility for the accuracy of the information lies with
the original providers of the data. Information contained in this Report is provided
without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation,
warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
UN-Habitat specifically does not make any warranties or representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of any such data. Under no circumstances shall UN-Habitat
be liable for any loss, damage, liability or expense incurred or suffered that is claimed to
have resulted from the use of this Report, including, without limitation, any fault, error,
omission with respect thereto. The use of this Report is at the User’s sole risk. Under no
circumstances, including, but not limited to negligence, shall UN-Habitat or its affiliates
be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, even if
UN-Habitat has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
HS/ (paperback)
HS/ (hardback)
ISBN13: 978-0-415-83888-7
Design and layout by Bounford.com, Cambridge, UK.
Index by Margaret Binns
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book

iii
Our world today is
predominantly urban.
Cities can be prime driving
forces of development
and innovation. Yet the
prosperity generated
by cities has not been
equitably shared, and a
sizeable proportion of the
urban population remains
without access to the benefits that cities produce.
The 2012/2013 State of the World’s Cities Report,
“Prosperity of Cities”, introduces a notion of prosperity that
looks beyond the confines of economic growth that have
dominated development policy and agendas for many years.
It examines how cities can generate and equitably distribute
the benefits and opportunities associated with prosperity,
ensuring economic well being, social cohesion, environmental
sustainability and a better quality of life in general.
As the world continues to grapple with the impact
of an economic crisis, which has triggered a series of
other crises, we are also witnessing valiant and creative
attempts at different levels, by different actors, to seek
solutions. Despite the challenges they face and, indeed, the
dysfunction that prevails in many urban areas, cities have
a central role to play in contributing to national and global
recovery. And as the world seeks a more people-centred,
sustainable approach to development, cities can lead the
way with local solutions to global problems.
I commend the findings of this timely report to scholars,
policy makers, development planners and all others
interested in promoting prosperous towns and cities.
Ban Ki-moon
Secretary-General
United Nations
Secretary-General’s Foreword

iv
This is a time of crises. This
is also a time for solutions.
Indeed, the world is
currently engulfed in waves
of financial, economic,
environmental, social and
political crises. Amidst
the turmoil, however, we
are also witnessing valiant
and creative attempts at
different levels and by different actors to seek for solutions.
The State of the World’s Cities Report 2012/2013
presents, with compelling evidence, some of the underlying
factors behind these crises that have strongly impacted on
cities. It shows that a lopsided focus on purely financial
prosperity has led to growing inequalities between rich
and poor, generated serious distortions in the form and
functionality of cities, also causing serious damage to the
environment – not to mention the unleashing of precarious
financial systems that could not be sustained in the long run.
The Report proposes a fresh approach to prosperity, one
that is holistic and integrated and which is essential for the
promotion of a collective well-being and fulfilment of all.
This new approach does not only respond to the crises by
providing safeguards against new risks, but it also helps cities
to steer the world towards economically, socially, politically
and environmentally prosperous urban futures. In order to
measure present and future progress of cities towards the
prosperity path, the Report introduces a new tool – the City
Prosperity Index – together with a conceptual matrix, the
Wheel of Urban Prosperity, both of which are meant to assist
decision makers to design clear policy interventions.
To varying degrees of intensity, cities have been hit by
different crises. However, this Report tells us that cities can
also be a remedy to the regional and global crises. When
supported by different tiers of government, and in the quest
to generate holistic prosperity, cities can become flexible
and creative platforms to address these crises in a pragmatic
and efficient manner. Prosperity, in this sense, can be
seen as a Pharmakon – both a cause of the problem and a
remedy. As per this ancient Greek construct, when used
properly, it can help decision-makers to steer cities towards
well-balanced and harmonious development.
In this Report, UN-Habitat advocates for a new type of
city – the city of the 21st century – that is a ‘good’, people-
centred city, one that is capable of integrating the tangible
and more intangible aspects of prosperity, and in the process
shedding off the inefficient, unsustainable forms and
functionalities of the city of the previous century. By doing
this, UN-Habitat plays a pivotal role in ensuring that urban
planning, legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks
become an instrument of prosperity and well-being.
This is a time of solutions to the numerous challenges
that confront today’s cities. If we are to take measures that
will make a difference to the lives of the billions of people in
the world’s cities, and to future generations, we need sound
and solid knowledge and information. This Report provides
some of these crucial ingredients. I am confident that it will
serve as a useful tool in the necessary redefinition of the
urban policy agenda at local, national and regional levels.
I do believe also that it will provide valuable insights in the
search for urban prosperity and related policy changes in
the years ahead.
The Report is a bridge between research and policy,
with inputs from more than 50 cities, individual scientists
and institutions, particularly the Directorate-General for
Regional Policy from the European Commission, and other
partner institutions around the world that participated
actively in the preparation of this study. I would like to thank
them for their immense contribution. I would also like to
thank the Government of Norway for its financial support.
The partnerships that have evolved during the
preparation of this report are part and parcel of, as well as
critically essential in, creating the building blocks of a more
sustainable prosperity, one that is shared by all. UN-Habitat
is determined to sustain and consolidate such partnerships
as we collectively chart a better future.
Joan Clos
Under-Secretary-General,
United Nations Executive Director, UN-Habitat
Foreword

v
As the world moves into the urban age, the dynamism and
intense vitality of cities become even more prominent.
A fresh future is taking shape, with urban areas around
the world becoming not just the dominant form of habitat
for humankind, but also the engine-rooms of human
development as a whole.
This ongoing evolution can be seen as yet another
assertion, albeit on a larger scale, of the time-honoured role
of cities as centres of prosperity. In the 21st as in much earlier
centuries, people congregate in cities to realize aspirations and
dreams, fulfil needs and turn ideas into realities.
Prosperity in this broader, organic sense transcends
narrow economic success to encompass a socially broad-
based, balanced and resilient type of development that
combines tangible and more intangible aspects. Taken in
this multi-dimensional sense, urban prosperity tightens the
links between individuals and society with their everyday
environment, i.e., the city itself. Amidst multiple challenges
facing cities today, a focus on poverty reduction and/or
responses to the economic crisis is gradually shifting to a
broader and more general understanding of the need to
harness the transformative dynamics and potentials which, to
varying degrees, characterize any city anywhere in the world.
How to rekindle momentum, optimize regenerating
potential, enhance strategic position in the international
business sphere, polishing both image and appeal – in other
words, how to foster prosperity – has become the main
thrust behind urban development. In this endeavour, every
city will inevitably find itself on its own specific and unique
historic course. Still, a common set of conditions can be
found prevailing in all cities, which enable human beings to
flourish, feel fulfilled and healthy, and where business can
thrive, develop and generate more wealth. These conditions
mark out the city as the privileged locus of prosperity, where
advancement and progress come to materialize.
This Report focuses on the notion of prosperity and
its realization in urban areas. More specifically, this Report
advocates a shift in attention around the world in favour of a
more robust notion of development – one that looks beyond
the narrow domain of economic growth that has dominated
ill-balanced policy agendas over the last decades.
The gist of this Report is the need for transformative
change towards people-centred, sustainable urban
development, and this is what a revised notion of prosperity
can provide. This focus on prosperity comes as institutional
and policy backgrounds are in a state of flux around the
world. Prosperity may appear to be a misplaced concern in the
midst of multiple crises – financial, economic, environmental,
social or political – that afflict the world today. It may appear
as a luxury in the current economic predicament. However,
what this Report shows with compelling evidence is that the
current understanding of prosperity needs to be revised, and
with it the policies and actions deployed by public authorities.
UN-Habitat suggests a fresh approach to prosperity, one that
reaches beyond the sole economic dimension to take in other
vital dimensions such as quality of life, infrastructures, equity
and environmental sustainability. The Report introduces a new
statistical instrument, the City Prosperity Index, measuring
the prosperity factors at work in an individual city, together
with a general matrix, the Wheel of Urban Prosperity, which
suggests areas for policy intervention.
As the privileged locus of prosperity, the city remains best
placed to deal pragmatically with some of the new, post-
crisis challenges. With adequate backing from higher tiers of
government, the city appears as a flexible, operational, creative
platform for the development of collaborative agendas and
strategies for local responses to the global crisis.
Cities can offer remedies to the worldwide crises – if
only we put them in better positions to respond to the
challenges of our age, optimizing resources and harnessing the
potentialities of the future. This is the ‘good’, people-centred
city, one that is capable of integrating the tangible and more
intangible aspects of prosperity – in the process shedding
the inefficient, unsustainable forms and functionalities of the
previous century or so – the city of the 21st century.
This Report comes at a transitional juncture in the
international agenda: in the wake of the ‘Rio + 20’ conference
on the environment and development, and ahead of a fresh,
updated Habitat Agenda due in 2016 (Habitat III). Against
this background, this UN-Habitat Report calls on countries
and cities to engage with a fresher notion of prosperity in their
respective agendas. Prosperity involves a degree of confidence
in the foreseeable future. As the world recovers from one of
its worst-ever economic crises and a variety of interrelated
predicaments, we must find a new sense of balance and
safeguard against risks of further turmoil. With dominant
roles in economic, political and social life cities remain critical
to setting our nations on a more inclusive, productive, creative
and sustainable course.
Introduction

vi
UN-HABITAT ADvISoRy AND TECHNICAL SUppoRT
Elkin Velasquez, Laura Petrella, José Chong, Claudio Acioly, John Hogan,
Raf Tuts, Ana Moreno, Alioune Badiane, Mariam Yunusa, Roi Chiti, Axumite
Gebre-Egziabher, Kibe Muigai.
INTERNATIoNAL ADvISoRy BoARD
Patricia Annez; Mark Redwood; Billy Cobbett; Lamia Kamal-Chaoui; Edgar
Pieterse; Amin Y. Kamete; Smita Srinivas; Alfonso Iracheta; Yu Zhu; Dina K.
Shehayeb, Inga Klevby, Maha Yahya, Javier Sanchez-Reaza.
FINANCIAL SUppoRT
Government of Norway
SpECIAL TECHNICAL CoNTRIBUTIoN
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (European Commission),
various background documents from experts: Zoé Buyle-Bodin, Corinne
Hermant-de Callataÿ, Christian Svanfeldt, Birgit Georgi, Antonio G. Calafati,
Celine Rozenblat, Moritz Lennert, Gilles Van Hamme, Maciej Smêtkowski
and Uwe Neumann.
ADDITIoNAL CoNTRIBUTIoNS:
Thematic Background papers:
Brian H. Roberts; Pengfei Ni; Robert M. Buckley and Achilles Kallergis; David
Simon, Michail Fragkias, Robin Leichenko, Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez,
Karen Seto and Bill Solecki, Susan Parnell and Matthew Sharp; Ivan Turok.
City Reports for policy analysis:
Latin America and the Caribbean: Francisco Perez Arellano (Guadalajara);
Ana Raquel Flores (Ciudad Del Este); Vladimir Morales Gonzalez
(Valparaíso);Flávio José Nery Conde Malta (Santos); Ibarra Rolando
Mendoza (Panama City); Oscar Bragos (Rosario); Tito Alejandro Alegría
Olazábal (Tijuana); Grethel Castellanos (Santo Domingo); Haydée Beltrán
Urán (Medellín); Isabel Viana (Montevideo); Miguel Coyula (Havana);
Carlos Foronda (La Paz); Alberto José Tobío (Guarenas); Luis Delgado
Galimberti (Lima); Alain Philippe Yerro (Fort-De-France).
Africa: Femi Olokesusi (Accra, Ibadan and Lagos);Yeraswork Admassie
(Addis Ababa); Hany M. Ayad (Alexandria); Madani Safar Zitoun (Algiers);
Albino Mazembe (Beira); Aldo Lupala (Dar es Salaam); Faustin Tirwirukwa
Kalabamu (Gaborone); Rosemary Awuor Hayanga (Johannesburg);
Allan Cain (Luanda); Godfrey Hampwaye and Wilma Nchito (Lusaka);
Alfred Omenya (Nairobi); C. Fernandez (Praia).
Asia and Arab States: Saswati G. Belliapa (Bangalore); Francisco L.
Fernandez (Cebu); Yanping Liu and Yuehan Wang (Chongqing); Amelita Atillo
(Davao); Pelin F. Kurtul (Gaziantep); Dung D. Dzung (Ho Chi Minh City);
Satyanarayana Vejella (Hyderabad); Syed Shabih ul Hassan Zaidi. (Lahore);
Lan Jin and Yanping Liu. (Shenzhen); Centre for Livable Cities (Singapore);
Omar Khattab (Kuwait City); Ali Shabou, Nashwa Soboh, Kamal Jalouka,
Deema Abu Thaib, (Aqaba and Amman); Sinan Shakir A. Karim (Basra);
Mona Fawaz and Nisrene Baghdadi (Beirut); Ahmedou Mena (Doha); Darim.
Al-Bassam and Jalal Mouris (Dubai); Dara al Yaqubi (Erbil); Falah Al- Kubaisy
(Muharrak); Rana Hassan and Ismae’l Sheikh Hassan (Saida).
Input to boxes:
Michael Cohen, Cilla Ng, Inga Klevby, José Chong, Zeltia Gonzales,
Estefania Villalobos, Laura Petrella, Alexy Romero Garcia C., Dennis
Mwaniki and Francisco Perez Arellano.
Design and page layout:
Bounford.com (UK)
Front cover pictures
Equity and Social Inclusion: © Meunierd/Shutterstock.com
Quality of Life: © 2012 Peter Herbert/fotoLIBRA.com
Infrastructure: © Paul Smith/Panos Pictures
Productivity: © Atul Loke/Panos Pictures
Environmental Sustainability: © Anne-Britt Svinnset/Shutterstock.com
Back cover picture
© Claudio Zaccherini/Shutterstock.com
Acknowledgements
CoRE TEAM
Director: Oyebanji O. Oyeyinka
Coordinator: Eduardo López Moreno
Task Manager: Ben C. Arimah
Statistical Adviser: Gora Mboup
principal Authors: Eduardo López Moreno,
Ben C. Arimah, Gora Mboup, Mohamed Halfani, Oyebanji O. Oyeyinka
Research: Raymond Otieno Otieno, Gianluca Crispi, Anne Amin
City prosperity Index: Gora Mboup, Wandia Riunga, John Obure
Editor: Thierry Naudin
SUppoRT TEAM
Contributors: Wandia Seaforth, Obas John Ebohon,
Cecilia M. Zanetta, Kaushalesh Lal, Dina K. Shehayeb,
Olumuyiwa Alaba, Sai Balakrishnan, Maria Buhigas,
Christopher Horwood
Statistics: Omondi Odhiambo, Joel Jere, Julius Majale,
Wandia Riunga, John Obure, Anne Kibet, Wladimir Ray, Kaushalesh Lal
Maps: Maharufa Hossain, Jane Arimah
Administrative Support Team: Beatrice Bazanye, Anne Idukitta,
Elizabeth Kahwae, Jacqueline Macha, Mary Dibo

vii
Contents
Overview and Key Findings x
Part One: Re-thinking Urban Prosperity 2
Chapter 1.1: Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity 4
Chapter 1.2: Urban and Regional Trends 25
Urban Change in Developed Countries 26
Urban Change in Developing Countries 29
Part Two: Dimensions of City Prosperity 40
Chapter 2.1: Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities 42
Chapter 2.2: Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity 55
Chapter 2.3: Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity 71
Chapter 2.4: Equity and the Prosperity of Cities 83
Chapter 2.5: Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities 93
Part Three: Policies for Prosperous Cities 106
Chapter 3.1: From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 108
Policy-Related Factors Underlying the Prosperity of Cities: Drivers and Constraints 110
Chapter 3.2: Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 123
Urban Prosperity Through Planning and Design 129
Empowering Laws and Institutions for Urban Prosperity 136
Statistical Annex 146
Bibliography 174
Index 181

viii
FiguresBoxes
Box 1.1.1: Crises, cities and prosperity 5
Box 1.1.2: Ghost towns, vacant homes: wasted prosperity 6
Box 1.1.3: When streets amplify claims: the “Arab Spring” 7
Box 1.1.4: Cities and global crises 9
Box 1.1.5: Perceptions, feelings and opinions about prosperity 16
Box 1.1.6: Cities and human development 17
Box 1.1.7: Promising African cities 20
Box 1.1.8: Low production, highly available public goods 21
Box 1.1.9: Visualizing the 5 dimensions of the CPI 24
Box 1.2.1: Increased participation of European cities in networks 29
Box 1.2.2: Africa, urbanization and positive change 29
Box 1.2.3: Prosperity and urbanization: contrasted trends within
regions 33
Box 1.2.4: Large urban configurations differ across regions 35
Box 1.2.5: Novel configurations: a typology 36
Box 2.1.1: Shenzhen: capitalizing on the gains of urban growth 52
Box 2.2.1: Ranking of urban infrastructure 58
Box 2.2.2: When cellphones provide pro-poor banking services 66
Box 2.3.1: Quality of life – the ‘spokes’ and the ‘hub’ of the
Wheel of Urban Prosperity 76
Box 2.3.2: Quality of life, world-class cities and social inclusion 78
Box 2.3.3: Greenery and quality of life in Asian cities 80
Box 2.3.4: Internet, information and quality of life 81
Box 2.4.1: Income inequalities in the world’s cities: an overview 84
Box 2.4.2: Spatial divisions exacerbate inequality 86
Box 2.4.3: Making progress on the equity agenda 92
Box 3.1.1: Decentralization and the prosperity of cities 114
Box 3.2.1: Measuring innovation and creativity 124
Box 3.2.2: Streetwise versus petrol-powered prosperity 131
Box 3.2.3: Individual versus collective interests 137
Box 3.2.4: Law, institutions and the public interest 143
Figure 1.1.1: The Wheel of Urban Prosperity 12
Figure 1.1.2: Cities with very solid prosperity factors 18
Figure 1.1.3: Cities with solid prosperity factors – first category 19
Figure 1.1.4: Cities with solid prosperity factors – second category 20
Figure 1.1.5: Cities with moderate prosperity factors 21
Figure 1.1.6: Cities with weak prosperity factors 22
Figure 1.1.7: Cities with very weak prosperity factors 23
Figure 1.2.1: Population density in Europe, 2001 28
Figure 2.1.1: Urbanization and per capita GDP across countries
as % of base year, 1960–2010 43
Figure 2.1.2: Trends in urbanization and national GDP per capita –
for various levels of income, 1960–2010 44
Figure 2.1.3: Urbanization and GDP per capita in selected countries 45
Figure 2.1.4: Population, GDP per capita and total GDP for
selected metropolitan areas (2008) 46
Figure 2.1.5: Factors hampering economic productivity as
perceived by local experts 50
Figure 2.1.6: Perceptions of experts regarding the distribution
of economic prosperity 52
Figure 2.2.1: Infrastructure provision is closely related to levels
of urbanization 56
Figure 2.2.2: Infrastructure coverage by region 57
Figure 2.2.3: Telephone infrastructure in selected African cities 65
Figure 2.2.4: Contribution of infrastructure to the prosperity of cities 67
Figure 2.3.1: Perceptions about cities’ most important problems
(three most mentioned issues) 72
Figure 2.3.2: Perception of experts regarding their city’s
commitment to promoting quality of life 75
Figure 2.4.1: Urban prosperity, poverty and inequity 84
Figure 2.4.2: Factors restricting the scope of greater urban equity 88
Figure 2.4.3: Most notable policy or action the city is
implementing to be more equitable 91
Figure 2.5.1: Environmental impact of growth as perceived by
local experts – African cities 95
Figure 2.5.2: Environmental impact of growth as perceived by
local experts – Asian cities 96
Figure 2.5.3: Environmental impact of growth as perceived by
local experts – Arab cities 97
Figure 2.5.4: Environmental impact of growth as perceived by
local experts – Latin American and Caribbean cities 99
Figure 3.1.1: Factors underlying urban prosperity as perceived
by local experts 111
Figure 3.1.2: Impediments to the prosperity of cities as
perceived by local experts 118

ix
Tables Statistical Annex
Table 1.1.1: Defining a prosperous city 11
Table 1.1.2: Measuring progress and prosperity 15
Table 1.1.3: The UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index 18
Table 1.2.1: Prosperity performance indicators of selected
large urban configurations by regions (2008) 38
Table 2.1.1: External factors determining a city’s productivity 47
Table 2.1.2: City-specific factors determining a city’s productivity 48
Table 2.2.1: Infrastructure deficiencies as perceived by local
experts in surveyed cities (per cent) 60
Table 2.2.2: Characteristics of the road network in selected
African cities 61
Table 2.2.3: Priority lanes for buses, cyclists and pedestrians
in selected Latin American cities 64
Table 2.5.1: Environmental sustainability: extant policies,
as perceived by local experts (per cent) 100
Table 2.5.2: Drivers of environmental sustainability in cities,
as perceived by local experts (per cent) 103
Table 2.5.3: Cities with the capacity to implement environmental
sustainability programmes, as perceived by local
experts (per cent) 104
Table 3.2.1: Urban planning/design and prosperity 135
Table 1: City Prosperity Index and components 146
Table 2: Proportion of urban population living in slums and
urban slum population, by country, 1990–2009 148
Table 3: Urban population, proportion of urban population
living in slum area and urban slum population,
by region, 1990–2012 150
Table 4: City population and city population growth rate
of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants
or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) 152
Table 5: Urban population and urbanization by country,
1990–2030 169

x
A fresh future is taking shape, with urban areas around
the world becoming not just the dominant form of
habitat for humankind, but also the engine-rooms of
human development as a whole. Initially understood as a
transitional process, urbanization has become a positive
force for transformation that makes countries more
advanced, developed and richer, in most cases.
Today, as many centuries ago, human beings regroup
together in order better to exchange, learn, produce, enjoy
and protect each other. Moving to a city or staying in a
city is in itself an objective desire to have a better life. The
fostering of prosperity has been one of the main reasons
that explain the existence of cities. They are the places
where humankind realizes ambitions, aspirations and
dreams, fulfil yearning needs, and turn ideas into realities.
Urban prosperity takes different forms and
characterizations. Each individual city, depending on its
own stage of socioeconomic development, history and
culture, can be seen as giving its own unique interpretation
of prosperity, including in the way it is shared among the
population. Still, it is possible to find a common set of
conditions that enable urban residents to flourish, feel
happy and healthy, and in which business can thrive,
institutions develop, and physical spaces become more
integrated and diverse.
In this sense, the city is the home of prosperity. It is the
place where human beings find satisfaction of basic needs
and essential public and private goods, where commodities
can be found in sufficiency and their utility enjoyed.
Cities are where material and immaterial aspects of life
are realized, providing contentment and happiness and
increasing the prospects of individual and collective well-
being. However, when prosperity is absent or confined to
some groups, when it is only enjoyed in some parts of the
city, when it is used to pursue vested interests, or when it is
a justification for financial gains for the few in detriment of
the majority, the city becomes the arena where the right for
a shared prosperity is fought for.
RE-THINkINg URBAN pRoSpERITy
The Pursuit of Prosperity in a Time of Crisis
Never before had humankind faced cascading crises of
all types as have affected it since 2008, from financial to
economic to environmental to social to political. Soaring
unemployment, food shortages and attendant price rises,
strains on financial institutions, insecurity and political
instability, among other crises, might well on their own
call into question the relevance and even the viability of a
Report on prosperity. This proliferation of risks might even
challenge the conventional notion of ‘Cities as the Home of
Prosperity’, i.e. where, by definition, ‘successful, flourishing,
or thriving conditions’ prevail.
As people in the latter part of 2011 gathered in Cairo’s
Tahrir Square or Madrid’s Puerta del Sol, in front of
London’s St Paul’s cathedral or in New York’s Zuccotti
Park, they were not only demanding more equality and
inclusion; they were also expressing solidarity with fellow
citizens that are part of the ‘99 per cent’ (the vast majority)
as opposed to the ‘one per cent’ (the tiny proportion of
people with vastly disproportionate shares of wealth and
power). From a symbolic point of view, these actions
came as attempts to build bridges over social, political and
cultural differences; more practically, though, and as earlier
in Tunisia, these movements highlighted the inherent risks
of ill-balanced growth or development policies, and their
failure to safeguard prosperity for all.
As a result of lopsided development notions and
policies, instead of being places of opportunities and
prosperity, cities all-too-often have become places of
deprivation, inequality and exclusion. In too many parts of
the developing world, unequal access to opportunities and
resources has pushed many people into favelas, bidonvilles,
Katchi Abadis or campamentos (as slums are known).
In Europe as in other parts of the developed world, new
forms of social exclusion, marginalization and poverty are
emerging, such as infrastructure-poor suburbs, immigrant
poverty, young people at risk, and the vulnerable elderly.
Throughout history, cities as seats of power have served
as arenas for protests and the recent social movements are
no exception. Demographic concentrations in dense urban
spaces allow critical masses of protestors to congregate and
air new ideas, highlighting cities’ role as sounding boards
for positive social change.
Cities: Remedy to the Global Crises
If anything, the recent crises have demonstrated that cities
around the world are, to varying degrees of intensity,
exposed at least as much to the destructive as to the more
beneficial effects of international markets, including social
and political repercussions. In this sense, these crises
did more than highlight the transformative role of cities;
they also showed that they are in a better position, at
Overview and Key Findings

xi
least notionally, to address regional and global crises. For
that purpose, there is a need to confer a more vigorous
role to cities with a strong support from various tiers of
government. Cities need to be put in better positions to
respond to the challenges of our age, optimizing resources
and harnessing the potentialities of the future.
With this reinvigorated support, cities can act as
remedies to the global crises in a number of ways:
■■ Acting as flexible and creative platforms that can
develop responses in a pragmatic and efficient manner;
■■ Boosting production in the real sector of the economy
at local level, with attendant employment and income
generation;
■■ Acting as the fora where linkages, trust, respect and
inclusive responses are built;
■■ Preparing local actions that can be structured and
included in national agendas for more efficient, flexible
results and more beneficial effects;
■■ Negotiating with local stakeholders and forging new
partnerships and social pacts which, in turn, can
strengthen national governments;
■■ Aligning central and local government expenditures at
city level in order to maximize benefits and impacts;
■■ Devising a number of safeguards against a variety of
evolving socioeconomic risks, prioritizing investment
in social security nets and local/regional infrastructure,
with a view to securing longer-term growth;
■■ Deploying safeguards against the risks international
markets may bring to bear on local socioeconomic
conditions, and adopting redistributive policies in close
collaboration with central governments.
Re-Thinking Urban Prosperity
A poverty-stricken plumber in Hyderabad (India), a
factory worker in Bogotá (Colombia), a middle manager in
Madrid (Spain), a businessman in Fortaleza (Brazil), a car
mechanic in Nairobi (Kenya) − all five will have aspirations
to prosperous lives. However, prosperity means different
things to different people around the world. Whatever the
individual perception, regardless of culture and civilization,
prosperity refers to a sense of general and individual
socioeconomic security for the immediate and foreseeable
future, which comes with the fulfilment of other, non-
material needs and aspirations.
Yet, the prevailing view continues to confine prosperity
to the realm of economics; a limiting view that shuts out
other dimensions that are integral to human well-being
and necessary for individual and collective fulfilment.
If anything, the 2008 financial crisis has amplified the
need to include other, non-economic dimensions in the
understanding and measurement of prosperity.
This edition of the State of the World’s Cities report
calls on countries and cities to engage with a fresher
notion of prosperity in their respective agendas – one that
transcends the narrow confines of an accumulation-driven
model that benefits only a few to the detriment of the
majority. It proposes a new notion that looks beyond the
narrow domain of economic growth that has dominated ill-
balanced policy agendas over the last decades. Prosperity
in this broader, organic sense encompasses a socially broad-
based, balanced and resilient type of development that
combines tangible and more intangible aspects. This fresh
notion is more holistic and integrated, including other vital
dimensions such as quality of life, adequate infrastructures,
equity and environmental sustainability.
The gist of this Report is the need for transformative
action in favour of the people-centred, sustainable urban
development which a revised notion of prosperity can
provide. This focus on prosperity comes as institutional
and policy backgrounds are in a state of flux around the
world. It is expected that this new approach to prosperity
will put cities and countries in a better position not just to
respond to the effects of the crisis and provide safeguards
against new risks, but also to steer the world towards
economically, socially, politically and environmentally
urban futures.
However, for this notion of prosperity to be
implemented at city level, there is a need to reconsider the
existing model of urban development, introducing major
changes in the form and function of the city – an approach
that re-shapes urban space through appropriate planning
and design, creating a city at a human scale where diversity,
connectivity, and physical integration are all inter-woven,
and prosperity is shared. This new urban space requires a
different type of city.
Promoting the City of the 21st Century
In this Report, UN-Habitat advocates for a new type
of city – the city of the 21st century – that is a ‘good’,
people-centred city, one that is capable of integrating the
tangible and more intangible aspects of prosperity, in the
process shedding the inefficient, unsustainable forms and
functionalities of the city of the previous century. UN-
Habitat plays a pivotal role in ensuring that urban planning,
legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks become an
instrument of prosperity and well-being.

xii
The city of the 21st century transcends the form and
functionality of previous models, balancing lower energy
costs with a smaller ecological footprint, more compact
form, and greater heterogeneity and functionality. This
city safeguards against new risks and creates conditions
for a higher provision of public goods, together with more
creative spaces for imagination and social interaction.
The city of the 21st century is one that:
■■ Reduces disaster risks and vulnerabilities for all,
including the poor, and builds resilience to any adverse
forces of nature;
■■ Stimulates local job creation, promotes social diversity,
maintains a sustainable environment and recognizes the
importance of public spaces;
■■ Creates harmony between the five dimensions of
prosperity and enhances the prospects for a better
future;
■■ Comes with a change of pace, profile and urban
functions and provides the social, political and
economic conditions of prosperity.
Conceptualizing Prosperity
Prosperity implies success, wealth, thriving conditions, and
well-being as well as confidence and opportunity. In general
terms, a prosperous city offers a profusion of public goods
and develops policies and actions for sustainable use, and
allows equitable access to ‘commons’. In this Report, UN-
Habitat conceptualizes urban prosperity as follows:
■■ First, a prosperous city contributes to economic growth
through productivity, generating the income and
employment that afford adequate living standards for
the whole population;
■■ Second, a prosperous city deploys the infrastructure,
physical assets and amenities – adequate water,
sanitation, power supply, road network, information and
communications technology, etc. – required to sustain
both the population and the economy;
■■ Third, prosperous cities provide the social services –
education, health, recreation, safety and security, etc. –
required for improved living standards, enabling the
population to maximize individual potential and lead
fulfilling lives;
■■ Fourth, a city is only prosperous to the extent that
poverty and inequalities are minimal. No city can
claim to be prosperous when large segments of the
population live in abject poverty and deprivation. This
involves reducing the incidence of slums and new forms
of poverty;
■■ Fifth, the creation and (re)distribution of the benefits of
prosperity do not destroy or degrade the environment;
instead, the city’s natural assets are preserved for the
sake of sustainable urbanization.
In order to measure present and future progress of
cities along the prosperity path, the Report introduces
a new tool – the City Prosperity Index – together with a
conceptual matrix, the Wheel of Urban Prosperity; both of
which are meant to assist decision-makers with the design
of effective policy interventions.
The ‘Wheel of Urban Prosperity’
Prosperity, as defined by UN-Habitat, is a social construct
that materializes in the realm of human actions. It builds
deliberately and conscientiously on the objective conditions
prevailing in a city at any time, wherever located and
however large or small. This is a broader, wide-ranging
notion that has to do with well-balanced, harmonious
development in an environment of fairness and justice.
UN-Habitat’s notion of prosperity takes in all urban
functions as subsumed under five main categories:
productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and
environmental sustainability. Since shared, balanced
development is a crucial feature of prosperity, none of the
dimensions must prevail over the others and all must be
kept roughly ‘equal’ – for the sake of a smooth ‘ride’ on
the path of prosperity. In practice, of course, it is a rare city
where the five dimensions will be found equal at any point
in time, and this is where policy interventions will be called
for, as suggested graphically by the conceptual matrix of the
Wheel of Urban Prosperity.
UN-Habitat’s ‘wheel of prosperity’ symbolizes the well-
balanced development of the five dimensions of prosperity,
the current condition of which is measured through the City
Prosperity Index (CPI).
The ‘outer rim’ of the wheel absorbs the cumulative
forces transmitted through the ‘spokes’ – the five
dimensions of prosperity. It provides some level of direction
and symbolically contributes to guide the city towards a
more prosperous path.
The spokes are the five dimensions of prosperity. In
most cases, they interact and influence each other through
various, quasi-automatic linkages along the periphery or
‘outer rim’. For example, as a city develops infrastructure,
it will also enhance prospects for economic expansion
and enhance quality of life. Likewise, when a city pursues
pro-poor policies and equitable development, this will also

xiii
enhance the chances of higher productivity and improved
environmental protection. Interactions and inter-influences
between the ‘spokes’ can also occur at the centre of the
wheel, where they are more policy-determined.
The hub at the centre of the wheel brings together
the urban power functions (e.g., public authorities, laws,
regulations and institutions, urban planning, civil society,
trade associations, special agencies, etc.) associated with
the five ‘spokes’. In this role, the ‘hub’ represents human
agency in all its embodiments. It holds the five ‘spokes’
together and endeavours to maintain their balance and
symmetry, with four interrelated roles: (i) ensuring the
prevalence of public over any other kind of interest; (ii)
controlling the direction, pace and momentum of the
‘wheel’; (iii) ensuring balanced development of the five
‘spokes’ and associated synergies; and (iv) in a two-way
relationship, absorbing and amortising any ‘shocks’
transmitted by the ‘spokes’.
This Report suggests that it is for the city of the 21st
century to pursue shared, integrated prosperity, keeping
the ‘wheel’ well balanced with mutually reinforcing spokes
through a dynamic hub. UN-Habitat introduces a new
statistical instrument, the City Prosperity Index, to measure
the prosperity factors at work in individual cities, which
pinpoints areas for policy intervention.
The City Prosperity Index
Cities can take different paths to prosperity. Still, UN-
Habitat has developed an index that measures the current
status of cities vis-à-vis the five dimensions of prosperity, as
conceptualized by UN-Habitat. This index also measures
government actions and policies in the pursuit of prosperity,
and the outcomes of these policies. The index provides an
indication of how solid or weak are the prosperity factors
available to any individual city.
However, UN-Habitat’s ‘City Prosperity Index’ (CPI)
does not only provide indices and measurements; it also
enables decision-makers to identify opportunities and
potential areas of action along the path of prosperity.
The CPI includes various indices and indicators for each
dimension of prosperity, with specific indices computed
into one single metric that measures advancement along the
road of prosperity. This information is relevant to decision-
makers and important for prosperity-oriented public
policy-making.
The CPI is composed of the five dimensions (the
‘spokes’ in the ‘wheel’) of urban prosperity. For the
calculation of specific indices, the CPI includes various
components partially covered in other measures such as
the Green City Index, the Ecological City Index and the
Livable City Index, which are further disaggregated into
various variables and sub-indices. The CPI also relies on
the Human Development Index (HDI), which goes into
the computation of the ‘City Human Development Index’
(CHDI). The CPI has been designed in such a way that
additional information and data can be incorporated when
calculating the index. This degree of adaptability makes it
possible to bring the more important city-specific variables
and space-related indicators into the index.
The UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index is unique in
the world for two reasons: (i) it focuses on individual
cities, as opposed to countries, and (ii) it is concerned with
prosperity as measured across five dimensions, of which the
local economy is only one, as opposed to the sole business
environment. The resulting CPI values can be regrouped in
six distinct brackets that range from cities with ‘very solid’
prosperity factors to those where those factors are found to
be ‘very weak’.
In broad terms, the classification by CPI values results
in regional brackets with various cities in the developed
world featuring solid prosperity factors (CPI: 0.900 or
higher), with a majority of African cities with very weak
readings constituting the last two groups (CPI: 0.600 or
below). In between, a large number of Asian and Latin
American cities make up the third and fourth groups (with
CPI values of 0.700–0.799 and 0.600–0.699, respectively).
The classification of cities according to the six different
CPI groups shows the following characteristics:
group
(by prosperity factors) Characteristics Cities
Cities with very solid
prosperity factors
(0.900 and above)
■ Strong integration of the 5 dimensions of prosperity.
■ High production of goods and services, strong economic
fundamentals, high productivity.
■ Urban power functions (good governance, urban planning, laws,
regulations and institutional frameworks) work fairly well, creating
safe and secure environments.
Vienna, Warsaw, Milan, Barcelona,
Copenhagen, Zurich, Amsterdam,
Auckland, Melbourne, Tokyo, Paris,
Oslo, Dublin, Helsinki, Stockholm,
London, Toronto, New York.

xiv
THE pRoSpERITy oF CITIES
The Five Dimensions of Prosperity
This edition of the State of the World’s Cities report
presents a fresh perspective on prosperity based on five
dimensions – productivity, infrastructures, quality of life,
equity and environmental sustainability. In the pursuit of
prosperity urban authorities must understand the various
interlinkages and interdependencies between these five
dimensions. Well-targeted interventions in one of the
dimensions of prosperity will have multiplier effects in the
other dimensions. Urban power functions ensure shared,
balanced development, which is a defining feature of
prosperity. Taken individually, the most important features
of each of these dimensions are outlined below.
Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities
■■ Urban areas contribute disproportionally to national
productivity. However, the structural productivity of
cities will at least in part rest upon an efficient supply
of serviced land and reliable infrastructure, including
transport, power, water and sanitation as well as
information/communication technologies. Cities at
earlier stages of development must look to enhance
transport connectivity, including to markets, providing
the population with access to adequate healthcare and
basic education.
■■ Concentrations of populations, infrastructure,
economic, social and cultural activities can lead to
substantial benefits and efficiency due to agglomeration
and scale economies. Agglomeration economies give
cities a competitive advantage and benefit densely
populated urban areas.
■■ The sound operation of any city (traffic and emergency
management, transportation, waste collection/disposal
and other services) has a crucial role to play in support
of social and economic activities.
■■ Cities where exchange of ideas and innovation are
encouraged will be better able to tap into the growth
dynamics that fuel the creation of social and intellectual
capital, thereby contributing to prosperity. However, it
is worthy of note that top performing cities derive their
strengths not just from their status as global economic
powerhouses, or from sophisticated infrastructure and
innovation mechanisms, but also from their ability to
enhance quality of life.
group
(by prosperity factors) Characteristics Cities
Cities with solid prosperity
factors – first category
(0.800–0.899):
■ The dimensions of prosperity are connected, generating a self-
reinforcing, cumulative momentum.
■ Relatively strong institutions, responsive legal and regulatory
frameworks.
■ Large availability of public goods.
Ankara, Mexico City, Guadalajara,
Bucharest, Shanghai, Almaty, São
Paulo, Moscow, Seoul, Prague, Athens,
Budapest, Lisbon.
Cities with solid prosperity
factors – second category
( 0.700–0.799):
■ Show ‘less coordinated’, ill-balanced development in the ‘spokes’.
■ Institutions, legal and regulatory frameworks and urban
management practices are undergoing consolidation.
Casablanca, Cairo, Manila,
Johannesburg, Jakarta, Cape Town,
Beijing, Yerevan, Kyiv, Bangkok,
Amman.
Cities with moderate
prosperity factors
( 0.600–0.699):
■ Wider discrepancies among the 5 dimensions of prosperity.
■ Institutional and structural failings.
■ Less balanced development.
■ Neat divide between rich and poor.
New Delhi, Yaoundé, Guatemala City,
Ulaanbaatar, Phnom Penh, Nairobi,
Mumbai, Chisinau, Tegucigalpa.
Cities with weak
prosperity factors
(0.500–0.599):
■ Production of goods and services is still too low.
■ Historic structural problems, chronic inequality of opportunities and
widespread poverty.
■ Inadequate capital investment in public goods.
■ Lack of pro-poor social programmes.
Lusaka, Dar es Salaam, Harare, Dakar,
Addis Ababa, La Paz, Accra, Lagos,
Kampala, Dhaka, Kathmandu, Abidjan.
Cities with very weak
prosperity factors
(below 0.500):
■ Dysfunctional systems, institutional failings.
■ Sluggish economic growth, widespread poverty and destitution.
■ Post- or ongoing conflict countries.
Monrovia, Conakry, Antananarivo,
Bamako, Niamey.

xv
Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity
■■ Prioritizing infrastructure must feature in any long-term
economic and social development and environmental
protection strategy. Prosperous cities are those that
have vastly improved the range and quality of their
infrastructure.
■■ As they meet infrastructure requirements, cities signal
that provision of public goods is high on the local
political agenda. However, infrastructure needs proper
maintenance if the initial investment is to pay off and
the benefits are to endure over time.
■■ Consistent and targeted investments in transport and
communication infrastructure are a major factor behind
urban prosperity. It is in the best interests of cities to
develop sustainable public transport, which will have
positive repercussions on all dimensions of prosperity.
Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity
■■ Cities that are committed to quality of life are almost
always also committed to enhanced productivity and
equity, emphasizing the strong relation between these
dimensions.
■■ Cities that give priority to the notion of public space,
providing green areas, parks and recreation facilities,
demonstrate a commitment to improved quality of life.
Such cities are also likely in the process to enhance
community cohesion and civic identity.
■■ Access to public spaces does not only improve quality of
life, it is a first step to civic empowerment, paving the way
for a broader, deeper institutional and political space.
■■ Effective public safety is a fundamental ‘common
good’ that enhances quality of life for all, and is a major
foundation for urban prosperity.
Equity and the Prosperity of Cities
■■ Inequalities are becoming steeper. Paradoxically, this has
occurred as wealth rose enormously around the world.
However, equity has a significant impact on economic
performance, since the greater the degree of equity,
the greater the chances of a fuller, more efficient use of
available resources, including skills and creative talent.
■■ Prosperity thrives on equity, which involves a lowering
of barriers on individual/collective potential, expansion
of opportunities, and strengthening of human agency
and civic engagement. When equity is embedded in
urban development strategies, efficiency is enhanced,
asset utilization becomes optimal, productivity
improves, and social cohesion is strengthened.
■■ More equitable cities have greater chances to be more
prosperous, too; but prosperity does not happen all by
itself, or as a logical consequence of economic growth.
Promoting equity is a dual endeavour: (i) providing the
conditions that enable every individual and social group
to realize their full potential and harness the collective
benefits and opportunities that cities offer; (ii) removing
any systemic barriers that discriminate against any
individual or social group.
■■ When prosperity remains an elusive proposition for a
majority of the population, the prospects of social unrest
or full-blown conflicts increase, since the majority’s
claims are nothing but demands for effective human
dignity.
■■ There is no substitute for government leadership to
address issues of equity, with civil society playing
advocacy, support and complementary roles.
Environmental Sustainability and the
Prosperity of Cities
■■ Environmentally sustainable cities are likely to be more
productive, competitive, innovative and prosperous.
These cities are able to draw a healthy balance between
economic growth and the environment, in the process
facilitating integrated development and resilience.
■■ Urbanization and economic growth are inevitable; if
matched with appropriate and effective policies and
governance, the environmental consequences are
manageable.
■■ Cities must build those financial and other institutions
required to achieve environmental sustainability,
otherwise economic growth will fall short of ensuring
shared prosperity.
■■ Environmentally sustainable cities are more compact,
energy-efficient, clean and less polluted, more
accessible, and offer better transport choices.
■■ Investments in renewable energies could generate more
employment and income for urban households. Waste
management and recycling can be a huge source of
employment in developing countries.
poLICIES FoR pRoSpERoUS CITIES
Factors Promoting Prosperity
UN-Habitat opinion surveys and policy analysis have
identified a number of factors that can create a favourable
environment for cities to prosper. These factors are
mediated by the local context, and as such, their effects
may vary across cities and regions. A clear understanding

xvi
and appreciation of these factors is important in reorienting
the policies, supporting structures and mechanisms that
can affect the prosperity of cities. These eight factors are
the following: effective urban planning and management;
decentralization polices and appropriate institutions; a
system that creates equal opportunities for all; participation
of civil society; elected local officials; a favourable business
environment; access to basic amenities; and public transport
and mobility.
Effective urban planning and management: This
has been perceived by local experts surveyed by UN-
Habitat as the most important factor behind a favourable
environment for urban prosperity. The five dimensions of
prosperity will give any city a grip on an otherwise largely
uncontrolled urbanization process. Against a background
of rapid urbanization, urban planning is a necessity not a
luxury, as demonstrated, in the many cities where it has
been lacking, by the proliferation of slum and squatter
settlements, spiralling poverty, inadequate infrastructure
and deteriorating environmental conditions – all of which
are inconsistent with prosperity. Evidence shows that when
planned and well managed, with distributive mechanisms
in place, urbanization can reduce poverty. Urban planning
and appropriately developed institutions and regulations
also have major roles to play, improving equity through the
capture and redistribution of rising land values. Moreover,
effective urban planning can encourage more compact,
efficient and sustainable development, with the benefits of
economies of scale and agglomeration.
Decentralization and appropriate institutions:
Decentralization policies emerge as the second important
factor enhancing urban prosperity. Local experts see it
as the most important factor in Latin America and the
Caribbean. The perceived effect of decentralization in
Arab States appears to lag behind other regions. The highly
centralized governance structure in this region undermines
the efficiency of municipal authorities, obstructs political
participation and erodes the relationships between the
citizenry and public authorities. In Africa, the degree of
decentralization varies significantly across countries: it
is high in South Africa and Uganda, but only moderate
in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda and Namibia. Many
Asian countries have made remarkable progress with
decentralization, such as Indonesia and the Philippines.
The one lesson from this diversity of experiences and
circumstances is that for decentralization to be effective and
strengthen urban authorities’ commitment to prosperity,
it must be matched by fiscal devolution. It is also clear
that decentralization works well when backed by strong
commitment and support from central government.
A system that creates equal opportunities: A system
that guarantees equal opportunities for all is the third
important factor underlying the prosperity of cities. The
more egalitarian a city, the more prosperous it is to become.
The importance of such a system is most pronounced in
Arab States compared with other regions, perhaps due to
the fact that this sub-region is one of the most egalitarian in
terms of income distribution in the developing world (Gini
coefficient of 0.36). For a city to be truly prosperous, it must
deploy systems that will ensure equal opportunities for all,
especially the more vulnerable – the poor, women, children,
the elderly, youth and the disabled. On the contrary, highly
unequal cities are a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
A system that creates equal opportunities for all can use
redistributive policies that give priority to low-income
groups and areas (e.g., Venezuela‘s massive investment
in healthcare and education, with the provision of over
8,000 clinics in the barrios or universal pension schemes
in Botswana, Lesotho, Mauritius and Namibia). Another
alternative will be conditional cash transfers (e.g., Brazil’s
Bolsa Família scheme, which benefits 11.1 million families,
and has contributed to reducing poverty and inequality).
Civil society participation: Policies that promote the
participation of civil society are perceived by local experts
as the fourth most important factor behind enhanced urban
prosperity. Participation of civil society has the potential to
empower communities, build social capital, lead to better
design of urban projects, and allow for citizens’ concerns to
be incorporated into development strategies. The perceived
importance of participation of civil society varies across
regions. It is seen by local experts as the second most
important factor in Latin America and the Caribbean,
while in Arab States it ranks only fifth. Asia provides a
classic example of a participatory planning process with the
People’s Campaign for Decentralized Planning in the State
of Kerala (India), which was launched in 1996. Lessons
from various countries suggest that successful civil society
participation is dependent upon certain preconditions such
as: (i) a political system that encourages active citizenship
and is committed to equity and remedial action; (ii) a legal
basis for participation; (iii) available resources in terms
of skilled and committed professionals, as well as well-
resourced and empowered local governments; and (iv)
informed and organized communities and stakeholders.
A favourable business environment: Cities with
favourable business environments and entrepreneurial

xvii
cultures are more likely to be prosperous than others.
A business-conducive environment is needed for a
vibrant private sector, attracting and retaining investment
(including foreign direct), creating jobs and improving
productivity – all of which are important for the promotion
of growth and for expanded opportunities for the poor.
In Asia, a favourable business environment is perceived
as the most important factor promoting prosperity, as
demonstrated by Singapore. Other Asian countries that
rank high with respect to the ease of doing business
include Hong Kong, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and Japan.
In Africa, countries such as Mauritius, South Africa,
Rwanda, Tunisia and Botswana also have a good record
enabling business environment. In recent years, Rwanda
has undertaken reforms to streamline business procedures,
create a favourable legal framework, reduce bureaucracy,
and improve service delivery in order to promote both
domestic and foreign investment..
Impediments to the Prosperity of Cities
Based on the UN-Habitat local expert survey, the seven
main impediments to urban prosperity are the following:
poor governance and weak institutions; corruption; lack
of appropriate infrastructure; high incidence of slums
and poverty; high costs of doing business; low levels
of human capital; and high crime rates. The hard-won
prosperity gains made by cities can be jeopardized or
eroded by these impediments.
Poor governance and weak institutions: The impact
of poor governance and weak institutions on urban
prosperity appears to be more pronounced in Africa and
Arab States, where over 40 per cent of experts cite this
factor as the single most important impediment. Indeed,
in these cities, as in many others in developing countries,
the institutions required for urban prosperity, if they
exist, are weakly developed. Institutional inadequacies
take the form of weak (if not altogether lacking) legal and
institutional frameworks, disregard for the rule of law, poor
enforcement of property rights, excessive bureaucracy, and
proliferation of corrupt practices, among others. All these
are incompatible with urban prosperity.
Corruption: Corruption is considered by local experts
as the second most important hindrance to enhanced
urban prosperity. The negative effects vary across cities and
regions. While corruption on a grand scale has (as might
be expected) the most devastating impact, corruption
in any form undermines confidence in the fairness of
government, the rule of law and economic stability. In Arab
States, corruption is the joint first factor along with poor
governance and weak institutions; in Asia it is perceived as
the second most serious impediment; and in Latin America
and the Caribbean, it is rated as the third most important.
Corruption can be detrimental in a variety of ways: acting
as a deterrent to foreign direct investment; undermining the
ability of city authorities to provide fair municipal services;
distorting infrastructure spending in various ways that are
not beneficial for the urban poor; and causing poor delivery
of urban services.
Inadequate infrastructure: Inadequate infrastructure is
a major impediment to the prosperity of cities. The impacts
of deficient infrastructure appear to be more pronounced
in Asian and African cities and less so in Arab States. Cities
with deficient infrastructure can be adversely affected on
many fronts. For instance, inadequate water and sanitation
facilities will lead to deterioration of the urban environment,
increasing the disease burden on the urban poor. Deficient
infrastructure can raise the costs of doing business in urban
areas and reduce firm productivity by as much as 40 per
cent. Besides denting trade and competitiveness, inadequate
infrastructure often leads to congested roads and poor
transport facilities, which all act as serious hindrances to
any city’s prosperity.
High incidence of slums and poverty: Cities with high
incidence of slums are an indication of lopsided prosperity.
Slum dwellers are often stigmatized on account of their
location and are often discriminated against in terms of
access to public and social services, as well as employment.
Large concentrations of slums impose enormous burdens
on urban authorities that often lack the political will
and resources to provide even the most basic services,
with implications for the prosperity of cities. Rather than
being proactive in their approach to urban development,
cities with large concentrations of slums are likely to
adopt a reactionary and fragmentary approach to urban
development, which tends to be expensive in the long run.
Poorly developed human capital: Low levels of human
capital and skilled labour can hinder urban prosperity.
Education is essential not just for nurturing but also for
attracting talents, and bolstering innovation. Availability of
highly-skilled human capital in turn attracts and generates
innovative and knowledge-based industries. Attracting and
cultivating talents has become common practice for cities
in the pursuit of prosperity. From New York to Boston,
London to Vienna, Dubai to Singapore, or Bangalore to
Shenzhen, many cities can illustrate this phenomenon. The
cities’ large proportions of high-skilled workers, nurtured

xviii
through their vocational education system, have been
crucial for city prosperity.
High crime rates: Crime emerges as another major
impediment to the prosperity of cities. No city can
claim to be truly prosperous if it is crime-ridden and the
population lives in a perpetual state of insecurity. Crime
is a major deterrent to domestic and foreign investment
and can cause capital flight. In Africa, more than 29 per
cent of business people report that crime was a significant
investment constraint. In South Africa, a survey of major
cities showed that around 25 per cent of respondents were
reluctant to allow their children to walk to school, while 30
per cent stopped using public transportation. In large Latin
American cities, high numbers of murders deter people
from working evenings and at night. In Jamaica, crime has a
pernicious effect on national tourism and is often cited as a
major reason for the country’s weak economy.
All these factors have implications for local economies,
quality of life and the attractiveness of public spaces, on top
of lost opportunities for socioeconomic advancement that
are so crucial for the prosperity of cities.
Policies Promoting Prosperity
UN-Habitat policy analysis identifies three major types of
action to promote urban prosperity:
1. Innovations to support the transition to the City of the
21st Century.
2. Urban planning and design for prosperity.
3. Empowering laws and institutions for urban prosperity.
Various other policies and actions are certainly needed,
the specific nature of which will vary from one city to the
next. In this endeavour, and given the holistic nature of
prosperity, effective coordination of municipal authorities
with local and central government has a pivotal role to play.
Innovations to support the transition to the City of
the 21st Century: Creativity and innovation involve a
variety of areas that range from technology to institutions,
organizations and modes of operation to information and
knowledge, finance and human development. Although
increasingly viewed from the sole economic perspective,
innovations can flourish in many areas such as developing
and managing urban life, renewal of social institutions,
improved urban policies, development of knowledge
networks, etc.
Creativity and innovation are largely influenced by
six main types of factors: (i) locational advantages (i.e.,
economies of agglomeration and ‘positive externalities’
at regional scale); (ii) knowledge networks; (iii) cultural
factors; (iv) the economic environment; (v) organizational
factors; and (vi) State/government interventions (i.e.,
policies, incentives, institutions). The cities and countries
best placed for economic growth and prosperity are
those that invest in building knowledge and innovation
institutions and related systems with strong support from
both public authorities and the private sector.
Innovation is a creative capital that is brought to bear
on various dimensions of development and prosperity, in
the process unleashing undeveloped potential and making
fuller use of local resources and assets. The culture of
creativity must be embedded in the way cities operate.
Therefore, it is not just for government or business, but also
for communities and the public at large, to mobilize their
own powers of imagination. In practice, all of this requires
well-adapted physical environments, which in turn have to
do with urban economies and better urban planning. From
a more institutional point of view, support to knowledge
exchange and networking is another way of stimulating
creative capital, along with favourable conditions for
research and development. As for the productive sector,
creative stimulation can also derive from economies of
agglomeration and an entrepreneur-friendly environment.
The transformative power of innovation is closely
linked to the various components of prosperity –
productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and
environmental sustainability. Innovation can contribute
to any of these dimensions, or respond to the supporting
institutions and policies at the core of these dimensions,
steering the course of the city along the path of prosperity
and sustainable development.
Urban planning and design for prosperity: In the midst
of ongoing demographic, socioeconomic or environmental
cross-currents, cities must reassert control over their
destinies with reinvigorated urban planning and design, for
the sake of shared prosperity and harmonious development.
If urban planning is to be in a better position to
address the shortcomings of the Global Standard
Urbanization Model of the 20th century, both theory
and practice must come under serious review to ‘rescue’
the discipline from its role as a mere technical tool,
restoring it to its rightful position in the public sphere.
However, efficient urban planning requires a reinvigorated
notion that can really contribute to the pursuit of shared
prosperity, and for that purpose four conditions must be
met: (i) restoration of public confidence; (ii) repositioning
of urban planning in decision-making; (iii) deployment of

xix
the fullness of its functions across the five dimensions of
shared prosperity; and (iv) support for these functions with
adequate financing.
As a decision-making tool, urban planning must better
defend the ‘public’ against the menace of ever-expanding
‘private’ interests and its consequences: shrinking public
spaces and reduced provision of public goods, which in
turn affect more collective, intangible dimensions, such as
quality of life, social interaction, cultural identity and social
values. Interdependencies and interactions among the five
‘spokes’ in the ‘wheel of urban prosperity’ (productivity,
infrastructure, quality of life, equity and environmental
sustainability) can be deliberately enhanced (as opposed
to being allowed to occur all by themselves) through the
strategies and interventions that are part and parcel of
urban planning. More specifically, it is in the power of
a well-planned decision or well-calibrated choice in one
dimension of prosperity − for example, the design of a
street supporting multimodal transport as part of the
infrastructure development of the city − not just to make
that particular part of the urban space more accessible
or pedestrian-friendly, but in the process also to improve
productivity (shops, street-trading, etc.), quality of life and
social inclusion.
UN-Habitat calls for a fresh, different type of urban
planning and design – one that has the power to transform
urban landscapes and expand existing enclaves of
prosperity across the entire city. UN-Habitat proposes a
reinvigorated notion of urban planning, one that comes
with a new value system that relies on effective institutions,
well-adapted laws and regulations, sustainable urban
solutions and active civic involvement in public affairs.
This type of planning signals a paradigm shift towards a
new urban pattern − the city of the 21st century: a city that
can better respond to the challenges of our age, optimizing
resources to harness the potentialities of the future; a
people-centred city, one that is capable of transcending
the inefficient, unsustainable GS20C model, in the
process integrating and nurturing the five dimensions of
urban prosperity as defined in this Report. UN-Habitat’s
reinvigorated notion of urban planning involves sustainable
use of, and equitable access to, the ‘commons’ through
appropriate policies and schemes. It also gives any city
tighter public control over the use of land, and contributes
to the change in form and function of cities based on
sustainable development principles. Acting from the ‘hub’
of the ‘wheel for prosperity’, urban planning can identify
strategies and plan for optimal production of public goods,
in the process contributing to social capital, enhancing
sense of place, safety and security, integrating social groups
(e.g., youth), and increasing the economic value of the areas
where these goods are provided.
Prosperous cities must plan and implement a variety
of technical solutions to improve functionality and
achieve sustainable urban forms. Although solutions
can vary according to local conditions, UN-Habitat has
identified a number of key interventions in various areas,
including: increase population density to sustainable levels;
encourage social diversity and mixed land-use; devise
multimodal mobility strategies; plan infill development and
guided expansion; and promote livable public spaces and
vibrant streets.
Empowering laws and institutions for urban
prosperity: The success of some of the cities as highlighted
in this Report is based on specific combinations of laws,
regulations, institutions and processes. In almost all cases,
advances along the five dimensions of prosperity are either
accelerated or impeded by existing bodies of laws and
regulations, the strength of enforcement, as well as by the
configuration, capacity and flexibility of the institutions
responsible for steering urban development.
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of policy
reviews and scholarly studies striving to address the
normative and organizational underpinnings of urban
change. As part of this change, it is clear that legal and
institutional systems are part of the hub that drives the
‘wheel of urban prosperity’, supplying the laws and
regulations that support and shape the five ‘spokes’,
adjusting them over time as conditions, needs and fresh
risks may require. In this process, business, academia, civil
society – non-governmental and grassroots organizations,
trade unions and professional associations, political
parties, etc. − all need to contribute to the design and
enforcement of these laws and regulations, including strong
institutions, to make sure that the city moves along the path
of prosperity. Laws that are adapted to the requirements
and expectations of the city of the 21st century and the
associated institutional set determine the very genesis of the
modern city.
Laws, regulations and institutions as factors of restraint,
opportunity and action, act as the levers that can optimize
the social function of property and balance it out with
private rights and assets. They can revitalize ‘Rights to the
Commons’ and expand the public realm. As cities work
on the five dimensions of prosperity, there also occurs a
progressive expansion in the size of the commons. More

xx
amenities are brought into collective use and more access
is provided, enabling larger numbers of urban residents
to use and enjoy shared spaces, services and facilities.
Rules and regulations constitute a key instrument in urban
management and development. They generally steer and
circumscribe planning and construction. Indeed, statutes,
ordinances and regulations are the bases for the guidelines
and standards regulating spatial layouts and construction
designs. The same applies to institutional relationships,
functional allocations and authority designation, besides
resource distribution. The legal framework in turn enables
civic organizations and community activities. Equally
significant is the overall manner in which legal-regulatory
and institutional frameworks delineate the public and
private spheres and guide the interaction between and
within them in the everyday workings of the city. The
capacity for a city to maintain extensive and quality shared
spaces and facilities provides a good indication of its degree
of prosperity.
The review of regulatory frameworks is of particular
importance for those cities in the developing world that
have long operated with externally derived standards and
codes, who must also tend to effective implementation
and enforcement capacities. This calls not only for major
institutional restructuring, but also for a revision of
zoning and building codes to support urban reforms,
not to mention squatter regulation and slum upgrading.
In addition, cities today must provide accommodative
measures, allowing for progressive construction, smaller
plot sizes and multiple variants of land tenure with higher
densities. Similarly, utility standards must be adjusted, and
new development financing channels devised, in the face of
inequity and exclusion.

Re-thinking
Urban Prosperity
Part One

4
Conceptualizing Urban
Prosperity
THE CITy IS THE HoME oF pRoSpERITy
Cities are where human beings find satisfaction of basic
needs and essential public goods. Where various products
can be found in sufficiency and their utility enjoyed. Cities
are also where ambitions,
aspirations and other
intangible aspects of life
are realized, providing
contentment and happiness
and increasing the
prospects of individual and
collective well-being.
However, when
prosperity is absent or
restricted to some groups,
when it is only enjoyed
in some parts of the city,
when it is used to pursue specific interests, or when it is a
justification for financial gains for the few to the detriment
of the majority, the city becomes the locus where the right
to shared prosperity is claimed and fought for.
pRoSpERITy: A MISpLACED CoNCERN IN THE
MIDST oF CRISES?
Never before has humankind as a whole faced cascading
crises of all types as have affected it since 2008, from
financial to economic to environmental to social to political.
Soaring unemployment, food shortages and attendant price
rises, strains on financial institutions, insecurity and political
instability, among other crises, might well on their own call
into question the relevance and even the viability of a report
focused on prosperity. This proliferation of risks might even
challenge the conventional notion of ‘Cities as the Home of
Prosperity’, i.e. where, by definition, ‘successful, flourishing,
or thriving conditions’ prevail.
Ill-balanced development notions and policies have
meant that, instead of being the locus of opportunity
and prosperity, cities all-too-often have become places of
deprivation, inequality and exclusion. In too many parts
of the developing world, unequal access to opportunities
and resources has pushed vast numbers of people into
favelas, bidonvilles, katchi abadis or campamentos, as slums
are known. In Europe, new forms of social exclusion,
marginalization and poverty are emerging, such as
infrastructure-poor, immigrant poverty, young people at
risk, and more vulnerable elderly.1
As people in the latter part of 2011 gathered in Cairo’s
Tahrir Square or Madrid’s Puerta del Sol, in front of
London’s St Paul’s cathedral or in New York’s Zuccotti
Park, they were not only demanding more equality and
inclusion; they were also expressing solidarity with fellow
citizens that belong with the ‘99 per cent’ (the vast majority)
as opposed to the ‘one per
cent’ (those with vastly
disproportionate shares
of wealth and decision-
making capacity). These
movements highlighted
the inherent risks of
ill-balanced growth or
development policies,
and their failure to
safeguard prosperity for
all. Throughout history,
cities as seats of power
have served as stages for
Chapter 1.1
POLICy It is in every city’s interest to
adopt organically integrated
types of development and
prosperity that transcend
the narrow confines of
an accumulation-driven
model that benefits only a
few to the detriment of the
majority.
A focus on prosperity
as conventionally
understood seems, at
best, an unnecessary
luxury in a time
of crisis. At worst
prosperity can be seen
as a harbinger of yet
another single-minded
pursuit of purely
economic prosperity
that might bring the
global economy to the
brink again.
© Denis Mironov/Shutterstock.com

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
5
Crises, cities and prosperity
The financial crisis: Borrowing, borrowing, borrowing
Prominent scholars such as Joseph Stiglitz ascribe the 2008
financial crisis to rising income inequalities in countries
around the world. In the face of stagnating real earnings, those
households in the lower- and middle-income brackets were
forced into more and more borrowing in order to maintain or
improve living standards. With financiers experimenting with risky
schemes at the other end of the credit chain, this situation led to
a spate of defaults and, ultimately, the financial crash of 2008.
The double irony of this crisis is that it originated in the efforts of
a supposedly sophisticated financial system to give low-income
categories a much-desired access to housing finance – and a
foothold in prosperity.
The democratic crisis: ‘We are the 99 per cent!’
The recent crisis is more than just an economic one. More
fundamentally, it has exposed a number of risks to social justice,
fairness, participation and, ultimately, democracy. Systematic
decision-making in favour of those better-off is, in itself, a form
of democratic deficit, and one that has led to popular movements
like New York’s Occupy Wall Street. The movement ‘calls for
a society organized around the needs, desires, dreams, of the
99 per cent, not the one per cent’ The other major uprisings
of 2011 – the Arab Spring in North Africa and the Middle East,
and Spain’s own Indignados – were also motivated by similar
demands for better and deeper democracy as essential for
overall prosperity. These protests highlighted the fact that
economic growth was a necessary condition for prosperity,
though insufficient on its own: social and political inclusion is
vital for prosperity.
The environmental crisis: The convergence of climate change
and urbanization
The current pattern of urbanization both in developed and
developing countries converges on one and the same model: low
density-based suburbanization. Land speculation is associated
with indiscriminate conversion of rural land to urban uses in
the peripheries; this phenomenon combines with a growing
reliance on individual motor vehicles and new-fangled middle-
class lifestyles to expand urban areas way beyond formal city
boundaries. A variety of economic agents can typically be found
behind this trend, including real estate developers, home- and
road-builders, national and international chain stores, among
others, more often than not with support from banks and finance
houses. Wasteful expansion of cities in endless peripheries
is a major factor behind climate change. Beyond the physical
threats from climate change, some cities stand to face an array
of additional risks related to the provision of basic services and
public goods (water supply, physical infrastructure, transport,
energy, etc.), affecting industrial production, local economies,
assets and livelihoods. Climate change may have ripple effects
across many sectors of urban life, affecting the potential for
prosperity of the more vulnerable populations: women, youth,
children and ethnic minorities.2
Box 1.1.1
May 1 2012 saw protests in many cities around the globe. In New York City, labour union members marched in support of the Occupy Wall
Street activists campaigning against the chaos in the financial sector.
© A Katz/Shutterstock.com

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
6
ghost towns, vacant homes: wasted prosperity
Box 1.1.2
What sowed the seeds of the 2008 world financial crisis was an
unusual combination of sustained economic growth and low interest
rates. The resulting sense of prosperity and optimism might have
been legitimate (some respected economists saw a ‘new golden
age’ opening up), but in the USA and elsewhere the financial sector
needed higher interest rates to maintain or boost profits. Home loans
to low-income (‘sub-prime’) households provided an opportunity for
higher yields, and the US guarantee mechanism made securities
based on sub-prime home loans an attractive proposition for US and
foreign investors – good returns and no apparent risk, especially
when enhanced by sophisticated derivative instruments. The whole
structure unravelled when low-income borrowers defaulted en masse
on their badly structured home loans: interest payments stopped on
both loans and bonds, which became largely worthless, the financial
sector was destabilized around the world, a credit crunch began and a
global recession with it.
This happened at a time when, in both developed and emerging
countries, the numbers of built houses and mortgage loans had
reached historic levels, in the process expanding peri-urban areas
far beyond previous limits. As a result, the bursting of the property
‘bubble’ reverberated around the world, from San Francisco to Mexico
to Dublin to Madrid to Cairo and to Shanghai.
In 2007, Spain and Ireland built many more houses than any other
European country.3 In Spain alone, it is estimated that some seven
million units were built between 2001 and 2010, while the population
grew 5.2 million during the same period,while over that same period,
house prices more than doubled.4 In Mexico, the housing sector
grew 12 per cent in 2004, more than four times the country’s overall
growth rate that same year.5 In Egypt, since the 1980s, many urban
developments have sprung up on desert land. In the Greater Cairo
area, for instance, eight cities in particular have become the focus of
massive investment, speculative interest, territorial expansion and
grandiose urban planning.6
Evidence shows that in nations like Angola, Egypt, Mexico or China,
what had originally been planned as new housing opportunities for
the medium- to low-income segments (including rural migrants in
China) turned out as quality developments which high prices and
dependence on new roads and motor vehicles made inaccessible
to the initial targets. In these cases, the failure lay both in poor
urban planning and the misidentification of the target population.
Uncontrolled, quick-profit oriented property market growth has left
behind sprawling, badly planned peri-urban developments where
millions of housing units have remained vacant once the property
bubble burst. In North America, repossessed houses represent masses
of capital and ruined dreams, lying out there unused and useless,
abandoned, wasted.
In Europe as a whole, Spain stands out with the highest number of
vacant houses – with contrasted figures that refer to three up to six
million units. In Ireland the celebrated ‘Celtic Tiger’ has left behind
more than 2,800 ‘ghost estates’ – urban developments where an
important proportion of the houses are vacant or unfinished, according
to a 2010 government survey.7 In the United States, about 11 per cent
were unoccupied in 2011.8 The situation is not any different in Latin
America. In Mexico, five million houses were vacant in 2010, or 14 per
cent of the housing stock.9 In Brazil, 6.1 million houses were vacant in
2010.10 In China and Egypt, the situation is even more alarming with
many developments or ‘ghost towns’ unoccupied or partially occupied.
Although data is scant, evidence shows that, in addition to vacant
houses, China is no stranger to the ‘ghost town’ phenomenon either.
For example, Kangbashi, a satellite town of Ordos, Inner Mongolia,
was planned for one million but had a much smaller population in
2010;11 with many of the houses remaining empty despite 90 per cent
of them having been purchased.12 And it would seem there are many
other developments sub-occupied in China. For example, Chenggong,
a newly developed area in the southern city of Kunming (Tianjin),
remains poorly occupied five to 10 years after completion.13 In urban
Egypt, the proportion of vacant urban housing units is reported to be in
excess of 20 to 30 per cent of the housing stock.14
Oversupply is a major factor behind housing vacancies. Property
and land speculation results in unaffordable prices. Uncontrolled or
permissive urban and regional planning (often linked to corruption) is
another factor. Cultural factors can also come into play. In countries as
diverse as Spain, Ireland and China, housing purchases for investment,
together with a tradition of small-scale letting,15 encourage owners to
maintain vacant properties regardless of actual demand.
Around Cairo (as in countries like Mexico), lack of infrastructure,
public services and social amenities in new suburban areas is another
factor behind high vacancy rates, along with high commuting costs.
Based on research by Mexico’s National Housing Fund Institute for
Workers (INFONAVIT),16 it would appear that more than one third
of vacancies in the country is related to lack of basic services, and
another third to excessive commuting times to/from work, school
etc., as also happens in China’s own new towns. In Mexico, insecurity
and inadequate housing designs are other factors, which also testify
to poor overall planning. Easy credit has turned into a crunch and
the fake prosperity associated with the property/housing ‘bubble’
leaves a legacy of evictions and indebtedness, instead of comfort
and valuable capital, with a once thriving construction sector and
millions of workers left to stall. Millions of housing units stand vacant
while thousands of households are evicted from their homes because
they default on mortgage payments. Lending institutions sit on vast
stocks of vacant new homes with limited market value, while evicted
or low-income households are consigned to inadequate, insecure
housing conditions. In Spain, the number of evictions has tripled since
2007. In Ireland, vacant houses could be used to reduce the deficit of
housing for those in need.

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
7
protests and the recent social movements are no exception.
Demographic concentrations in dense urban spaces allow
critical masses of protestors to congregate and air new ideas,
highlighting cities’ role as sounding boards for positive
social change. This points to another of the promises of a
prosperous city – not just a more productive socioeconomic
use of space and the built environment, but also one that
safeguards the city’s role as a public forum where plans and
policies can be discussed and challenged for the sake of a
more prosperous society.
CITIES: REMEDy To THE gLoBAL CRISES
If anything, the recent crises have demonstrated that cities
around the world are, to varying degrees of intensity,
exposed at least as much to the destructive as to the more
beneficial effects of international markets, including social
and political repercussions. In this sense, these crises
did more than expose systemic market failures: they also
highlighted major imbalances at the core of economic
policy-making.19
When responding to such crises, national
macroeconomic policies definitely have a major role to play
through countercyclical public expenditure, strengthening
bank supervision and financial regulations, introducing
progressive income taxation, and reinforcing worldwide
financial governance mechanisms, among other solutions.
However, responses to global crises must also allow for
a vigorous role for cities. So far, cities have been perceived
as the ‘engines’ of national economies and there is no
reason to depart from that view. Indeed, city authorities
find themselves, at least notionally, in a position to boost
production in the real sector of the economy at local level,
with attendant employment and income generation. If
urban responses to economic crises are to be effective on a
local scale with positive regional or national repercussions
(‘multiplier effects’), then efficient, multi-way institutional,
policy and budget linkages are required between all relevant
tiers of government. In this respect, proper alignment of
central and local government expenditures at city level can
facilitate transfers and their effective use by city authorities.
Far from undermining the role of cities as ‘engines’
of national economic development, the recent worldwide
crisis has highlighted the evolving nature of the risks
against which urban spaces must safeguard themselves, and
their populations, and the same goes with the effects of
climate change. Municipal authorities must also be aware
When streets amplify claims: the ‘Arab Spring’
When Mohamed Bouazisi, a 26-year-old street vendor in Sidi
Bouzid (Tunisia), doused himself in petrol and scratched a match,
little did he know that his tragic act would set ablaze a number
of cities along the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores,
in the process toppling some well-established governments. The
unfortunate young man also shed the cruellest possible light on
the punishing lack of socioeconomic opportunities many youths
his age are so familiar with in that part of the world: a graduate
who took to street vending in a bid to survive, Bouazisi had been
arrested for lack of a permit and his goods destroyed.
This lack of perspectives highlights the ill-balanced type of
‘prosperity’ which this Report is looking to redress. Among other
positive features, Tunisia is known both for having eradicated
slums and for its young, well-educated workforce, but so far
economic opportunities have been inequitably shared, to the
sole benefit of a number of vested interests.17 This is for lack of
the political and other institutions that ensure inclusion, equal
distribution of wealth among various groups, and respect for
cultural diversity.
Bouazisi was one in the more than 100 million 15- to 29-year-
old cohort who contribute up to 30 per cent to the Middle East
and North African population.18 This so-called ‘youth bulge’ in
the region’s demographic profile reflects the lag between rapidly
declining mortality and a slower decrease in fertility rates. With
the scarcity of (especially quality) jobs, average unemployment
in the region – 25 per cent – is nearly double the worldwide rate
of 13 per cent. As usual, averages conceal significantly higher
numbers: in Algeria and the Palestinian Territories, unemployment
is the plight of 40 per cent of the active population. In Algiers,
Tunis, Cairo or Tripoli, more than 50 per cent of the unemployed
are first-time job seekers – the highest of any region of the world.
This reflects a significant mismatch between education (especially
secondary) and labour markets.
In these capitals as in secondary cities and towns from January
2011 onwards, the street became the natural forum as the chain
of protests spread across the region. Being spaces for flows and
movement, streets and squares emerged as the privileged locus
where people can do more than express grievances: they can forge
identities and enlarge solidarities (including across borders). In this
somewhat chaotic, spontaneous process, people come to recognize
their mutual interests, shared feelings and aspirations. Cities leave
their spatial imprints on the nature of social struggles, where
politics evolves from a ‘micro-’ to a ‘macro-dimensional’ nature,
transcending wealth, power and privilege. As Bouazisi might have
hoped, what has come to be known as the ‘Arab Spring’ showed
how cities can act as catalysts for cooperation and sharing.
Box 1.1.3

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
8
POLICy Cities can devise a number of
safeguards against a variety
of socioeconomic risks.
Municipal authorities can
prioritize expenditures on
social security nets, local/
regional infrastructure and
other types of development,
with a view to securing
longer-term growth while
stimulating consumption
and/or employment in the
short term.
POLICy Cities can also deploy
safeguards against the
risks international markets
may bring to bear on
local socioeconomic
conditions, deploying
redistributive policies in
close collaboration with
central government in order
to reduce income gaps
and other local structural
problems.
Cities are a remedy to the global crises. They provide ready,
flexible and creative platforms that can mitigate the effects of
regional and global crises in a pragmatic, balanced and efficient
way. Cities can act as the fora where the linkages, trust, respect
and inclusiveness that are part of any remedy to the crisis can be
built. Acting locally in different areas and spaces, urban responses
to the crisis can be structured and included in national agendas
for more efficiency, with better chances of flexible responses
and more beneficial effects. Although not immune to the divisive
partisanship and ideologies that can paralyze decision-making,
cities find themselves in more privileged positions than national
governments to negotiate and agree on responses with local
stakeholders. They can forge new partnerships and local social
pacts which, in turn, can strengthen national governments in the
face of global challenges.
China: busy traffic on one of Beijing’s boulevards. Wide avenues such as this bring a sense of space to city centres but increasing wealth has
led to a massive growth in private car use, with attendant congestion and increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
© Yu Yang/Shutterstock.com

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
9
that safeguards against newly emerging risks can take all
sorts of forms, including incentives (e.g., higher wages for
low-income workers), benefits (healthcare or retirement
income schemes) and trust (e.g., avoiding corruption, or
fair dealings with organized civil society). These safeguards
can complement those of a more tangible nature, such
as urban rehabilitation and transport- or climate-related
infrastructure, which preserve the mutual benefits of
productivity and socioeconomic well-being for businesses
and residents alike.
RE-THINkINg URBAN pRoSpERITy
A poverty-stricken plumber in Hyderabad (India), a
factory worker in Bogotá (Colombia), a middle manager
in Madrid (Spain), a businessman in Fortaleza (Brazil),
a car mechanic in Nairobi (Kenya) − all five will have
aspirations to prosperous lives. However, prosperity means
different things to different people around the world.
Whatever the individual perception, regardless of culture
and civilization, prosperity refers to a sense of general and
individual socioeconomic security for the immediate and
foreseeable future, which comes with the fulfilment of other,
non-material needs and
aspirations.
Yet, the prevailing
view continues to confine
prosperity to the realm of
economics, a restrictive
view that shuts out other
dimensions which are
integral to human well-
being and necessary for
Cities and global crises
The mismanagement of urban economies and finance as
epitomized by the 2008 housing finance crisis in the USA has
reverberated around the world. The subsequent economic
crunch has, among other consequences, caused a fall in migrant
worker remittances, and fiscal retrenchment has forced cuts
in public spending on infrastructure, health and education in
many countries.
Urban areas around the world have distinctly felt the pinch, what
with rising numbers of redundancies and declining demand for
goods and services of all kinds. From automakers in Detroit to
urban shopkeepers in Buenos Aires or Nairobi, to factory workers
in Shanghai to farmers in Brazil or Burkina Faso, millions have
found themselves caught short.
In contrast, the highly urbanized economies of Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Colombia and Mexico have generally responded better
to the global slowdown than the United States or Europe, as
they activated their urban economies through focused spending
and credit, together with stronger ‘safety nets’ for more
vulnerable households.
Latin America highlights the problem with conventional economic
stimulus through additional government spending: these blanket
policies pay no attention to the specific locations where economic
problems are occurring, or where consumption requires stimulus
for a quick reactivation of maximal multiplier effects. Outside
Latin America, no government spending has specifically targeted
cities, thereby ignoring the spatial configurations of national and
local economies and, more particularly, the way agglomeration
economies might be energized by additional public expenditure.
Over time, economic growth is closely associated with the
urban share of the population, and in all countries in the world
nowadays more than half of GDP emanates from urban areas. As
economies, too, become more urban, the relationship strengthens
between the efficiencies and productivity of agglomeration
economies, on the one hand, and location on the other hand.
The essence of the process of value creation is to bring factors
of production together in time and space. When associated with
higher densities and proximity, industrial agglomeration reduces
production costs and stimulates consumption by an ever more
affluent urban labour force. Research in Brazil has found that
productivity increased roughly one per cent for every 10 per cent
increase in the number of workers employed in an industry or
a city. This means that if the number of workers in a city rose
from 1,000 to 10,000, productivity would increase by a hefty
factor of 90.20 Lessons from decades of practice and programme
assistance should be reflected, rather than patently ignored, in
governments’ fiscal stimulus policies. The single major lesson
of development assistance is that not only do local conditions
matter, but they also win at the end of the day. Far from supply/
demand charts, the space in which economic behaviour actually
occurs is none other than shops, markets, factories, where
production, commerce, and consumption occur, and in households
where purchase decisions are made.
The central issue for policy and strategy is how best to support
cities’ efforts to stimulate and sustain the economic multipliers
needed to generate employment and incomes. In this respect,
infrastructure is a necessary though not a sufficient condition,
and that is why local economic development strategies must
cut across sectors. Once incentives and other conditions for
productivity are in place, the distribution and sale of goods and
services are the next steps.
Box 1.1.4
UN-Habitat presents
a fresh perspective
on prosperity based
on five dimensions –
productivity,
infrastructures,
quality of life, equity
and environmental
sustainability.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
10
individual and collective
fulfilment. If anything,
the 2008 financial crisis
has amplified the need
to include other, non-
economic dimensions in
the understanding and
measurement of prosperity.
This Report introduces
a new gauge for the degree
of prosperity in the cities
of the world. As developed
by UN-Habitat, the City Prosperity Index combines the five
dimensions of prosperity as understood in this Report and
as subsumed in measurable indicators. The index pinpoints
individual cities’ strengths and weaknesses, in the process
suggesting where policy action can address imbalances.
Re-thinking prosperity in those terms requires a shift
away from the current dominant perspective, which is
outdated and unsustainable on many grounds with its
combination of cheap fossil fuel, heavy dependence on
the motor car, highly segmented urban forms, socially and
economically segregated spaces, endless urban peripheries
that consume land, resources and in many cases natural
protected areas – and all largely steered by private, not
public interest.
Prosperity involves a forward-looking perspective, a
widely shared basic aspiration. It is also a process, one
which, through adequate actions, safeguards and practices,
together with support from appropriate institutions, has the
potential to improve individual and collective well-being.
Looking beyond the economic or financial dimension,
prosperity in this sense includes other vital dimensions
such as quality of life, adequate infrastructures, equity and
environmental sustainability. Prosperity is about raising
living standards; extending the outreach and quality of the
public sphere; and providing ease and convenience in life
and work routines. It is about a sense of balance and sharing
across social spheres or lifestyles and, more personally, a
sense of shared security, efficiency, comfort and aesthetics.
Those living in prosperous cities enjoy the benefits of
standard public goods such as educational opportunities,
health services, mobility, a safe environment and good
quality physical capital, including adequate public spaces.21
Similarly, prosperous cities safeguard residents against
socioeconomic marginalization, contributing to a sense
of belonging and ‘social cohesion’. Moreover, prosperous
cities come with positive side-effects in the form of non-
market goods which, with well-devised safeguards from
public authorities, can be made accessible to everyone.
For example, European cities can differ greatly in terms of
per capita consumption of private goods, but then not so
much in terms of per capita consumption of non-market
goods; this goes to show that prosperity, indeed, is not
only about money. For instance, a resident of Frankfurt-
am-Main, Germany, may enjoy a much higher income and
consumption of private goods than fellow countrymen in
Freiburg or Jena; still, each in their respective city will likely
have access to the same amounts of non-market goods (e.g.,
pleasant urban landscapes, thanks to adequate planning/
preservation policies). It is not uncommon for cities with
lower incomes to provide higher amounts of non-market
goods.22 Prosperity is strongly linked to the production of
public goods.
CoNCEpTUALIzINg pRoSpERITy:
THE UN-HABITAT AppRoACH
Prosperity implies success, wealth, thriving conditions, and
well-being as well as opportunity. In any urban setting, a
key question will arise: What are the essential conditions
and elements that are required for a city to thrive, or for
an urban area to be described as prosperous, or for the
well-being of the population? Put differently, what are the
manifestations or outcomes of a prosperous city? In general
POLICy A fresh approach to prosperity is
needed, not just to respond
to the effects of the crisis
and safeguard against new
risks, but also to steer the
world towards economically,
socially, politically and
environmentally prosperous
urban futures.
POLICy Shared urban prosperity puts people first, values the tangible and intangible aspects of development,
promotes inclusive economic growth, protects human rights,
ensures enabling equitable development, cares for the natural
environment, reduces disaster risks and vulnerabilities for the
poor and builds resilience to adverse forces of nature. This new
city – the city of the 21st century – creates harmony between the
five dimensions of prosperity and enhances the prospects of a
better future.
POLICy The ‘good’, people-centred city of the 21st century stimulates local job creation, promotes social
diversity, maintains a sustainable environment and recognizes the
importance of public spaces. It is a city that is all encompassing
and accessible to everyone.
POLICy The city of the 21st century transcends the form and functionality set in previous centuries, balancing lower
energy costs with a smaller ecological footprint, a more compact
form, greater heterogeneity and functionality, safeguards against
new risks, a higher provision of public goods, and a more ‘human
scale’, together with more creative spaces for imagination and
social interaction.

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
11
terms, a prosperous city offers a profusion of public goods
and develops policies and actions for a sustainable use of,
and equitable access to, ‘commons’.23 More specifically,
several elements which come to mind guide what constitutes
the UN-Habitat conceptualization of urban prosperity.
First, a prosperous city contributes to economic
growth through productivity, generating the income and
employment that afford adequate living standards for the
whole population. Second, a prosperous city deploys the
infrastructure, physical assets and amenities – adequate
water, sanitation, power supply, road network, information
and communications technology, etc. – required to sustain
both the population and the economy. Third, prosperous
cities provide the social services – education, health,
recreation, safety and security, etc. – required for improved
living standards, enabling the population to maximize
individual potential and lead fulfilling lives. Fourth, a city is
only prosperous to the extent that poverty and inequalities
are minimal. No city can claim to be prosperous when
large segments of the population live in abject poverty and
deprivation. This involves reducing the incidence of slums
and new forms of poverty. Prosperous cities are equitable
and socially inclusive. The benefits and opportunities that
come with a prosperous city are equitably (re) distributed.
A prosperous city ensures gender equality, protects the
rights of minority and vulnerable groups, and ensures
civic participation by all in the social, political and
cultural spheres.
Fifth, the creation and (re)distribution of the benefits
of prosperity do not destroy or degrade the environment;
instead, the city’s natural assets are preserved for the sake of
sustainable urbanization.
THE ‘WHEEL oF URBAN pRoSpERITy’
Prosperity, as defined by UN-Habitat, is a social construct
that materializes in the realm of human actions. It builds
deliberately and conscientiously on the objective conditions
prevailing in a city at any time, wherever located and
however large or small. It is a broader, wide-ranging notion
that has to do with well-balanced, harmonious development
in an environment of fairness and justice.
As described above, prosperity takes in all urban
functions as subsumed in five main categories. Since shared,
balanced development is a crucial feature of prosperity,
none of the dimensions must prevail over the others and
all must be kept roughly ‘equal’ – for the sake of a smooth
‘ride’ on the path of prosperity. In practice, of course, it is
a rare city where the five dimensions will be found equal
at any point in time, and this is where policy interventions
will be called for, as suggested graphically by the profile of a
city’s specific ‘prosperity index’. For instance, infrastructure
may be well advanced but inaccessible to large portions
of the population, therefore compromising the notion
of equity. In other, frequent situations, a city may be
economically efficient, enhancing job opportunities, but
neglecting the natural environment.
Since socioeconomic conditions keep changing on
a local and a broader scale, they will have an effect on
one or more of the five dimensions of prosperity, and it
will be for policy interventions to restore the balance. In
Defining a prosperous city
A prosperous city is one that provides
productivity Contributes to economic growth and development, generates income, provides decent jobs and equal
opportunities for all through effective economic policies and reforms.
Infrastructure development Provides adequate infrastructure – water, sanitation, roads, information and communication technology –
in order to improve living standards and enhance productivity, mobility and connectivity.
Quality of life Enhances the use of public spaces for the sake of community cohesion and civic identity, and guarantees
individual and material safety and security.
Equity and social inclusion Ensures equitable (re)distribution of the benefits of prosperity, reduces poverty and the incidence of
slums, protects the rights of minority and vulnerable groups, enhances gender equality, and ensures civic
participation in the social, political and cultural spheres.
Environmental sustainability Values the protection of the urban environment and natural assets while ensuring growth, pursues energy
efficiency, reduces pressure on surrounding land and natural resources, reduces environmental losses
through creative, environment-enhancing solutions.
Table 1.1.1

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
12
this endeavour, city authorities will find that the various
interlinkages and interdependencies between the five
dimensions can also be of a positive nature. For instance,
provision of water and sanitation in informal settlements
will improve both equity and quality of life, and even the
environment. This points to the ‘natural’ or ‘spontaneous’
interdependencies between the five dimensions along the
outer rim of the wheel. These can also be strengthened
with a multiplier effect through deliberate, well-targeted
interventions through the ‘hub’ of the wheel, i.e., the
combined power functions at work in any city. For instance,
building a school and a covered market next to a poor area
is likely to have multiplier effects across the five dimensions
of shared prosperity.
This goes to show that far from some new ‘model’ or
‘utopia’ or branding/marketing technique, UN-Habitat’s
‘wheel of prosperity’ symbolizes the well-balanced
development of the five dimensions, the current condition
of which is graphically represented in the Wheel of
Urban Prosperity (see below). The ‘outer rim’ absorbs the
cumulative forces transmitted through the ‘spokes’ – the
five dimensions of prosperity. At the centre is the ‘hub’ – the
local urban power functions, with four interrelated roles:
(i) ensuring the prevalence of public over any other kind of
interest; (ii) controlling the direction, pace and momentum
of the ‘wheel’; (iii) ensuring the balanced development
of the five ‘spokes’ and associated synergies; and (iv) in a
two-way relationship, absorbing and amortising any ‘shocks’
The Wheel of Urban prosperity
URBAN PROSPERITY
UR
BA
N
PR
OS
PE
RI
TY
URB
AN
PR
OS
PE
RIT
Y
URBAN PROSPERITY
URBAN PROSPERITY
Government
institutions
Laws and
urban planning
policy
interactions
policy
interactions
policy
interactions
policy
interactions
policy
interactions
Productivity
Infras
tructu
re
Environmental sustainability
Eq
ui
ty
an
d
so
cia
l in
clu
sio
n
Quality of life
spoke interactions
sp
ok
e
in
te
ra
ct
io
ns
sp
ok
e in
ter
act
ion
sspoke interactions
spoke interactions
Source: UN-Habitat, 2012.
Figure 1.1.1

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
13
transmitted by the ‘spokes’. The ‘hub’ brings together the
power functions (e.g., laws, regulations and institutions,
urban planning, civil society, trade associations, dedicated
agencies, etc.) associated with the five ‘spokes’. In this role,
the ‘hub’ represents human agency in all its embodiments.
It holds the five ‘spokes’ together and endeavours to
maintain their balance and symmetry over time.
MEASURINg pRoSpERITy: ATTEMpTS, FAILURES
AND pRogRESS
Prosperity remains one of humankind’s most enduring
pursuits across time and space. But it is only in the past
few decades that decision-makers, academics, practitioners
and populations have started to measure this important
dimension of human development. This has been a journey
of learning, trial and error. The adage ‘what gets measured,
gets done’ has injected a sense of urgency in the pursuit not
just of prosperity per se, but also of an operational definition
complete with specific indicators.
More than 70 years ago in 1937, the Nobel-winning metric
of gross domestic product (GDP) was purported to be the
‘mother of all statistics’, capturing the notion of prosperity
through any country’s total production of goods and services.
Although GDP spread rapidly and was widely accepted for
decades, it is becoming more and more apparent that this
aggregate is too narrow
to provide the accurate
measure of a society’s
overall well-being today. In
1972, the king of Bhutan
declared he was interested in
measuring ‘Gross National
Happiness’ (GNH).
In 1990, US economist
Mahbub ul-Haq convinced
future Nobel laureate
Amartya Sen to create ‘an
index as vulgar as GDP but
more relevant to our own lives’.24 In 2006, China developed
its own ‘Green GDP Index’, which seriously challenged the
validity of the standard aggregate, once environmental aspects
were factored in.25 In 2009, Joseph Stiglitz called for an end
to ‘GDP fetishism’ and, one year later, the British government
announced that it would, for the first time, survey happiness
in addition to purely economic measures.26
POLICy The city of the 21st century
seeks to achieve integrated
prosperity, making the
‘wheel’ well balanced with
mutually reinforcing spokes
in a dynamic hub.
The ‘hub’ is made up of the local urban power functions. These
encompass the public sector (municipal and other institutions/
agencies, as well as laws and regulations) and the non-public
sector (civil society, private business etc.). They combine in a
variety of ways according to local needs and conditions, with the
synergies between them resulting in innovative institutional or
policy practice that contributes to shared prosperity.
Fetching water in Debre Zeit city, Ethiopia. Quality of life and prosperity require an urban growth with
commensurate infrastructure and basic services.
© Eduardo Lopez Moreno

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
14
Prosperity is a more complex notion, one that cannot be
captured through straightforward indices that measure how
much money people earn or how many cars they own. A
‘prosperous’ life includes other non-material, non-tangible
dimensions, like having a voice in shaping the future of
one’s city, having meaningful relationships, belonging to
supportive communities, and having the resources and
capabilities to transform your dreams into concrete realities.
The ideas, aspirations and challenges of this early 21st
century are different from those of the Great Depression
era that was at the origin of the GDP measure. Ecological
and environmental concerns have become central priorities
for the way we shape our contemporary and future societies.
Protection of human rights, advancement of democratic
values − including women’s empowerment − and respect of
fundamental principles such as dignity and tolerance – all
of these are part of a more inclusive and prosperous future.
Equity is essential to higher prosperity and sustained urban
development. Currently, GDP does not reflect any of these
critical conditions.
The search for alternative measures of prosperity
is an unprecedented and cutting-edge scientific
endeavour. Studies have shown that even though income
is an important determinant of subjective well-being,
wealthier countries are no happier than poorer ones.
‘Life satisfaction has remained more or less unchanged in
most advanced economies over several decades in spite of
significant economic growth’.27 While income per capita
has tripled in the USA since 1950, the percentage of people
describing themselves as ‘happy’ has barely increased at
all, and has even declined since the mid-1970s. ‘In Japan,
there has been little change in life-satisfaction over several
decades. In the UK the percentage reporting themselves
‘very happy’ declined from 53 per cent in 1957 to 36 per
cent today, even though real incomes have more than
doubled’.28 The so-called ‘happiness paradox’ has been
empirically demonstrated by economist Richard Easterlin
in a study of 19 developed and developing countries.29
Many other studies have since corroborated what is now
known as the ‘Easterlin paradox’, leading some countries
and institutions to search for alternative indicators to
measure societal progress.
Recent efforts have attempted to include these other
dimensions of prosperity for a more accurate representation
of societal progress. Table
1.1.2 presents a summary
of these methods and
approaches.
The notion of prosperity
is still largely viewed as
belonging in the realm
of economics. However,
it is also acknowledged
that prosperity goes
beyond material well-
being and economic
growth. Trying to
integrate other tangible
and less tangible
human dimensions
of development such
as well-being and
quality of life has been
an ongoing story for
more than 40 years,
with efforts to create
new matrices and
approaches that add
nuance to standard
GDP.
Simple pleasures, such as a stroll along the streets of Kathmandu, Nepal, indicate real, everyday prosperity.
© Dhoxax/Shutterstock.com

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
15
Measuring progress and prosperity
Human Development Index (HDI)
United Nations Development Programme
1990
HDI combines indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment
and income into a composite human development index. It is a
single statistic that serves as a frame of reference for both social
and economic development, ranking countries by level of “human
development”.
Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)
Think-tank Redefining progress
1994
GPI was developed as an alternative system to GDP measurement. It
is used as a more inclusive type of economics based on ‘True Cost’
economics, looking how increased production of goods and services
has actually resulted in the improvement of welfare or well-being.
Measuring Sustainable Development
UNECE, oECD, EURoSTAT
2005
This particular measure is structured around the concept of capital, as
measured under four main dimensions – economic, natural, human
and social – that all pertain to sustainability. The idea is to make this
concept operational for public policies.
Prosperity Index
Regional Research Institute, USA
2006
This index measures regional economic prosperity and tracks
performance at city level, assessing competitiveness and identifying
opportunities to improve business. Although based on economic
prosperity, the index includes three main components: business, people
and location.
Commission on the measurement of economic
performance and social progress, France
2008
This Commission proposed to shift emphasis from measuring
economic production to measuring people’s well-being, against a
background of sustainability. The Commission concluded that well-
being is better assessed on the basis of income and consumption
rather than production.
Legatum Prosperity Index
Legatum Institute, Uk
2008
The index purports to measure national prosperity based on wealth and
well-being, using a composite indicator. It ranks 110 countries based
on eight ‘pillars of prosperity’: economic conditions, entrepreneurship
and opportunity, governance, education, health, safety and security,
personal freedom, and social capital.
Redefining Prosperity
UN Sustainable Development Commission
2009
Prosperity is redefined based on three aspects: a) fulfilment of material
needs; b) the social and psychological dimensions that contribute to an
enhanced sense of identity, meaning, belonging and hope; c) individual
capability to flourish in more prosperous environments.
National Well-Being Accounts Index
New Economics Foundation, Uk
2009
The index measures social progress based on subjective well-being. It
combines two types of data: personal (emotional well-being, satisfying
life, vitality, resilience, self-esteem) and social well-being (supportive
relationships, trust and belonging).
Global City Index (GCI)
Foreign policy Magazine, kearney & Chicago Council on
global Affairs
2010
The GCI measures the international standing of cities along five
dimensions: business activity, human capital, information exchange,
cultural experience and political engagement. The index results in
competitiveness rankings of cities in terms of business opportunities
and economic innovation.
Sustainable Development Index
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Uk
2010
This index combines four sets of data: sustainable consumption and
production, climate change and energy, protecting natural resources
and enhancing the environment, and creating sustainable communities.
The index is a composite of a total 68 indicators.
Various sources, compiled by UN-Habitat, 2012.
Table 1.1.2

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
16
THE UN-HABITAT ‘CITy pRoSpERITy INDEx’
Cities can take different paths to prosperity. UN-Habitat
views development as a non-linear, non-sequential and
complex process and recognizes that development paths
are differentiated and unique.34 Still, actions and policies
implemented by governments to enhance prosperity and the
outcomes of these policies can be measured to provide an
indication of how solid or weak are the prosperity factors
available to any individual urban area.
UN-Habitat’s ‘City Prosperity Index’ (CPI) does not only
provide indices and measurements; it also enables decision-
makers to identify opportunities and potential areas of action
along the path of prosperity. The CPI includes various indices
and indicators that are relevant to urban areas and important
for prosperity-oriented public policy-making.
Being based on the UN-Habitat concept of prosperity, the
CPI includes the five dimensions (the ‘spokes’ in the ‘wheel’)
of urban prosperity. The CPI includes various dimensions
perceptions, feelings and opinions about prosperity
Most cities nowadays depend on objective variables to guide
policy-making. These variables are based on ‘hard’ statistics
and ‘cardinal’ basic indicators, including inflation rates, gross
domestic product (GDP) and foreign (direct or indirect) investment.
Yet, for the sake of better-balanced policies, more and more
cities are recognizing the need to include subjective variables for
better policy-making, based on residents’ perceptions, feelings
and experiences − which are referred to as ‘ordinal’ measures.
Perception surveys are particularly important in the current
aftermath of a crisis that has eroded the trust of a vast majority
of citizens in a broad range of institutions including business, the
media and government.
Perception and customer satisfaction surveys can provide
important signals, views and opinions of what citizens want or
expect from political leaders − and they can do so almost in ‘real
time’. At a time when cities and governments find themselves
under immense financial constraints, and important decisions
must be made with limited information, the potential benefits of
perception surveys have never looked higher. Using a variety of
metrics, many cities have commissioned such surveys on major
issues and used them to establish policy priorities. For instance,
the City of Cape Town, South Africa, has commissioned an
annual, independent customer satisfaction survey to gauge the
perceptions of residents and businesses with regard to municipal
service delivery. The survey is conducted through both face-to-
face interviews and telephone conversations.30 Such perception
surveys provide an easy, proactive and cost-effective way of
securing feedback from residents and business.31
When governments use these perceptions as a ‘diagnostic’ to
identify, and respond to, areas of concern, they can reclaim
legitimacy among the population. In a related development, a
UN-Habitat perception survey of local experts (2011) recently
revealed that a majority perceived that municipal authorities in
50 representative cities considered equity and environmental
sustainability as the least important dimensions of prosperity, by
comparison with productivity, quality of life and infrastructure.
These findings suggest that city authorities must pay more
attention to the equity dimension of prosperity in response to
residents’ concerns.
Perception surveys can alert public authorities not only to
what citizens need and value, but also to what citizens want
from different tiers of government – local, district/provincial or
national. Since prosperity takes multiple dimensions, some tiers
of government may find themselves in better positions than
others when it comes to effective delivery. Regarding quality of
life – in this Report, one of the five dimensions of prosperity – the
experts surveyed by UN-Habitat survey agreed that, of all the
different tiers of government, local authorities should be expected
to implement adequate policies in areas like affordable public
transport, well-planned public spaces, sports and recreational
facilities, security and safety, and local socioeconomic
development.32 Indeed, those experts consider that local
authorities are generally best placed to provide for safe, inclusive
and environmentally sound neighbourhoods for improved overall
quality of life.
Objective statistics and subjective perceptions may tell different
stories, but together they represent an important metric of
prosperity. For example, cities with steep income inequality (i.e.,
statistically, with Gini coefficients of 0.5 or higher) do not only
reflect institutional and structural failures in income distribution,
but their risks of social unrest are also higher. These risks
can be further exacerbated by social and spatial perceptions
of inequality, which can be heightened by belief systems and
cultural norms. Unmet demands for a more balanced distribution
of the benefits of prosperity can lead to popular frustration, and
even to unrest. Conversely, a low degree of human development
will bring a population to adapt their expectations to what they
believe is possible in their circumstances.33 Given these caveats,
governments must combine subjective perceptions with objective
variables to develop a more accurate understanding of the
best ways of advancing urban prosperity. Taken together, ‘soft’
indicators (including perception surveys) and statistical measures
(‘hard’ indicators) enable policy- and decision-makers better to
understand both the (social and economic) state their cities are in,
and the state (of mind) the populations are in.
Box 1.1.5

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
17
partially covered in other indices such as the Green City
Index,35 the Ecological City Index, and the Livable City
Index. Each is further disaggregated into various variables
and sub-indices. UN-Habitat has adopted an incremental
approach to the development of this index. Two of the
dimensions – productivity and quality of life – correspond to
components of the Human Development Index (HDI), and
have been used to compute the ‘City Human Development
Index’ (CHDI). The three other dimensions – infrastructure,
environmental sustainability and equity – are made of
various key indicators as indicated in Table 1.1.3. Although
more refinement is still needed in terms of what indicators
are included in the index and the respective weightings
thereof, those that have been selected offer the possibility of
disaggregating the different dimensions of prosperity, in the
process identifying policy intervention areas..36
Although in many cases the prosperity of a city will
go hand in hand with that of the country, significant
variations in CPI measures can be found in cities in
the same country, and this goes to show that national
aggregates do not necessarily reflect what happens in
different regions or cities. Most existing prosperity indices
provide estimations for countries only (see Table 1.1.2).
By comparison, the UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index
is unique in the world for two reasons: (i) it focuses
on individual cities, as
opposed to countries, and
(ii) it is concerned with
prosperity as measured
across five dimensions, of
which the local economy is
only one, as opposed to the
sole business environment.
The resulting CPI values
can be regrouped in six
distinct brackets that range
from cities with ‘very solid’
prosperity factors to those
where those factors are
found to be ‘very weak’.37
Cities and human development
Cities with high HDI values appear both as engines of positive
change and as beneficiaries of prosperity. In the developing
world, some urban areas are becoming so prosperous that they
have closed the gap with, or even surpassed, the HDI of cities
in developed nations. For example, Seoul, South Korea, features
a HDI as high as 0.911, higher than that of many European
cities, particularly the southern and eastern regions where
HDI readings, though high, come under 0.900 in cities such as
Lisbon, Athens or Warsaw.
Box 1.1.6
UN-Habitat analysis shows that some cities in the
developing world are becoming more prosperous (with
higher HDI values), reflecting very significant progress on
health and education, and at times even in the absence of
sustained economic growth.
City and National HDI values
City HDICountry HDI 2010HDI Index
Kin
sh
as
a
Nia
me
y
Mo
nro
via
Da
ka
r
Ac
cra
Mu
mb
ai
Ne
w
De
lhi
Ca
iro
Me
xic
o C
ity
Wa
rsa
w
To
ron
to
Se
ou
l
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory, 2012.
The Human Development
Index (HDI) is typically
higher in cities compared
with relevant national
averages. Indeed, cities
are in general richer than
the rest of any country.
However, differences
between city and country
HDI measures are much
steeper in nations with
lower national HDI
measures.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
18
In broad terms, the classification of cities by CPI
values results in regional brackets, with various cities in the
developed world featuring solid prosperity factors (CPI:
0.900 or higher), with a
majority of African cities
with very weak readings
constituting the last two
groups (CPI: 0.600 or
below). In between, a large
number of Asian and Latin
American cities make up
the third and fourth groups
(with CPI values of 0.700–
0.799 and 0.600–0.699,
respectively).
Cities with very
solid prosperity factors
(0.900 and above): In the
world’s most prosperous
cities the five ‘spokes’ are
well developed overall,
with very little variations
among them. Urban
power functions such as
good governance, urban
planning, laws, regulations
and institutional
frameworks ensure that no
particular dimension of prosperity gains prevalence to the
detriment of the others. Cities with very solid prosperity
factors feature high volumes of goods and services as well
The UN-Habitat City prosperity Index
Dimensions Definitions/variables
productivity The productivity index is measured through the city product, which is composed of the variables capital
investment, formal/informal employment, inflation, trade, savings, export/import and household income/
consumption. The city product represents the total output of goods and services (value added) produced by a
city’s population during a specific year (details of the methodology can be found in the CPI technical report).
Quality of life The quality of life index is a combination of four sub-indices: education, health, safety/security, social capital and
public space. The sub-index education includes literacy, primary, secondary and tertiary enrolment. The sub-
index health includes life expectancy, under-five mortality rates, HIV/AIDS, morbidity and nutrition variables.
Infrastructure
development
The infrastructure development index combines two sub-indices: one for infrastructure, and another for housing.
The infrastructure sub-index includes: connection to services (piped water, sewerage, electricity and ICT), waste
management, knowledge infrastructure, health infrastructure, transport and road infrastructure. The housing
sub-index includes building materials and living space.
Environmental
sustainability
The environmental sustainability index is made of four sub-indices: air quality (PM10), CO2 emissions, energy
and indoor pollution.
Equity and social
inclusion
The equity and social inclusion index combines statistical measures of inequality of income/consumption (Gini
coefficient) and social and gender inequality of access to services and infrastructure.
Table 1.1.3
Cities with very solid prosperity factors
Productivity Index
Quality of Life Index
Infrastructure Development Index
Environmental Sustainability IndexCPI Index (with four dimensions)
Equity IndexCPI Index (with �ve dimensions)
Wa
rsa
w
Mi
lan
Ba
rce
lon
a
Br
us
se
ls
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Zu
ric
h
Am
ste
rda
m
Au
ck
lan
d
Me
lbo
urn
e
To
ky
o
Pa
ris Os
lo
Du
bli
n
He
lsi
nk
i
Sto
ck
ho
lm
Lo
nd
on
To
ron
to
Ne
w
Yo
rk
Vie
nn
a
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory, 2012.
Figure 1.1.2

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
19
as strong economic fundamentals and high productivity.
Their populations live longer and are well educated.
Infrastructures are available and the environment is well
managed. These cities are well governed and ensure safe,
secure environments. It is clear that the five ‘spokes’ of
urban prosperity are kept together in balance and at a right
pace by a ‘hub’ that has the collective interest as its core.
All the cities in this group feature very high Gross
National Incomes (GNI) per capita (from US$ 25,478 for
New Zealand to US$ 58,810 for Norway) and they produce
a substantial share of the country’s GDP (e.g., Brussels –
admittedly an exception – contributes as much as 46 per cent
of Belgium’s GDP). The economic power of some of these
cities is comparable to that of many national economies.
Estimated GDP equivalents in Tokyo and New York are
similar to those of Canada or Spain, while London’s GDP is
higher than that of Sweden or Switzerland.
When the equity index is included in the CPI, the
findings show that urban equity and prosperity are closely
linked: not unsurprisingly, cities that do well on the first
four dimensions of prosperity (with very solid prosperity
factors) seem to be more equitable. In most cities of this
group, inequality is relatively low, as reflected in low Gini
coefficients (typically below
0.4, the exception being
New York where inequality
is significantly steeper (0.5)).
When the equity dimension
is taken into consideration,
the CPI remains high for all
cities (i.e., above 0.800), but
only half remain with ‘very
solid’ prosperity factors (i.e.,
CPI above 0.900).
Cities with solid
prosperity factors – first
category (CPI: 0.800–
0.899): Cities in this bracket
feature high CPI values. The
five ‘spokes’ of prosperity
are connected, generating a
self-reinforcing, cumulative
momentum along the path
of prosperity. The minute
variations between the
‘spokes’ is evidence of the
efficiency of the ’hub’, i.e.,
relatively strong institutions,
responsive legal and regulatory frameworks and large
availability of public goods. Cities in Southern and Eastern
Europe such as Lisbon, Athens, Warsaw, Budapest, Prague,
Bucharest and Moscow feature in this bracket, along with
others in Latin America and Asia: São Paulo, Mexico City,
Almaty (Kazakhstan), Shanghai, Seoul and Ankara.
Cities with solid prosperity factors belong to countries
with different stages of economic development and different
HDIs, with Kazakhstan featuring the highest (0.884) and
China, Turkey and Brazil the lowest (0.663, 0.679 and
0.699, respectively).
However, it is important to note that high inequalities
in Moscow, Mexico City and São Paulo interfere with their
performance in terms of prosperity. When the equity index
is included in the CPI, both cities score below 0.800. This
suggests that, although prosperity factors remain on the
whole solid, they are somewhat weaker. While inequality is
POLICy Despite their high production of goods and services, European cities are experiencing many crises –financial,
employment and housing, among others – and it is expected that
their respective CPI values will reflect this in the near future.
Cities with solid prosperity factors – first category
Productivity Index
Quality of Life Index
Infrastructure Development Index
Environmental Sustainability IndexCPI Index (with four dimensions)
Equity IndexCPI Index (with �ve dimensions)
An
ka
ra
Me
xic
o C
ity
Bu
ch
are
st
Sh
an
gh
ai
Alm
aty
Sã
o P
au
lo
Mo
sc
ow
Se
ou
l
Pr
ag
ue
At
he
ns
Bu
da
pe
st
Lis
bo
n
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory, 2012.
Figure 1.1.3

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
20
historically entrenched in
most Latin American cities,
it is a recent phenomenon
in Russia, in the extended
aftermath of economic
liberalization.
Cities with solid
prosperity factors –
second category (CPI:
0.700–0.799): This group
is heterogeneous, with
some cities showing a
‘less coordinated’, ill-
balanced development in
the ‘spokes’. This comes as
the result of institutions,
legal and regulatory
frameworks and urban management practices that are in
the course of consolidation, and this is why they cannot
hold together all the elements of the ‘wheel’ to operate
with stability. Heterogeneity is also related to the stage of
development of the relevant countries. Measured by HDI
readings, significant variations occur between countries
like Jordan (0.884) and
Indonesia (0.600), for
instance. Interestingly, the
capital cities of these two
countries do not feature
such extreme variations
in their respective HDIs
(0.810 for Amman and
0.755 for Jakarta).
However, it is important
to note that inequality is
inconsistent with prosperity
as understood in this Report. When the equity index is
included in the CPI, Cape Town and Johannesburg (which
both feature very high Gini coefficients) drop from the
bracket of cities with ‘solid’ prosperity factors and join the
‘weak’ or even ‘very weak’ group, with CPI values of 0.590
and 0.479 respectively.
Cities with solid prosperity factors – second category
Productivity Index
Quality of Life Index
Infrastructure Development Index
Environmental Sustainability IndexCPI Index (with four dimensions)
Equity IndexCPI Index (with �ve dimensions)
Ca
sa
bla
nc
a
Ca
iro
Ma
nil
a
Jo
ha
nn
es
bu
rg
Ja
ka
rta
Ca
pe
To
wn
Be
ijin
g
Ye
rev
an
Hà
No
i
Ky
ïv
Ba
ng
ko
k
Am
ma
n
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory, 2012.
Figure 1.1.4
POLICy Cities in emerging
economies such as Brazil
or China combine high
economic growth and
strong infrastructure, and
are expected to move faster
along the path of prosperity –
but then, for the sake of
balanced development, they
must tackle inequalities and
environmental degradation.
They also must look to
improve quality of life
through more ample
provision of public goods.
Most of the cities in this
group are located in
Asia: Amman, Bangkok,
Hanoi, Yerevan, Beijing,
Jakarta and Manila.
Four African cities also
feature solid prosperity
factors: Cape Town,
Johannesburg, Cairo
and Casablanca. Kyiv in
Ukraine is the only city
in Eastern Europe.
promising African cities
Among the 20 African cities included in UN-Habitat’s CPI
sample, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Cairo and Casablanca are
the only ones featuring solid prosperity factors. Cairo’s current
political turmoil highlights the need for a more integrated
pathway and more balanced growth with some dimensions
(quality of life and infrastructure) progressing much faster than
others (equity and social inclusion). Morocco, on the contrary,
has embraced political change with a new constitution that
enhances civil liberties and expands the notion of prosperity,
which stand to benefit Casablanca and other cities. South
African cities have experienced significant economic growth,
but in the past two decades life expectancy has declined
substantially, affecting quality of life.
Box 1.1.7

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
21
Cities with moderate
prosperity factors (CPI:
0.600–0.699): The
difference between ‘solid’
and ‘moderate’ prosperity
factors lies in wider
discrepancies among
the values of the various
components. This points to
institutional and structural
failures, as the ‘hub’ fails
to keep the ‘spokes’ at a
relatively same ‘length’.
Cities with less balanced
development feature
contrasted patterns, with
a neat divide between rich
and poor.
In Nairobi, prosperity
is compromised by steep
inequality (Gini coefficient:
0.59), causing its CPI value
to drop from ‘moderate’ to
‘weak’ (0.673 to 0.593).
Cities with weak prosperity factors (CPI: 0.500–
0.599): In most cities with weak or very weak prosperity
factors, much remains to be done in terms of quality of life,
infrastructure and the environment in most of the cities in
this bracket. Production of goods and services is still too
low, a reflection of underdevelopment. Historic structural
problems, chronic inequality of opportunities, widespread
poverty, inadequate capital investment in public goods, and
lack of pro-poor social
programmes are critical
factors behind such low
degrees of prosperity.
The city product
of African cities in this
bracket is low, as are
the ratings for quality of
life and infrastructure.
Most of these cities
perform better on the
environment indicator
(low emissions of fine
particles (PM10)). Recent
progress in Ghana in the
economic and political
spheres looks certain to improve the CPI value for Accra,
which at the moment is low (0.533) due to poor economic
performance (0.347). Addis Ababa features relatively
low in all CPI components, and this relative uniformity
reflects a fair balance among the ‘spokes’ (0.52 on
average). The city continues to make progress, thanks
to higher investment in infrastructure and construction,
manufacturing and tertiary activities. This in turn paves
the way for job creation, and it is for central government
Most of the cities in this
bracket – Tegucigalpa,
Nairobi, Phnom Penh,
Ulaanbaatar, Guatemala
City, Yaoundé, Mumbai
and New Delhi – feature
low HDIs (below 0.62).
While in most cities
a moderate CPI value
is associated with a
low city product, in
the case of the two
Indian cities the low
CPIs mostly reflect
poor environmental
conditions.
Cities with moderate prosperity factors
Productivity Index
Quality of Life Index
Infrastructure Development Index
Environmental Sustainability IndexCPI Index (with four dimensions)
Equity IndexCPI Index (with �ve dimensions)
Ne
w
De
lhi
Ya
ou
nd
é
Gu
ate
ma
la
Cit
y
Ula
an
ba
ata
r
Ph
no
m
Pe
nh
Na
iro
bi
Mu
mb
ai
Ch
isi
na
u
Te
gu
cig
alp
a
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory, 2012.
Figure 1.1.5
Low production, highly available public goods
Chisinau, the capital of Moldova, features a very low city
product (0.34) that is almost half those of Mumbai (0.645)
or New Delhi (0.596). Still, this combines with very high
readings for quality of life (0.85), infrastructure (0.895) and
clean environment (0.894), similar to those for much richer
cities like Auckland, Brussels, London or New York. With
a very modest economic base, the city has been able to
deliver sufficient public goods to reach a moderate degree
of prosperity. This goes to show that various dimensions
of urban prosperity can be deployed even when economic
growth remains relatively weak.
Box 1.1.8

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
22
to ensure that this economic model, which involves several
dimensions of prosperity, retains both momentum and
good synchronization.
Various cities/countries in this group have recently
been marred by conflicts, political instability or economic
crisis. The city product of Harare (0.246), not long ago a
very vibrant economic centre, is almost as low as that of
post-conflict cities like Monrovia (0.048), Antananarivo
(0.171) or Conakry (0.133). In 2002, Zimbabwe recorded
the lowest slum prevalence of the region, and one of the
lowest of all the developing world (four per cent); poor
governance, political instability and massive housing
evictions in 2005 have raised that percentage to 17 per
cent, mainly due to overcrowding; and yet, Harare features
high infrastructure development (0.899), similar to that
of emerging economy cities like Ankara, Manila, Mexico
City or Mumbai. Quality of life in Harare is also very
low, reflecting a dramatic reduction in life expectancy
(to 1970s levels). Similar declines are also observed in
the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Swaziland
or Zambia.
It is important to note that inequality further weakens
the CPI values for Lagos, Harare and Lusaka. When the
equity index is included
in the CPI, all three cities
move from ‘weak’ to ‘very
weak’ prosperity factors
(below 0.500).
Cities with very weak
prosperity factors (CPI
below 0.500): Cities
in this bracket feature
contrasted patterns
among the sub-indices
in the CPI. For some,
the dispersion of index
values across the ‘spokes’
reflects institutional and
Cities with weak prosperity factors
Productivity Index
Quality of Life Index
Infrastructure Development Index
Environmental Sustainability IndexCPI Index (with four dimensions)
Equity IndexCPI Index (with �ve dimensions)
Lu
sa
ka
Da
r e
s S
ala
am
Ha
rar
e
Da
ka
r
Ad
dis
Ab
ab
a
La
Pa
z
Ac
cra
La
go
s
Ka
mp
ala
Dh
ak
a
Ka
thm
an
du
Ab
idj
an
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory, 2012.
Figure 1.1.6
The bulk of this bracket can
be found in Africa: Abidjan,
Accra, Addis Ababa, Dakar,
Dar es Salaam, Harare,
Kampala, Lagos and Lusaka.
Also included are Dhaka,
Kathmandu and La Paz.
Recycling is a vital service in modern cities.
© EGD/Shutterstock.com

Conceptualizing Urban Prosperity
23
structural problems. For
others, the five dimensions
of prosperity do converge,
if at very low values, a
hallmark of dysfunctional
systems, institutional
failures, sluggish economic
growth as well as
widespread poverty and
destitution.
There are only five cities
with very weak prosperity
factors (CPI below 0.500) in UN-Habitat’s worldwide
sample. The common feature of cities with very weak
prosperity factors is that they have recently experienced
various conflicts of varying degrees of intensity. In Bamako,
Antananarivo, Monrovia, Niamey and Conakry, production,
quality of life and infrastructure indicators are all very low.
POLICy More prosperous cities
demonstrate the effective
functioning of the hub
in terms of urban power
functions such as
governance, urban planning,
laws, regulations, and
institutions.
El Alto, Bolivia: a large and poorly serviced part of greater La Paz,
where the population is 80% indigenous.
© Eduardo Lopez Moreno
Cities with very weak prosperity factors
Productivity Index
Quality of Life Index
Infrastructure Development Index
Environmental Sustainability Index
CPI Index (with four dimensions)
Equity Index
CPI Index (with �ve dimensions)
Mo
nro
via
Co
na
kry
An
tan
an
ari
vo
Ba
ma
ko
Nia
me
y
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory, 2012.
Figure 1.1.7

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
24
Endnotes
1 López Moreno, 2010.
2 UN-Habitat, 2011a.
3 Kitchin et al, 2010.
4 Banco De España, 2012.
5 Vassalli and Sánchez, 2009.
6 UN-Habitat, 2011c.
7 British Broadcasting Corporation, 2010.
8 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011.
9 BBVA, 2011; INFONAVIT, 2011a.
10 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estadistica, 2010.
11 Yu, 2011.
12 Quartly, 2010.
13 Barboza, 2010.
14 UN-Habitat, 2011c.
15 Inurrieta Beruete, 2007.
16 INFONAVIT, 2011b.
17 The phenomenon had been highlighted nearly a decade earlier by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP, 2002).
18 Assaad and Roudi-Fahimi, 2007.
19 United Nations, 2010a.
20 Spence et al, 2008.
21 Calafati, 2011.
22 Ibid.
23 Historically, water, biodiversity, knowledge and some other shared resources,
including roads, sidewalks, highways and other public infrastructure, have been
considered as ‘commons’. ‘Commons’ are also intangible aspects such as clean
environmental conditions, identity, cultural and symbolic spaces. More recently, from
an institutional governance perspective, ‘commons’ are institutional arrangements
such as ‘spaces’ for negotiation and participation, cultural norms and legal and
statutory provisions.
24 Dickinson, 2011.
25 The outcome of China’s ‘green GDP’ index was that if air pollution, water shortages,
desertification, and depletion of fish stocks and wildlife were factored into its GDP
calculation, the 2004 GDP would have been 511 billion yuan (US$ 66 billion), or three
per cent lower (SEPA and NBS, 2006).
26 Dickinson, 2011.
27 Jackson, 2009.
28 Ibid.
29 Easterlin, 1973; 1974.
30 City of Cape Town, 2011.
31 Quantisoft, 2012.
32 Ibid.
33 Sen, 1979.
34 Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Sampath, 2010.
35 Between 2009 and 2012, Siemens sponsored a series of publications on Green City
from which the performance, with respect to urban environmental sustainability,
of cities in different parts of the world can be assessed. An Ecological City Index
was also developed in assessing the sustainability of the environment (S. Joss, D.
Tomozeiu and R. Cowley, 2012: Eco-city indicators – governance challenges). In
the quality of life aspect, the Livable City Index was also developed. The Economist
Intelligence’s Unit publishes annually a Global Liveability Report. Mercer also releases
annually the Quality of Living Survey, comparing 221 cities based on 39 criteria
(Mercier, 2011: Quality of living survey). Since 2007, the lifestyle magazine Monocle
has published an annual list of livable cities.
36 Further compounding the problem of data dearth is the fact that most of the existing
information was not collected in a uniform way to allow for comparisons of cities
across countries and regions.
37 This classification has used data from multiple sources for the various components
of the UN-Habitat Urban Prosperity Index, and this calls for a word of caution when
interpreting some of these variations.
visualizing the 5 dimensions of the CpI
Equity index Quality of life index
Productivity index
Infrastructure indexEnvironmental index
Vienna
Mexico City
Johannesburg
0
0.5
1.0
Equity index Quality of life index
Productivity index
Infrastructure indexEnvironmental index
0
0.5
1.0 Vienna
Cairo
Nairobi
The two pentagons represent the five ‘spokes’ of prosperity
as measured in five cities and the extent to which they are
imbalanced/balanced in relation to each other. The radar-shaped
graphs suggest where policy interventions are required. For
instance, Nairobi (in the right-hand graph) performs well in
terms of the environment and infrastructure, but less so on
equity, productivity and quality of life. In Cairo, the situation is the
reverse, as the environment appears to be the weaker point in an
otherwise well-balanced pattern of prosperity – although at an
overall lower level compared with Vienna. Similar interpretations
can be derived from the pentagon to the left, which compares the
relative performances of Mexico City and Johannesburg, again
against Vienna’s.
Box 1.1.9

25
Urban and Regional
Trends
MoRE THAN HALF oF THE WoRLD popULATIoN
IS NoW URBAN
It is really remarkable that only one century ago, two out
of 10 people in the world were living in urban areas. In the
least developed countries, this proportion was as low as five
per cent, as the overwhelming majority was living in rural
areas. The world has been rapidly urbanizing since then
and, in some countries and regions, at an unprecedented
pace. It was only two years ago that humankind took a
landmark step when, for the first time in history, urban
outnumbered rural populations. This milestone marked the
advent of a new ‘urban millennium’ and, by the middle of
this century, it is expected that out of every 10 people on
the planet, seven will be living in urban areas.
Interestingly, only 60 years ago or so (1950), the number
of people living in urban centres was slightly higher in
developed (54 per cent, or 442 million) as compared with
developing countries. Today, of every 10 urban residents
in the world more than seven are found in developing
countries, which are also hosts to an overwhelming (82 per
cent) proportion of humankind. Moreover, it is estimated
that, between 2010 and 2015, some 200,000 people on
average will be added to the world’s urban population every
day. Worth noting is that 91 per cent of this daily increase (or
183,000) is expected to take place in developing countries.
In the last quarter of 2011, the world population reached
the seven billion mark. This historic event took place 12 years
after the six billion mark. It took 123 years to double from
one to two billion but ‘only’ 33 years to cross the three-billion
threshold.1 Although demographic growth is slowing down
across the world as a whole, it remains that the ever-shorter
time it has taken to add one extra billion signals a major shift
in both the pace and scale of global demographics.
It is almost certain that at some point in late 2011, the
seven-billionth human was born in a developing country.
This is where virtually all (93 per cent) of the world’s
population growth is happening today. Moreover, all future
population growth is expected to take place in urban areas,
and again nearly all of it in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Therefore, it is highly probable that the seven-billionth
human was born in a city in any of these three regions.
These numbers highlight the extent to which the world
population has increasingly come to live in urban areas. For
all the clarity of these trends and the benefits that come with
urbanization, too many governments still maintain ambivalent
if not hostile attitudes to this process. In 2009, slightly over
two-thirds (67 per cent) of countries in the world reported
that they had implemented policies to reduce or even reverse
migrant flows from rural areas to cities. Of an average
10 African governments, slightly over eight were found trying
to stem rural migration.2 However, contrary to common
perception, migration from rural to urban areas is no longer
the dominant determinant of urban population growth in
developing countries. Today, natural increase accounts for
some 60 per cent of that growth, and the transformation
of rural settlements into urban places, a process known as
‘reclassification’, accounts for another 20 per cent or so.
Understanding current and prospective trends in
urban demographic growth is fundamental if appropriate
policies and strategies are to be designed and deployed
to maximize the benefits of urbanization. This includes
taking advantage of opportunities, devising better regional
and urban policies, and planning for the future. In this
chapter, every major region of the world is shown to feature
unique development patterns that are analysed against the
background of current trends and projections.
Chapter 1.2
© Christian Als/Panos Pictures

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
26
Urban Change in
Developed Countries
URBAN popULATIoN gRoWTH IS NExT
To STAgNANT
In the more advanced nations, urban population growth is
next to stagnant (0.67 per cent on an annual average basis
since 2010), which represents an additional six million or
so every year. In Europe, the annual increase is only two
million. By comparison, the aggregate annual population
increase in six major developing-country cities – New
Delhi and Mumbai (India), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Lagos
(Nigeria), Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo)
and Karachi (Pakistan) – is higher than Europe’s entire
population. Population
in North American cities
was the least slow of all
those in the developed
world between 2005 and
2010, particularly in the
United States (one per cent
on average).
The growth,
decline and prosperity
of cities: There is no clear association between the
demographic growth or decline of cities and their
degrees of prosperity. Although population numbers
have declined in a number of cities in Western Europe,
Canada and New Zealand, this did not affect living
standards, which in some cases even improved. On
the other hand, and as might be expected, population
declines in a number of cities in Eastern Europe and
the United States of America are strongly associated
with economic decay. The loss of economic momentum
in Cleveland, Detroit and Buffalo (homes to the USA’s
declining automobile,
steel and heavy industries,
respectively) and the
deterioration of inner
city conditions (deserted
residential areas and
crumbling infrastructure)
have all gone hand in
hand with population
declines.
Population decline in the city proper can very often
go hand in hand with rapid growth in peripheral areas,
a phenomenon known as the ‘doughnut effect’. For
example, in Saskatoon, one of Canada’s most dynamic and
affluent economic hubs, migration and natural increase
caused a 15 per cent population increase in peripheral
municipalities between 1996 and 2001.3 Likewise in the
United States of America, there has been a continuous
decline (minus 8.3 per cent between 2000 and 2010) in
the population of affluent St. Louis, while neighbouring
cities such as St. Charles and Jefferson increased
their populations by 26.6 per cent and 10.8 per cent,
respectively, during the same period.4
Growing cities are located in growing regions: Cities
and the surrounding regions are typically interdependent
economically and tend to share similar socioeconomic
and demographic trends. In most North American
cities, growing cities correspond to the most dynamic
regions and those experiencing population losses are
located in less dynamic regions. Canada is a case in point.
Research found that between 1981 and 2001, two-thirds
of smaller cities and towns with declining populations
were located within declining regions, and 77 per cent of
cities on a positive demographic trend were to be found
in growing regions.5 In contrast, in Western Europe the
prosperity of entire regions is largely dependent on a
primate conurbation and the concentration of services
and manufacturing that comes with it. A study on the
sustainability of 285 European regions conducted by
the Berlin Institute in 2007/8, just prior to the financial
crises, showed that cities like Reykjavík, Stockholm, Oslo,
Zurich and Geneva were doing well, as did the regions
where they are located. With their relatively unchanged,
well-educated and well-nigh fully employed populations,
these cities base their
economic momentum on
a combination of factors:
they act as administrative
and/or financial/economic
as well as cultural capital
cities, with high value-
added activities (including
communications, business
services, high technologies,
research, etc.),6 and this
momentum spills over
across the (often largely
urbanized) surrounding
In the past 20 years, the
proportion of European
cities with declining
populations is similar to
those whose population
growth rates are over one
per cent.
Cities must create
capacities that will enable
them to understand and
anticipate trends as well
as develop appropriate
strategies to harness the
growth and offset the
decline of some areas
or regions.
POLICy Regional and national
urban planning through
central government
in collaboration
with lower levels of
governance and other
key stakeholders plays
a critical role in creating
a system of cities and
in determining the
prosperity and growth
of cities.

Urban and Regional Trends
27
China, Ruili, Yunnan Province. Dai minority threshing rice harvest in fields which are gradually being swallowed by this booming border city.
© Mark Henley/Panos Pictures

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
28
regions through manufacturing and ancillary (logistics,
etc.) activities.
Cities in the north will continue to attract migrants:
European urban areas, in particular, will continue to feature
low fertility rates and rapidly aging populations. These
demographic trends are unmistakable and point to overall
demographic decline.
Between 2005 and 2010, net international migration
counterbalanced the excess of deaths over births in
11 developed countries, while contributing twice as much
to population growth in another nine countries.7 With the
ongoing economic crisis, the
aggregate flow of immigrants
to developed countries
has slowed down from an
annual 2.3 per cent average
rate in 2000–05 to 1.7 per
cent in 2005–10. Rising
unemployment in some of
the host cities/countries
may cause governments
to impose restrictions on
increased immigration.9
In Italy, the dynamic, affluent northern industrial cities of
Brescia and Reggio Emilia saw the share of immigrants in their
populations increase from five and six per cent respectively in
2002 to 19.3 and 17.2 per cent in 2010.10 Ireland’s economic
boom caused Dublin’s foreign-born population to soar by
over 300 per cent between 1991 and 2008.11
With the ongoing economic crisis, the aggregate flow
of immigrants to developed countries has slowed down
from an annual 2.3 per cent average rate in 2000–05 to
1.7 per cent in 2005–10.12
Despite these current
trends, it looks like
enduring demographic
and economic asymmetries
between the North and
South will continue to fuel
international migration,
as developed nations
require foreign workers to
address labour shortages
and counter the effects of
population aging on welfare
systems.
population density in Europe, 2001
Source: ORNL LandScan – cartography DG REGIO, European Commission.
Figure 1.2.1
POLICy It would be in the best
interests of European
countries/cities to
review immigration
policies with a view to
maximizing the benefits
and reducing the more
negative aspects of
the phenomenon, with
inclusionary social and
political mechanisms to
bring prosperity to all.
In the European Union
countries, it is projected that
deaths would outnumber
births from 2015 onwards,
putting an end to population
growth through natural
increase. Positive net
migration will be the only
demographic growth factor
until 2035.8

Urban and Regional Trends
29
Urban Change in
Developing Countries
DIvERgENT URBAN gRoWTH pATTERNS
In the past decade, the urban population in the developing
world grew an average 1.2 million people per week, or
slightly less than one full year’s demographic growth in
Europe’s urban areas. Asia dominated the picture, adding
0.88 million new urban dwellers every week. Africa was the
second largest contributor with an additional 0.23 million
per week, dwarfing Latin America and the Caribbean’s
0.15 million weekly increment.
Africa: The urban population is set to outstrip
Europe’s: In what promises to be one of the more
remarkable forthcoming developments in the overall
pattern of urbanization in Africa, the region’s population
is poised to outgrow
both Europe’s and Latin
America’s, which was the
first region to become
predominantly urban in
the developing world. In
2025, the aggregate urban
populations of Africa,
Europe, Latin America and
the Caribbean are expected
to reach 642 million,
566 million and
560 million, respectively.
Increased participation of European cities in networks
Large European cities in terms of both population and economic
production, such as London and Paris, are characterized by
their involvement in business networks across the continent
and beyond. Other cities with higher GDP per capita, such as
Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Frankfurt, Dublin, Copenhagen and
Stockholm, are also involved in important networks on account
of their high concentrations of national and sub-regional banking,
financial and business services. In contrast, those cities with high
shares of manufacturing are associated with lower participation
in international networks. Various Southern and Eastern European
cities, including Athens, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona and Milan,
appear to be relatively weak in terms of international networks
despite their economic size. Some German cities also belong in
this category, notably Berlin.
It must also be remembered that the primary sector (mining and
agriculture) can also connect urban areas in developed countries
to world markets through company headquarters, commodity
exchanges and specialist services based in cities located next
to production areas. This is the case with countries like Australia
(mining) and Canada (mining and intensive cereal production).
Source: Moritz Lennert (2011), Cities in Networks, prepared for UN-Habitat
Africa, urbanization and positive change
It is only one century ago or so that the urban population in
Africa was less than eight per cent of the total. Since then,
many things have changed, some in a positive way.
Over the entire span of the 20th century, life expectancy
increased from 24 to 52 years.13 Education has become
more widespread, with literacy rates in Sub-Saharan Africa
rising from 23 per cent in 1970 to 65 per cent in 2010.14
Gross domestic product per capita increased from 585
(1990) international dollars in 1913 to 1,368 in 1998.15
By the end of the 20th century, Africa’s population was
35 per cent urban.
Box 1.2.1
Box 1.2.2
In the developing world,
the pace of urban
population growth rate
has slowed down from
just under three per
cent in the year 2000
to 2.4 per cent in 2010,
which is still three and
a half times higher than
the annual average
population growth rate
in developed countries.
Africa: the ongoing urban economic momentum in Africa is a
result of a number of the typical factors of prosperity at work in
other regions of the world, such as economies of agglomeration,
location advantages, and diversification of the economic base,
albeit all in nascent form.
Urbanization in Africa features a conspicuous degree of
primacy, i.e., the concentration of significant proportions of
the national urban population in one or a very small number
of cities. Basic infrastructure and communication networks
have undergone tangible improvements in many cities. Public
transport still features as a major issue on the urban development
agenda, while inequality and poverty remain at the heart of
Africa’s problems.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
30
In an apparent paradox,
by that same year, 2025,
Africa will still be the least
urbanized region in the
world (45 per cent of the
population).
Asia: Moving into
the ‘Urban Century’
Half of the world’s urban
population now lives
in Asia. This region has
accounted for about 65 per
cent of the demographic
expansion of all urban
areas across the world
since the beginning of the
21st century. Undoubtedly,
this is the ‘Asian Urban
Century’.16 Large
population concentrations
in mega-cities are to
remain a prominent feature
in urban Asia (today,
seven out of the 10 most
populous cities of the
world are in this region).
In the recent past, Delhi
and Shanghai have joined
the league of ‘meta-cities’,
those massive conurbations
of more than 20 million people. It is expected that by 2020,
another three Asian cities – Beijing, Dhaka and Mumbai –
will have reached the 20 million mark.
Asia’s urban population growth rate remains sustained if
somewhat slower at an annual estimated rate of 2.4 per cent
(compared to 2.7 per cent between 2005 and 2010), second
only to Africa’s. On current trends, this slowdown should
continue (to an average of 1.7 per cent in the early 2020s
and below one per cent by 2050).17
No developing region has invested more than Asia
in advanced knowledge
infrastructure for
economic development.
A combination of public
and private sector capital
expenditure has provided
the modern infrastructure
required for industrial
expansion, research and development, innovation and
entrepreneurship, which in turn have enhanced the
economic potential and competitiveness of so many cities
in Asia. These, as a result, are rapidly shifting away from
labour-intensive to high-technology industries and to the
service-oriented sector. For instance, Cebu City in the
Philippines is prospering on the back of business process
outsourcing, where the number of jobs soared from 40,000
to 70,000 from 2009 to 2010.18 Nowadays in Lahore, the
capital of the Punjab Province of Pakistan, as many as
42 per cent of the workforce are employed in finance,
banking, real estate and social services. In India, Bangalore,
the capital of Karnataka State, is behind 32 per cent of the
country’s software exports and provides 25 per cent of jobs
in the national information technology sector.19
This is only some factual evidence highlighting the main
lesson from Asia, namely, that infrastructure development
focused on improved productivity (and quality of life) has
gone hand in hand with economic growth and urbanization,
particularly over the last two decades. According to
the UN-Habitat State of Asian Cities Report, the region
contributed a solid 30 per cent of the world’s economic
output in 2008.20 More specifically, the report noted that
cities accounted for 80 per cent of Asia’s gross domestic
product, while only hosting slightly over 40 per cent of
the region’s total population. Increases in GDP per capita
(as measured in constant year-2000 US dollars) has been
spectacular in East Asia and the Pacific, with a 120 per cent
surge between the year 2000 and 2010. By comparison, over
that same period GDP per capita in Sub-Saharan Africa
grew by 25 per cent, and only 22 per cent in Latin America
and the Caribbean.21
Latin America and the Caribbean: Inter-city migration
predominates: This is the most urbanized region in the
world (80 per cent of the total population, compared with
Europe’s 73 per cent).The urban transition in this region
was achieved in the early 1960s, or about 16 years before
Western Asia (the second sub-region in the developing
world to become predominantly urban), and 30 and 45
years respectively before Southern and North Africa (or, on
current trends, some 70 years before the whole of Africa).
Still, and as in Africa and Asia, some of the foundations
for improved prosperity have been emerging across Latin
America and the Caribbean over the past few years. Most
prominent among these are transport infrastructure and
telecommunications, together with the provision of basic
services and housing improvements. In some countries,
better physical connectivity, enhanced communication
Asia: This region is also
confronted by the same
urban paradox as Africa.
Despite high concentrations
of population in large cities,
the continent ranks among
the least-urbanized regions
in the world (45 per cent
urban). The tipping point
for ‘urban Asia’ is expected
to happen earlier though
(around 2020s).
POLICy African cities must connect
to regional and global
business networks,
enhance quality of life,
improve basic infrastructure
and communication
networks, address public
transport deficiencies and
environmental conditions,
and respond to inequality
and poverty issues, if they
are to turn into real engines
of national growth and
prosperity.
POLICy Cities must give
more attention to
rising inequalities and
the worrying trend
of environmental
degradation.

Urban and Regional Trends
31
La Paz, Bolivia, sprawls ever higher up the mountain side. The metropolitan area, formed by the neighbouring cities of La Paz, El Alto and
Viacha, is the most populous area of Bolivia.
© 2012 Robert Gilhooly/fotoLIBRA.com

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
32
technologies at urban
and regional levels, and
improved quality of life,
particularly in secondary
cities, have contributed
to reduce urban primacy.
Today and as a result,
small- and medium-size
cities in the region are not
only growing faster, but are
also becoming destinations
of choice for people
who were living in larger
agglomerations.
In many Latin
American cities, economies
have diversified through
de-industrialization and
the expansion of tertiary
activities, particularly
in the trade and service
sectors, causing informal
employment to soar, but
the phenomenon has
not yet been properly
quantified.
CoNvERgENT URBAN
gRoWTH pATTERNS
Cities are expanding in a
discontinuous, scattered
and low-density form
that is not sustainable: A
defining feature of cities in
the developing world is an outward expansion far beyond
formal administrative boundaries, largely propelled by
the use of the automobile and land speculation. A large
number of cities – whether in Angola, Egypt, Brazil,
China, or almost any other country – feature very land-
consuming suburban sprawling patterns which often
extend to even farther peripheries. A study on 120 cities
shows that urban land cover has, on average, grown
more than twice as much as the urban population.
Similar urban trends can be observed in other parts of
the world. For instance, in Mexico, the urban physical
expansion of all urban areas over the past 30 years was
estimated to be at around 7.4 per cent on an annual
average basis, outstripping population growth by a
multiple of nearly four.22 In India, built-up areas grew
faster than the population in nearly all of the largest
cities, especially during the 2000–11 period in Greater
Mumbai, Bangalore, Pune, Jaipur, and Kolkata. India’s
larger cities –particularly Bangalore, Hyderabad, and
Surat – are sprawling at an accelerated pace, with the
attendant decrease in densities outside their administrative
boundaries.23 Similar urban trends can be observed in
other parts of the world. In Algeria, for instance, much of
the urban expansion has taken the form of uncontrolled
sprawl around Algiers, with many of the more affluent,
car-owning residents migrating to the periphery. Between
1987 and 2008, the land area of the city increased by
almost four per cent per year, compared with only 1.5 per
cent for the population.24 In the Saudi capital Jeddah,
private developers in 2009 requested an allocation of
over 20,000 hectares of land outside city boundaries, but
municipal authorities were able to prove that only 17,000
hectares would be needed to accommodate requirements
over the next 29 years, half of which could be located on
vacant land within the city’s existing boundaries.25
Cities are becoming
endless expanses, with high
degrees of fragmentation of
the urban fabric that result
in vast interstitial open
spaces. At the periphery,
residential neighbourhoods
are characterized by
low-density developments
which, along with
under-used spaces and
fragmented built-up areas
in the intermediate city-
rings, are contributing to
dramatic reductions in
residential densities. In the
developing world, it was
Latin America and the Caribbean will be nearly 87 per cent urban
in 2050, by which time the annual average pace of growth in the
urban population is expected to slow down to 0.3 per cent. Some
cities already see their populations shrinking. Latin America and
the Caribbean stands out as the only region where migration
between urban areas is a significant determinant of urban
population growth, accounting for nearly 50 per cent and due to
several factors, chief among them the pursuit of prosperity.
POLICy Latin American cities must
become more productive
and generate local jobs,
and improve transport
infrastructure and living
conditions, short of which
they will face prospects of
population decline due to
higher mobility from city
to city. They must reduce
entrenched inequalities
while improving quality
of life and environmental
protection. More prosperous
cities must articulate better
their strategic advantages
with national economic
policies and enhance their
creative capital to increase
prosperity prospects.
POLICy Even though the region is more
urbanized than Europe,
GDP per capita (PPP) was
nearly three times lower
than the European Union’s
in 2010. The main reasons
include chronic inequalities
and mass poverty,
insufficient infrastructure,
poor public services,
inadequate connectivity,
poor governance and fragile
institutions.
Most urban plans and
regulatory regimes in
the developing world
have been incapable
of preventing the
conversion of rural land
to urban use in city
peripheries. As a result,
the reclassification of
settlements from ‘rural’
to ‘urban’ has become
the second most
significant determinant
of urban population
growth and expansion
in the developing world
today.

Urban and Regional Trends
33
observed that the average built-up area densities declined in
75 out of the 88 sampled cities, or 6 out of 7, between 1990
and 2000. Densities shrank from an average 174 persons
per hectare (p/ha) in 1990 to 135 p/ha in the year 2000. The
most significant decrease took place in the sampled Asian
cities, where the densities shrank from 217 p/ha in 1990 to
160 p/ha in the year 2000, or a 26 per cent decrease.26 In
the recent past, significant decreases in built-up densities
in cities especially outside administrative boundaries have
also been reported. Among many examples, cities such as
Bangalore, Hyderabad and Surat (in India) reduced by
more than half the built-up densities outside administrative
boundaries between 2000 and 2010.27
POLICy Cities must accommodate demographic and spatial expansion, with a concomitant development of well-
devised urban structures that would reduce transport and service
delivery costs, optimize land use and support the deployment and/
or protection of open spaces.
POLICy Better connectivity, mobility and accessibility and well-planned integration of land-use, density and transport
have the potential to reduce energy consumption drastically,
making cities more sustainable.
prosperity and urbanization: contrasted trends within regions
Box 1.2.3
Africa: proportion urban and urban growth rate, 2010
per cent
Low-income
(30 countries)
Lower middle-income
(14 countries)
Upper middle-income
(9 countries)
70
10
60
40
4.0%
2.3%
30
20
50
0
3.0%
Percentage urban Urban growth rate
Source: UN-Habitat, 2012.
Urbanization is far from being homogenous within
single large regions of the world. Even though
regional averages are important to understand
urban trends, conditions and projections and
for the sake of comparison, they conceal large
disparities across countries in the same region.
Levels of urbanization and rates of growth differ
significantly when compared with the economic
development of countries within the same region.
In general, low-income economies are growing at
least twice as fast as high-income economies, but
their typical level of urbanization is less than half
that of the more developed countries.
Intra-regional differences can be significant,
though. For instance, Africa’s urban population
growth rate was on average 3.3 per cent in 2010,
but variations among low- and high-income African
economies were very significant: 30 countries that
were ranked as ‘poor’ saw their urban populations
grow at a very brisk pace (about four per cent)
while nine countries in the ‘upper middle-income’
category grew at a more moderate rate of about
two per cent from 2005 to 2010. It is well known
that populations in less advanced countries grow much faster on
average than those more advanced; but what this data shows
is that, within the same region, some countries see their urban
populations expand twice as fast as that of other countries, and the
stage of development is a determinant factor behind this difference.
While countries with the poorest economies will take around 18
years to double their urban populations, countries with the most
advanced economies of the region will take more than double,
considering that their urban growth rates are diminishing faster.
This goes to show that the level to which a national population
is urbanized reflects the degree of economic development.
Understanding which cities are experiencing a demographic
boom and which others are undergoing dramatic decreases in
population is critical when it comes to designing urban policies
that are apt to maximize gains, redress regional imbalances and
(re)allocate capital expenditure for the sake of higher levels of
prosperity and more sustainable urban and regional development.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
34
NovEL URBAN/REgIoNAL CoNFIgURATIoNS
AND pRoSpERITy
Cities large or small have increasingly come to merge
together to form new spatial configurations that typically
take three principal forms: mega-regions, urban corridors
and city-regions. Each on its own spatial scale, these three
forms seem to act as nodes where global and regional flows
of people, capital, goods and information combine and
commingle, resulting in faster growth, both demographic
and economic, than that
of the countries where
they are located. These
new configurations
are more and more
spatially connected and
functionally bound by
their economic and
environmental links,
at times even socially and politically. They play an increasing
role in the creation and distribution of prosperity far
beyond their own specific geographic areas.
Large cities such as Bangalore, Mexico City or Cairo are
found morphing into new spatial configurations in which
they amalgamate other cities and towns of various sizes
within their economic orbit. In other cases, two or more
large cities, such as Mumbai and Delhi in India, São Paulo-
Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, or Ibadan-Lagos-Accra in Africa,
form transport corridors for the purposes of industrial
development, business services or trade. Still in other cases,
government creates planned ‘supra-agglomerations’ as part
of a regional/national development strategy. This is the case
in China, where the Guangdong Provincial Government
recently announced the development of the Pearl River
Delta mega-region, which would include nine large cities28
with an aggregate surface area of 40,000 km2, or 26 times
that of Greater London.29
A critical mass of people,
ideas, infrastructure and
resources acts as a magnet
for development, attracting
migrants, private firms,
investors and developers.
All of this enhances
the prospects for more
employment opportunities,
wealth creation, innovation
and knowledge, which are all
major factors of prosperity.
POLICy The challenge here is for
local authorities and
regional governments to
design the development of
cities in parallel with the
development of regions,
rather than treating both as
isolated spaces, a process
which involves innovative
coordination mechanisms for
urban/regional management
and governance.
POLICy Considering the ‘natural’
or ‘spontaneous’ growth
of these large urban
configurations, cities and
regions in the developing
world must introduce
regional planning strategies
to mitigate any adverse
side-effects and harness the
opportunities and potentials
that are concentrated in
those large agglomerations.
Mexico City, a metropolis of over 20 million people.
© ecco3d/Shutterstock

Urban and Regional Trends
35
Large urban configurations, as grouped in
networks of cities, amplify the benefits of economies of
agglomeration, increasing efficiencies and enhancing
connectivity. They also generate economies of scale that are
beneficial in terms of labour markets, as well as transport
and communication infrastructure, which in turn increase
local consumer demand.
Large urban configurations differ across regions
Europe: Urban planning has had much more influence here than
in any other region of the world. Located along major transport
routes, novel urban configurations are specialized industrial
and business centres, but with less dense populations than
counterparts in developing regions. Many capital cities have
moved from the ‘regional’ to the ‘supra’ cluster format.
Example: The so-called ‘Blue Banana’, a discontinuous corridor
linking many West European cities from London to Milan. The area
combines the highest concentrations of population and economic
(especially banking/financial and manufacturing) centres in the
whole continent.
North America: The main features here are massive investment
in freeway systems and planned urban development with a
dispersed pattern of urban settlement and specialized functions.
Most cities in these configurations have populations of over one
million, and the typical morphology is polycentric in terms of both
urban form and economic structure. They rank among the largest
in the world for aggregate surface area, about 18.9 million urban
acres.
Example: The North-East mega-region including Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C., which hosts 17 per
cent (or about 52 million) of the US population and generates 21
per cent of the nation’s GDP.
Asia: In newly industrialized countries, large agglomerations
are more dispersed and less well planned. Densities are
typically much higher – over 15,000/km2 – but in city regions
can be as twice as high, particularly in inner city areas. Large
urban configurations are becoming more specialized, including
industrial cluster development (high technology and traditional
manufacturing) and services (health, education and transport).
Example: China’s Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou agglomeration
is home to 120 million.
Africa: There are relatively few large urban configurations in
Africa. They tend to be linear along corridors or coastal trading
routes (e.g., the Abidjan-Accra-Lagos corridor) and major arterial
roads between adjacent provincial cities (Johannesburg-Pretoria
and Lagos-Ibadan). Typically they are not planned. Services are
poor, as are transport infrastructure and logistics. Employment
is driven primarily by trading, natural resources and low-level
services. The typical pattern combines high population density in
inner cities and low densities in outer areas.
Examples:
Cairo-Giza, the largest urban agglomeration in Northern Africa,
home to 17.8 million.
The Cairo-Alexandria corridor is the largest mega-urban region
(stretching over 225km), with export-oriented agriculture
accounting for 40 per cent of the surface area.
The Ibadan-Lagos-Accra corridor spans over 600 km across four
countries (including Benin and Togo) and is host to some 30 million.
Arab States: There are very few large urban configurations in
Arab States. In the Near East, the evolution is from mono- to
polycentric or diffuse urban corridor formats, especially in Iraq,
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In the Maghreb, large urban
configurations develop along rivers, coastal areas and trade
routes. Trans-border cities are expanding along highways and
modern transportation networks, and as in Africa they tend to be
linear along urban corridors.
Examples:
Tangier is emerging as a new Extended Metropolitan Region
around what has become North Africa’s largest container port.
The Kenitra-El Jadida corridor includes the cities of Casablanca
and Rabat, Morocco’s business and administrative capitals
respectively, which are home to a combined 7.5 million people
and generate half the country’s GDP.
The Abu Dhabi-Sharjah free trade zone also includes Dubai and
Ajman, with over 200 factories, more than 3.5 million residents
and the largest container port in the region.
Latin America: Despite the fact that the region has the highest
proportion of urban population in the world and except for a
number of city-regions, large urban configurations are rather few.
They are changing from a mono-centric pattern of development
to polycentric and urban corridor forms. Those cities constrained
by physical geography spread along main transportation lines and
adjacent rural areas. Large cities are growing in a diffuse, low-
density pattern with peripheral industrial development and housing.
The mega-region that stretches from São Paulo to Rio de Janeiro
is home to 43 million people.
Sources: Brian H. Roberts (2011); UN-Habitat State of the Arab Cities Report (2012); Regional Plan Association and America 2050 (2012).
Box 1.2.4

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
36
ENHANCINg pRoSpERITy IN LARgE URBAN
CoNFIgURATIoNS: THE 5 DIMENSIoNS
Large urban configurations concentrate many of the
resources and opportunities that give substance to the
five dimensions of prosperity: enhanced productivity,
infrastructural development, quality of life, equity and social
inclusion, and environmental sustainability.
Enhanced productivity: Planning large urban
configurations as a ‘portfolio’ of functional and
complementary areas of specialization can lead to more
diversified economies, capitalizing on the comparative
advantages of each city within the large agglomeration and
developing a strong regional vision for the whole large
configuration. For instance,
in the Pearl River Delta
mega-region in China, each
of the cities capitalizes on
its comparative strengths,
and contributes to the
overall prosperity of the
large configuration.
Infrastructural
development: Transport
infrastructure improves
connectivity and spatially
integrates the networks
of cities that make up the urban/regional configuration.
The large economically prosperous cities of Shanghai,
Guangzhou and Beijing have invested in infrastructure
to connect peripheral towns and enhance the large urban
configuration. Beijing has extended 304 km of roads
to link all ‘administrative villages’ to the city (2005).
Shanghai has built 750 km of highways to integrate the
rural hinterland (2007).
Guangzhou has completed
extensive networks of
roads, electricity and
water distribution to
all neighbouring rural
settlements with more than
100 residents (2007).30
Equity and social
inclusion: The market-
driven logic of scale
economies can interfere
with equitable distribution,
such as unregulated
land markets, spatial
segregation, extreme
income inequalities and
uneven development.
Speculative real estate
development in many
of these large urban
configurations effectively
excludes not only the
poor, but even the middle
class, from formal land
markets, creating an
Novel configurations: a typology
Mega-regions surpass mega- and meta-cities by population and
economic output, combining large markets, skilled labour and
innovation, and amalgamating several cities within the orbit of the
overall region.
Example: Japan’s Tokyo-Nagoya-Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe region, with a
population close to 60 million.
Urban corridors: a number of urban centres of various sizes are
connected along transportation routes in linear development axes
that are often linked to a number of megacities, encompassing
hinterlands. New developments in some fringe areas experience
the fastest growth rates and the most rapid urban transformation.
Example: in Malaysia, the Kuala Lumpur-Klang corridor along the
Klang Valley.
City-regions take on a larger scale than large cities, expanding
beyond formal administrative boundaries to engulf smaller ones
as well as semi-urban and rural hinterlands, and even merging
with other intermediate cities, creating large conurbations that
eventually form city-regions.
Examples: São Paulo, Brazil; Cape Town, South Africa; Bangkok,
Thailand.
Box 1.2.5
POLICy It is in a city’s best interest
to establish linkages with
other neighbouring urban
areas for the sake of
complementary functions.
This will help to develop a
strong collective regional
identity, in the process
achieving greater economic
momentum than if they
remain in isolation.
POLICy Investments in transport infrastructure and related reforms, including finance and regulations, deliver
major economic benefits, contributing to poverty alleviation and
improving quality of life.
POLICy Cities and regional
governments should
encourage social and
institutional innovations
that can reduce socio-
spatial inequalities; this
can include tax revenue
transfers among
urban authorities
within the large urban
configuration, or
revenue-sharing, or
equalization grants.
POLICy More effective
local and regional
institutions, new
linkages and alliances
across the three tiers of
government, together
with a comprehensive
vision with clear plans
favouring inclusiveness,
are all crucial for
equitable development
and prosperity.

Urban and Regional Trends
37
uneven patchwork of privilege and underprivilege across
large urban areas.
Quality of life: When city leaders cooperate, rather
than compete, in a number of areas (crime, poverty, social
inequalities, transport systems, infrastructure), a more
effective type of regional governance emerges that has direct
implications on quality
of life both inside and
outside the large urban
configuration.
Environmental
sustainability:
Environmental challenges
transcend political/
administrative boundaries.
Yet, local authorities may
find themselves with little
power or resources to
counter the damaging effects of growth on the environment,
particularly in the face of the negative externalities
generated by neighbouring cities.
POLICy Increasing evidence
shows that interventions
to promote quality of
life have clear positive
effects on the other
dimensions of prosperity.
Unsurprisingly, progress
on the other dimensions
of prosperity is found to
enhance quality of life.
POLICy Looking beyond their own local interests and cooperating with the other jurisdictions involved,
local authorities can improve competitive advantage while also
preserving the environment.
POLICy Working together, cities in a large urban configuration are in better positions effectively to protect, manage,
and plan for physical environment that span multiple jurisdictions.
POLICy The economic surpluses that large urban agglomerations derive from productivity gains can
be channelled towards the protection of natural resources in the
region, with the costs of maintaining these indivisible public goods
equitably shared among the population.
India, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu. Workers at a textile factory in Tirupur. There are some 7,000 garment factories in the city, providing employment to
close to one million people.
© Atul Loke/Panos Pictures

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
38
LARgE URBAN CoNFIgURATIoNS FACE
SpECIFIC RISkS
Large urban configurations come with a number of well-
identified, specific risks: poor urban/regional planning,
lack of coordination and deficient coping strategies in
the face of social and fiscal disparities. Although these
affect the whole population, the bulk of the risks fall
disproportionately on the poor.
In most cases, large urban configurations in
developing countries are not planned. Economic forces
and spontaneous growth tend to sharpen spatial and
social disparities, which are further compounded by
prosperity performance indicators of selected large urban configurations by regions (2008)
City Country
population
(millions) Typology
Metro
Area km2 ppkm2
Met
gDp $Bn gDp/Capita
gDp/C City to
National Ratio
gDp
$m/km2 Economic Drivers
ASIA
Tokyo Japan 35.83 Urban Corridor 8,677 4,100 $1,479 $41,278 1.2 $170 Services /Manufacturing/Government/Transport
Seoul South Korea 9.78 Mega City 959 10,200 $291 $29,755 1.2 $303 Manufacturing
Guangzhou China 10.18 Urban Corridor 1,968 6,700 $143 $14,044 2.6 $73 Manufacturing
Hong Kong China 7.28 Trans-Border 280 25,200 $320 $43,956 1 $1,143 Advanced Services/Transport
Singapore Singapore 4.49 Trans-Border 463 9,700 $215 $47,884 1 $464 Advanced Services/Transport
Metro Manila Philippines 13.5 Mega City 1,425 14,600 $149 $11,035 3.3 $105 Advanced Services
Mumbai India 19.35 Mega City 1082 17,880 $209 $10,801 4 $193 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Istanbul Turkey 12.6 Mega City 1,269 10,400 $182 $14,444 1.5 $143 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Tel Aviv Israel 3.33 Urban Corridor 1516 5,900 $122 $36,684 1.3 $80 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
oCEANIA
Sydney Australia 4.36 Urban Corridor 1,788 2,438 $213 $48,853 1.3 $119 Advanced Services/Transport
Melbourne Australia 3.64 Urban Corridor 2,152 1,600 $172 $47,318 1.3 $80 Advanced Services
AMERICAS
New York City USA 19.18 Mega City 11,264 1,800 $1,406 $73,306 1.6 $125 Advanced Services/Transport
Los Angeles USA 12.59 Urban Corridor 5,812 2,500 $792 $62,907 1.4 $136 Advanced Services/Transport
Mexico City Mexico 21.16 Urban Corridor 2,525 7,400 $390 $18,428 1.5 $154 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing
São Paulo Brazil 19.89 Urban Corridor 3,756 5,400 $388 $19,507 2 $103 Advanced Services/Manufacturing/Transport
Rio de Janeiro Brazil 11.89 Urban Corridor 2,123 5,600 $201 $16,905 1.7 $95 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing/Transport
AFRICA
Cairo Egypt 15.55 Urban Corridor 1,709 10,100 $145 $9,327 1.7 $85 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing
Algiers Algeria 2.8 Mega City 453 7,800 $45 $16,071 2 $99 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing
Casablanca Morocco 3.28 Sub National 1378 2,383 $33 $10,049 2.6 $24 Manufacturing
Johannesburg South Africa 10.27 Mega City 2,525 3,000 $164 $15,972 1.5 $65 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Cape Town South Africa 7.28 Mega City 2455 2,965 $103 $14,148 1.3 $42 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Lagos Nigeria 10.58 Urban Corridor 997 9,500 $35 $3,309 1.5 $35 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Sources of data: GDP data from (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2010), area data (Hove, 2010) adjusted on a density estimate and Google Earth urban area estimates.
Table 1.2.1

Urban and Regional Trends
39
inefficient use of land and other resources. Close links
with world financial markets and the impacts of global
and regional economic crises shape ‘uneven geographies
of development’.
Faced with the challenges and costs of addressing
sustainability problems, many large urban agglomerations
may choose to ignore quality of life and environmental
issues, in the belief that these can be caught up with later.
Large urban configurations that take this path run the risk
of finding it increasingly
difficult to attract
investment, labour and
skills. Economic growth
may happen, but the risks
of future disinvestments by
firms and exit of some social
groups could compromise
future prosperity.
Endnotes
1 United Nations, 1999.
2 United Nations, 2010b.
3 Statistics Canada, 2001.
4 U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts http://
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
5 Statistics Canada, 2005.
6 Pierre Bourdieu views “the capital [city] as the locus where all forms of capital
[resources] are concentrated” in Bourdieu P., Sur l’Etat – Cours au Collège de France
1989-1992, p. 162, Paris, 2012. For an in-depth analysis, see Bourdieu. Les effets
de lieu (locus effects) in Bourdieu P. (ed.), La Misère du monde, pp. 159-167, Paris,
1993.
7 United Nations, 2010b.
8 Eurostat, 2008.
9 United Nations, 2010b.
10 ISMU Foundation – Projects and Studies on Multiethnicity, 2010.
11 City of Dublin, 2009.
12 United Nations, 2010b.
13 Maddison, 2001.
14 UNDP, 2010.
15 Maddison, 2001.
16 Mohan, 2006.
17 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division
(2012). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision, CD-ROM Edition.
18 Fernandez, F.L., 2011.
19 Zaidi, 2011.
20 UN-Habitat and ESCAP, 2010.
21 World Bank Data: World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance,
Online database last updated July 9 2012, http://data.worldbank.org
22 ONU-HABITAT and SEDESOL, 2011.
23 IIHS, 2011.
24 Safar Zitoun and Tabti-Talamali, 2009.
25 Jeddah Municipality, 2009.
26 Shlomo et al, 2010.
27 IIHS, 2011.
28 The nine cities are the following: Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Foshan, Dongguan,
Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Jiangmen, Huizhou and Zhaoqing.
29 Roberts, 2011.
30 World Bank, 2009a.
prosperity performance indicators of selected large urban configurations by regions (2008)
City Country
population
(millions) Typology
Metro
Area km2 ppkm2
Met
gDp $Bn gDp/Capita
gDp/C City to
National Ratio
gDp
$m/km2 Economic Drivers
ASIA
Tokyo Japan 35.83 Urban Corridor 8,677 4,100 $1,479 $41,278 1.2 $170 Services /Manufacturing/Government/Transport
Seoul South Korea 9.78 Mega City 959 10,200 $291 $29,755 1.2 $303 Manufacturing
Guangzhou China 10.18 Urban Corridor 1,968 6,700 $143 $14,044 2.6 $73 Manufacturing
Hong Kong China 7.28 Trans-Border 280 25,200 $320 $43,956 1 $1,143 Advanced Services/Transport
Singapore Singapore 4.49 Trans-Border 463 9,700 $215 $47,884 1 $464 Advanced Services/Transport
Metro Manila Philippines 13.5 Mega City 1,425 14,600 $149 $11,035 3.3 $105 Advanced Services
Mumbai India 19.35 Mega City 1082 17,880 $209 $10,801 4 $193 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Istanbul Turkey 12.6 Mega City 1,269 10,400 $182 $14,444 1.5 $143 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Tel Aviv Israel 3.33 Urban Corridor 1516 5,900 $122 $36,684 1.3 $80 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
oCEANIA
Sydney Australia 4.36 Urban Corridor 1,788 2,438 $213 $48,853 1.3 $119 Advanced Services/Transport
Melbourne Australia 3.64 Urban Corridor 2,152 1,600 $172 $47,318 1.3 $80 Advanced Services
AMERICAS
New York City USA 19.18 Mega City 11,264 1,800 $1,406 $73,306 1.6 $125 Advanced Services/Transport
Los Angeles USA 12.59 Urban Corridor 5,812 2,500 $792 $62,907 1.4 $136 Advanced Services/Transport
Mexico City Mexico 21.16 Urban Corridor 2,525 7,400 $390 $18,428 1.5 $154 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing
São Paulo Brazil 19.89 Urban Corridor 3,756 5,400 $388 $19,507 2 $103 Advanced Services/Manufacturing/Transport
Rio de Janeiro Brazil 11.89 Urban Corridor 2,123 5,600 $201 $16,905 1.7 $95 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing/Transport
AFRICA
Cairo Egypt 15.55 Urban Corridor 1,709 10,100 $145 $9,327 1.7 $85 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing
Algiers Algeria 2.8 Mega City 453 7,800 $45 $16,071 2 $99 Advanced Services/Gov/Manufacturing
Casablanca Morocco 3.28 Sub National 1378 2,383 $33 $10,049 2.6 $24 Manufacturing
Johannesburg South Africa 10.27 Mega City 2,525 3,000 $164 $15,972 1.5 $65 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Cape Town South Africa 7.28 Mega City 2455 2,965 $103 $14,148 1.3 $42 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Lagos Nigeria 10.58 Urban Corridor 997 9,500 $35 $3,309 1.5 $35 Advanced Services/Manufacturing
Sources of data: GDP data from (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2010), area data (Hove, 2010) adjusted on a density estimate and Google Earth urban area estimates.
POLICy Addressing negative
externalities will attract
investment, labour and
skills, in the process
contributing to future
urban prosperity.

Part Two

42
Productivity and the
Prosperity of Cities
Enhancing urban productivity is clearly desirable, as it
improves competitiveness and, ultimately, the prosperity of
any city. More productive cities are able to increase output
with the same amounts of resources, generating additional
real income that can raise living standards through more
affordable goods and services. More specifically, the
extra income and municipal revenue generated through
productivity will enable any city to provide more, better
services, such as housing, education and healthcare, social
programmes and expanded infrastructure networks to
support both productive and leisure activities. Raising
urban productivity is not a goal in itself, but a critical
starting point to provide residents with decent income for
their basic needs and adequate living standards.1
Urban productivity refers to the efficiency with
which a city transforms inputs into outputs. It is
commonly defined as a ratio of a quantitative measure of
output to a quantitative measure of input used.2 From
a classic economic perspective, the traditional factors
of production – land, labour, and capital – are also
considered the key inputs or resources associated with
Chapter 2.1
Shenzhen, China: inside the factory of the biggest CCTV
surveillance camera producer in China.
© Bartlomiej Magierowski/Shutterstock.com
© Claudio Zaccherini/Shutterstock.com

Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities
43
urban productivity. More recently, non-tangible types
of capital such as human, intellectual and social capital
have increasingly been recognized as key determinants
of urban productivity. Likewise, outputs have been
traditionally seen from an economic perspective; but
concomitantly with the emergence of more encompassing
conceptualizations of development, the focus has gradually
expanded in an attempt to capture non-economic urban
dimensions. In this way, the concept of productivity has
been explored in relation to broader notions of well-
being, such as urban prosperity and quality of life, the
opportunities cities offer to all residents and business,
along with social cohesiveness and environmental quality.3
However, because of limited data, gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita is commonly used as a proxy
for urban productivity, with a city’s GDP measuring local
production of goods and services and the population
serving as a proxy for inputs related to human capital.
Despite its expediency, it is important to emphasize
that GDP per capita falls short of a full reflection of
the complex dynamics determining urban productivity.
For example, the GDP per capita of a small city in an
oil-producing country fully reliant on oil exports may
look comparable to that of an innovation hub in a
developed country, although the respective sources of
wealth differ considerably. Likewise, GDP per capita
says little about the way a city’s productivity gains are
distributed among residents in terms of employment and
overall well-being. For instance, productivity growth in
cities with labour-intensive economies will have a greater
impact on employment than in capital-intensive urban
economies. The city of Brussels, for example, shows that
high GDP per capita income does not necessarily mean
job opportunities for all. Although its GDP per capita is
one of the highest in the world (over US$80,000 in 2008),
Brussels experienced 15.9 per cent unemployment in 2009,
or double Belgium’s national average of eight per cent.4
RISINg URBANIzATIoN AND INCREASINg
pRoDUCTIvITy
As countries become more urbanized, both urban and
national productivity will increase. As shown in Figure 2.1.1,
rising urbanization and per capita income went hand in hand
for the world as a whole over the past five decades. While
the share of urban populations worldwide increased from
33 to 51 per cent between 1960 and 2010, per capita income
increased by 152 per cent – from US$2,382 to US$6,006 –
over the same period.5
However, as shown in Figure 2.1.2, the positive link
between urbanization and national productivity holds
mainly for high- and middle-income countries, signalling
healthy urbanization
dynamics fuelled by
prosperous cities acting
as magnets for rural
migration. Low-income
countries display a more
mixed sort of trend. While
these countries as a whole
experienced a fast pace
of urbanization from
1960 onward, GDP per
capita remained largely
unchanged, and even
decreased, particularly
between 1970 and the
year 2000. This would
suggest that, rather than
being attracted by better
economic opportunities
in urban areas (‘demand
pull’), rural migrants
were only seeking refuge
from famine, war or other
calamities in what is often
Urbanization and per capita gDp across countries as
% of base year, 1960–2010
Urban population (%)GDP per capita
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Source: UNDESA (2012) urbanization; World Bank (2012) GDP per capita.
Figure 2.1.1
POLICy Cities are naturally more
productive than rural areas,
as they benefit from larger
pools of labour and talent,
together with concentration
efficiencies for both
producers and consumers,
and a more fluid exchange
of ideas and innovations.6
In OECD countries, GDP per
capita is, on average, 64
per cent higher in urban
areas than in rural areas.
Similarly, in European cities
with populations over one
million, average GDP per
capita is 25 per cent higher
than in the EU as a whole,
and 40 per cent higher than
that of their home nations.7

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
44
referred to as ‘supply push‘
urbanization.8
The experience of the
USA, Brazil, China and
Kenya illustrates some of
the specific factors at work
in individual countries.
Figure 2.1.3 shows that
in the USA, urbanization
rates and per capita income
moved together until roughly 1940, when urbanization
reached close to 60 per cent. Thereafter, per capita income
grew more rapidly, reflecting the productivity gains from
improvements in manufacturing and services as well as
infrastructure investments made during the inter-war years.9
Brazil, a higher middle-income country, underwent a
seemingly similar growth-urbanization path until the late
1960s, when about half the population became urban.
Thereafter, productivity neither grew significantly faster
than urbanization, nor were productivity gains sustained,
suggesting that urbanization alone may not guarantee
continued productivity increases.
China, a lower middle-income country, experienced
a gradual increase in urbanization rates and productivity
until the late 1970s, when urbanization reached 20 per cent.
After the opening up of the economy in 1978, productivity
increased at a much faster pace – GDP per capita grew by
a factor of roughly 15 between 1978 and 2010, while the
percentage of the urban population increased by a factor of
‘only’ 2.4 during the same period.
Lastly, Kenya illustrates the experience of the limited
number of low-income countries, mostly in Sub-Saharan
Africa, where productivity growth was negligible even
though urbanization rates continued to rise.10
Trends in urbanization and national gDp per capita – for various levels of income, 1960–2010
Urban population (%)GDP per capita
High-income countries, 1960–2010 Higher middle-income countries, 1960–2010
Lower middle-income countries, 1960–2010 Low-income countries, 1960–2010
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Source: UNDESA (2012) urbanization; World Bank (2012) GDP per capita.
Figure 2.1.2
The correlation between
urbanization rates and
productivity over the past
five decades has also varied
across and within regions,
reflecting the multiplicity
of factors affecting both
phenomena.

Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities
45
Even where productivity did not improve hand in hand
with urbanization, the dominant role of urban areas in
national economic productivity is evident across countries.
In other words, urban areas contribute disproportionately
to national productivity. In the USA, New York City
contributes about 10 per cent of the country’s GDP and
only 6.3 per cent of the total population. The 10 US cities
with the largest GDP produce 36 per cent of the country’s
goods and services and 24 per cent of the total population.11
São Paulo, Brazil’s economic and financial capital, accounts
for 10 per cent of the population, but 25 per cent of
national GDP.12 In China, the 53 metropolitan regions with
populations over one million contribute about 62 per cent
of national non-farm GDP and 29 per cent of the country’s
population. In Kenya, Nairobi, with 8.4 per cent of the
country’s population, accounts for almost 20 per cent of
national GDP.13 Worldwide, the largest 100 cities accounted
for around 30 per cent of the total production of goods and
services in 2008, with the top 30 cities alone accounting for
around 18 per cent.14
FACToRS AFFECTINg URBAN pRoDUCTIvITy
The factors affecting urban productivity are multiple
and diverse in nature. Moreover, these factors intertwine
in endless combinations both across cities and time,
making it difficult to isolate their specific impact. City
size is undoubtedly an important factor. As noted by the
International Labour Organization, an expanding labour
force and, depending on the rate of population growth and
the age structure, labour force participation is an important
source of growth. However, in the long run, it is labour
productivity rather than labour per se that determines
Urbanization and gDp per capita in selected countries
UrbanizationGDP per capita
Brazil
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
USA
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
18
80
18
90
19
00
19
10
19
20
19
30
19
40
19
50
19
60
19
70
19
80
19
90
20
00
20
10
China
2,250
2,000
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
750
500
250
0
Kenya
350
300
250
200
100
150
50
0
Note: Both time series are indexed to 100 in the initial year. The y value of each series shows the percentage change with respect to the base year. GDP per capita is
in constant 2000 US$.
Source: UNDESA (2012) urbanization; World Bank (2012) GDP per capita.
Figure 2.1.3

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
46
wage levels, prices and, subsequently, living standards.15
Otherwise, how would a city such as New York produce
the same amount of goods and services as 80 countries put
together, and almost as much as Tokyo, which has twice its
population? Or why would Lagos generate only a minor
fraction – five per cent – of New York’s own production
of goods and services with a similar-sized population?
Likewise, Paris’ urban productivity is almost four times
that of Istanbul, although both urban agglomerations
have roughly the same population.16 While some of the
differences in productivity among cities of roughly the
same size are explained by national factors, differences
in productivity among cities of equivalent size can also
occur within the same country. This is illustrated, for
example, by Boston and Atlanta in the USA: with roughly
the same population (4.2 million), Boston’s productivity
was 20 per cent higher than that of Atlanta in 2008 (see
Figure 2.1.4).17
The factors determining urban productivity can be
split into two broad categories: external factors that give
cities additional comparative advantage, including national
and regional factors; and city-level factors that affect
the city’s production
function, such as
physical infrastructure,
growth management
and human capital,
together with innovative,
entrepreneurial spirits.
ExTERNAL FACToRS
External factors largely lie beyond any city’s orbit of
influence. They include geographic location as well as
regional and national comparative advantage (Table 2.1.1).
In terms of geographic location, coastal areas and
river deltas have long been preferred locations for cities.
Currently, 14 of the world’s 19 largest cities are ports, which
benefit from lower transportation costs and access to wider
markets.18 Natural beauty and warmer weather also give
cities specific comparative advantages, and have served to
spur the growth of resort cities around the world, from the
French Riviera to Punta del Este (Uruguay), Eilat (Israel),
Jurmala (Latvia) or Las Palmas (Canary Islands).
The importance of national comparative advantage
is illustrated by the fact that, while 22 of the world’s top
30 largest urban areas (by population) were located in
emerging or developing economies in 2008, only seven
emerging economy cities ranked among the top 30 in
terms of urban GDP. The group included Mexico City,
São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Moscow, Shanghai, Mumbai and
Rio de Janeiro, but no Middle Eastern or African cities.
The average GDP per capita of these emerging/developing
country cities tends to be substantially smaller than that of
developed cities (Figure 2.1.4).
Subsequent expansion in individual cities triggered the
emergence of ‘city clusters’, spurring the growth of second-
tier cities such as Tianjin, Shijiazhuang and Tangshan, which
respectively developed around Beijing; Zhuhai, Dongguan
and Foshan around the provincial capital of Guangzhou;
In China, national
policies have played a
key role in improved
productivity in coastal
cities. Three decades
ago, China moved to
promote economic
growth in those cities
through a combination
of industrialization and
financial incentives,
putting them in a better
position to compete for
foreign investment and
infrastructure spending.
Cities located in countries
with well-educated labour
forces, sound infrastructure,
mature financial markets,
stable political systems and
firmly grounded market
mechanisms feature higher
productivity than those
located in countries that do
not offer these conditions.
population, gDp per capita and total gDp for selected metropolitan areas (2008)
2008 Population (millions)
2008 GDP per capita (thousands US$ PPPs)
100
90
80
70
60
50
4540353025
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
São Paulo
Mexico City
Dhaka Mumbai (Bombay)
ShanghaiBuenos Aires
Istanbul
Lagos
Karachi
Cairo
New York
Sphere surface represents
total urban GDP
(2008 US$bn PPPs)Boston
Atlanta
Houston Paris
Los Angeles
Tokyo
Source: Data from PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009)
Figure 2.1.4

Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities
47
and Suzhou, Wuxi and Hangzhou in close proximity to
Shanghai. These city clusters generated agglomeration
economies at the regional level, expanding opportunities
for trade and enhancing their (and their entire region’s)
attractions for investors.19 This cumulative effect has
resulted in dramatic differences in productivity between
coastal cities and their counterparts in the hinterland, with
the growth differential surpassing six per cent, and the ratio
of per capita fiscal revenues between the richest and the
poorest provinces increasing from 2:1 to 19:1.20
CITy-LEvEL FACToRS AFFECTINg URBAN
pRoDUCTIvITy
Cities play a key role in their own productivity, since many
of the factors involved are typically found to play out within
their jurisdictions. Some of these factors are intrinsic to all
urban areas – occurring naturally, such as agglomeration
and scale economies (Table 2.1.2). Other city-specific
factors depend on the city’s ability to capitalize on the
natural productivity potential of agglomeration economies
(‘extrinsic city-specific factors’).
Intrinsic city-level factors21
One of the most obvious factors determining urban
productivity is population growth. As a city’s population
increases, so does the pool of workers and consumers.
Agglomeration economies are the benefits firms derive
from locating near customers and suppliers in order to
reduce transport and communication costs while securing
access to large labour pools. In larger cities, workers
benefit from a wider range of potential employers, which
lowers the workers’ risk of unemployment. Better matching
between labour supply and demand results in greater
flexibility, higher productivity and stronger potential for
both workers and businesses. Cities also offer firms and
residents access to a wider and better range of shared
services and infrastructure.22
As firms locate close to others, either in other industries
(‘clustering’) or within the same industry (‘specialization’),
they all benefit from lower transaction costs.23 While
concentrations of firms often begin spontaneously, they can
evolve over time to become competitive in export markets,
such as the manufacturing of surgical instruments in Sialkot,
Pakistan; ceramic tiles in Santa Catarina, Brazil; cotton
knitwear in Tirrupur, India; auto parts in Nnewi, Nigeria;
wine in Cape Town, South
Africa; metal working in
the Suami Magazine in
Kumasi, Ghana, as well as a
variety of clusters in Kenya
and South Africa.24
As hinted earlier,
agglomeration economies
also benefit densely
populated areas within
cities. For example, the
original advantage of city
centres in terms of lower
transportation costs is
enhanced over time as a
result of agglomeration
economies. Higher real
estate prices capture these
benefits, shaping the city’s
urban form as it grows not
only horizontally but also
POLICy Agglomeration economies
give cities a competitive
advantage over rural areas,
as well as large over smaller
cities. Agglomeration
economies also benefit
densely populated areas
within cities.
External factors determining a city’s productivity
geographical
comparative
advantage
physical attributes
Climate
Location (e.g., ports, rivers)
Natural endowments
Soils
Minerals
Energy
Natural beauty
Archeological heritage
Regional
comparative
advantage
Economic opportunities
Access to markets, investors and skills
Regional hubs and/or clusters
National
comparative
advantage
Level of development
Pool of labour, skills, scientific and
technological capital
Social conditions (e.g., poverty, inequality)
Economic infrastructure
Institutional conditions
Sound institutions
Sound governance
Political stability
Maturity of financial markets
Economic policies
Ease of doing business
Investment attractiveness
Macroeconomic stability
vision
National leadership
Table 2.1.1
The concentration of
infrastructure, people, as
well as economic, social
and cultural activities, leads
to substantial benefits
and efficiency due to
agglomeration and scale
economies.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
48
vertically. In a city where market forces are at work, one can
expect higher density areas to be the more productive.
Extrinsic city-level factors
As cities continue to grow, higher productivity comes to
depend on other factors, such as the ability to maximize
the technical efficiency of urban systems, both structural
and operational. Effective management of agglomeration
diseconomies – including congestion and rising input
prices – enables the population and businesses to maximize
their own productive potential.
The structural productivity of cities in part rests upon an
efficient supply of serviced land and reliable infrastructure,
including transport, power, water and sanitation, as well as
information and communication technologies. These are
critical enabling factors of urban development, providing
basic inputs for productive activity and, if deficient, acting
as a constraint to growth and private investment.
Buildings have significant roles to play in business
productivity, and infrastructure is crucial to any efficient
circulation of people, goods and information. Housing
supplies could also be considered an important production
input, as a suitable stock of housing that adequately
responds to the demands of all socioeconomic groups is a
prerequisite for an expanding and diverse workforce.25 If
flawed, land policies or speculative market forces can also
introduce artificial distortions that interfere with the natural
generation of agglomeration economies. Local urban experts
in the Arab States and, to a lesser extent, in Africa and Asia,
identify efficient urban planning and urban management as
the most influential factor behind prosperity.
In turn, efficient supplies of physical infrastructure
require sound land management policies and taxation
systems that help internalize negative externalities. Also
needed are adequate amounts of capital expenditure,
which can prove a challenge as most urban services are
‘public goods’ that require long-term, large-scale public
sector investments involving multiple tiers of government.
As a result, they are often overlooked, particularly
in developing countries, with attendant chronic
infrastructure backlogs.
Several cities are actively expanding infrastructure
as part of their development strategies. In an effort to
make the most of the
opportunities opened
up by East Africa’s
fledgling common market,
Kenya’s capital, Nairobi,
is developing transport
and communications
infrastructures, with
tangible results in terms of
efficiency and productivity
in various economic
sectors. Similar efforts are
underway in Guadalajara,
Mexico, in a bid to attract
more high-technology
firms (electronics and
communications). As
a result, production
structures are undergoing
Lack of adequate
infrastructure severely
hinders the structural
productivity of cities,
limiting their capacity
to achieve full potential.
This has been the
case in Mumbai
where, despite serious
attempts to create an
international financial
hub, the city’s chaotic
transport conditions,
and high rents (twice
those in Manhattan)
have deterred leading
financial companies
from establishing
operations in the city.26
City-specific factors determining a city’s productivity
Intrinsic
(natural)
productivity
growth
factors
Economies of scale
Provision of urban services
Agglomeration economies
Matching
Sharing
Learning
Extrinsic
productivity
growth
factors
Technical efficiency
Structural efficiency
Land management policies
Space efficiency
Infrastructure investment
Taxation
Disaster prevention
Operational efficiency
Day-to-day urban management
Service delivery
Emergency management
Institutional scaffolding
Sound local institutions (e.g., decentralization)
Sound governance
Ease of doing business
Quality of life (quality of education, safety,
cultural life, liveliness)
Attractiveness to knowledge-based industries
Attraction and retention of the ‘creative class’
Learning-based efficiency
Creativity and innovation
Research and development and technological
development
Entrepreneurship
vision
Local leadership
Local governance
Table 2.1.2

Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities
49
China: docks on the Huangpu river, which flows through the centre of Shanghai. The Huangpu is a tributary of the Yellow River, joining it just
before that river flows into the East China Sea, and thus the port has developed as a major import/export hub.
© Claudio Zaccherini/Shutterstock.com
New technologies offer
opportunities for enhanced
urban management, making
cities more efficient and
productive.
POLICy The sound operation of cities, which encompasses traffic and emergency
management, transport services, waste collection and
other critical support to social and economic activities,
has a major role to play in urban productivity.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
50
rapid change, and suburban
landscapes with them.
In Rio de Janeiro,
the newly established
Operations Centre offers a
glimpse of the way cities
might be managed in
the future.27 This city-
wide command centre
for emergency situations
uses real-time information from multiple departments and
government agencies, Visual displays of data from various
urban systems, including surveillance cameras, together
with maps, news updates, information about incidents,
and even simulations, facilitate real-time monitoring and
analysis. Although initially designed for forecasting floods
and other emergencies, the Centre is also used for day-
to-day management of urban functions. Similar projects
have already been implemented in New York City and in
Gauteng (South Africa).28
While physical factors are undoubtedly key
determinants of productivity, local experts around the world
emphasize the importance of ‘soft’ factors. Specifically,
corruption and lack of good governance were identified as
the most significant barriers to economic productivity by
25 per cent of the local experts surveyed by UN-Habitat
(Figure 2.1.5). Additional factors included the high cost
or difficulty of conducting business, weak institutions,
insufficient knowledge and skills, deficient infrastructure
and poor access to information.
With the decline of physical constraints on cities and
communities as a result of technological progress in recent
decades, creativity and innovation have arguably become
major driving forces of productivity and economic growth
in urban areas.
POLICy Cities that educate, attract and retain creative individuals are more likely to prosper, as these
individuals generate new ideas and products, and, in turn,
also attract high-value added industries, including knowledge-
based firms.
Factors hampering economic productivity as perceived by local experts
40
35
15
5
25
30
20
10
0
Corruption/lack of good governance
Lack of appropriate knowledge & skills development
Cost of conducting business
De�cient infrastructure
Weak public institutions
Poor access to informationper cent
Africa Asia LAC Arab States All regions
Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch,Policy Survey, 2011.
Figure 2.1.5
Cities that foster the
exchange of ideas and
innovations are able to tap
into growth dynamics which
fuel the creation of social
and intellectual capital,
thereby further contributing
to productivity.

Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities
51
Some cities opt to showcase their tangible and
intangible heritage and exploit their cultural identity in
a bid to strengthen comparative advantage and to bring
about social and economic transformation.29 Doha, Qatar,
for example, is developing education and arts as part of the
city’s new cultural vision.30 Gaziantep in eastern Turkey
has taken to use cultural heritage as a touristic asset for the
purposes of enhanced prosperity. Heritage restoration and
rehabilitation enhance quality of life while contributing to
economic development.31
Talent, in turn, is a function of the quality of local
school systems and higher education. Many cities in the
developing world are faced with brain drain due to lack
of local and national policies to retain highly qualified
individuals. With the exception of Asia, where about half
of the local experts perceive that cities are making efforts
to retain talent, the proportions are alarmingly low in
other regions. There are exceptions, though: Dubai, UAE,
emphasizes higher education and training in engineering
and information technologies.32 In China, Chongqing has
developed an ambitious training programme to support the
transition of rural migrants from manual-based to skill-
based types of work; by 2009, nearly one-third of migrants
had benefited from the scheme.33
Some cities in developing countries have embraced
the model of world-class innovation clusters, such as
California’s Silicon Valley or Boston’s Route 128, in bids to
become ‘high-tech hubs’. Those that have met with success
in this endeavour, such as India’s Bangalore, owe it to the
same basic factors: the presence of top-quality academic
and research institutions as well as substantial public and
corporate investment. However, some observers claim
that the city needs to pay more attention to infrastructure
development and to ensure that the benefits of growth are
more evenly distributed across all the population.
Quality of life is rapidly emerging as a major asset
in any efforts to attract and retain creative minds and
businesses. It comes as no
surprise that Toronto, San
Francisco or Stockholm
should consistently rank
among the top performing
cities in the world,
since they are found as
performing particularly
well in a wide range of
both economic and quality
of life indicators such as
crime levels, green areas, air quality and life satisfaction.
Outside the more developed nations, Singapore, with
a similar balance of quality of life attributes, also ranks
among the top world cities and the highest among
developing countries.
URBAN pRoDUCTIvITy: SoME CHALLENgES
While China’s urban population increased from 17 to 39
per cent within a span of 40 years (from 1963 to 2003),
the same change in urban population took 120 years in
Great Britain and 80 years in the USA.35 Cities in more
advanced countries are better positioned to capitalize on
the agglomeration economies associated with population
growth. This is not just because that growth is more
manageable (typically around one per cent per year); but
also because, as suggested by their high GDP per capita,
these cities already have the physical and institutional
support needed to capitalize on that demographic
potential. Such capacities are generally not available in
developing countries, leaving fast-expanding cities more
exposed to the agglomeration diseconomies which prevent
them from fully capitalizing on the productivity potential
associated with sustained population growth (typically an
annual rate of two to four per cent or more). Despite the
difficulty, some cities, such as Shenzhen in China, have
made remarkable progress (see box 2.1.1 on page 52).
However, not all cities are fully capitalizing on the
gains of population
growth. This is the case
of Dhaka, the capital city
of Bangladesh, the ninth
largest city in the world.
With an average annual
population growth of
4.4 per cent between 1990
and 2008, Dhaka is one of
Top performing cities
derive their strengths
not just from their
status as global
economic powerhouses
or from sophisticated
infrastructure, but
also from their ability
to enhance quality of
life.34
The fast pace of
urbanization in developing
countries presents
both challenges and
opportunities for the
productivity of cities.
POLICy Offering an environment that is conducive to research and development enables cities to play significant
roles in a knowledge-based economy. There is a direct link
between R&D, technology and productivity.
A city’s existing talent pool is a major determinant of productivity.
The more highly skilled a city’s population, the more likely it is to
attract more talent.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
52
the fastest growing in Asia. While some of the population
growth has only reflected recent expansion boundaries,
the Dhaka region has long attracted migrants from rural
areas looking for opportunities in the booming metropolis.
They provide much-needed labour in rapidly growing
sectors of the economy. Fuelled by the continuous growth
in the financial, manufacturing and telecommunications
sectors, annual GDP is an estimated US$75 billion.37 At
the same time, Dhaka’s GDP per capita is the lowest of all
megacities, suggesting that agglomeration diseconomies
are likely to have offset a large proportion of the potential
benefits associated with strong population growth. In other
words, the productivity gains associated with such growth
would have been remarkable if only Dhaka had been able
to manage its expansion more effectively and distribute the
benefits in a more equitable manner.
Unfortunately, Dhaka’s experience does not seem to
be the exception. Urban experts sampled in the UN-
Habitat survey expressed scepticism over any effective
(re)distribution of the benefits of urban prosperity: in
Bangalore, Ho Chi Minh City and Chongqing, these
benefits are perceived to be captured mainly by the
educated class; in Alexandria and Nairobi, mostly by the
wealthy; and largely by politicians in Santo Domingo,
Dubai and Dar es Salaam. As shown in Figure 2.1.6, urban
experts in all regions share the same grim assessment;
only Asia suggests a slightly more positive outlook with 20
per cent of local experts saying that economic prosperity
is evenly distributed, compared with 14 per cent in the
Middle East and roughly seven per cent in Africa and
Latin America.
HoW To RAISE A CITy’S pRoDUCTIvITy? SoME
gENERAL poLICy gUIDELINES
There is not a single blanket prescription for enhanced
urban productivity. While it is generally linked to stable
macroeconomic conditions, sound institutions and adequate
infrastructure, the focus of dedicated policy actions will
depend on a city’s level of development.
The management of urban growth is particularly
important for rapidly expanding cities in the early stages
of development for them fully to capitalize on the natural
benefits of agglomeration economies and to reduce
future inefficiencies.
Ineffective land management, inadequate spending
on infrastructure, distorting taxation schemes and unduly
cumbersome business regulations are detrimental to any
city’s structural productivity.
It is important to
identify any barriers
that prevent a city from
maximizing its productivity
potential. In this regard,
reducing traffic congestion,
enhancing mass transit
options and providing
efficient, reliable services
are major determinants
in any city’s functional
perceptions of experts regarding the distribution of
economic prosperity
per cent
Af
ric
a
As
ia LA
C
Ar
ab
St
ate
s
All
re
gio
ns
20
10
15
5
0
Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011.
Figure 2.1.6
POLICy Cities at the early stages
of development must
improve transportation
for easier two-way
access to markets,
and make adequate
healthcare and basic
education available to
the whole population.
Shenzhen: capitalizing on the gains of urban growth
Until recently Shenzhen was one of the world’s fastest
growing cities. During the past 30 years or so, Shenzhen’s
GDP per capita ranked first among China’s major cities –
averaging a phenomenal 27 per cent annual growth in urban
GDP. The gains from Shenzhen’s fast pace of industrialization,
urbanization and modernization have served to enhance
living standards for the whole population, including incomes
and living conditions. A new social security and public health
insurance system has been successfully implemented. The
city’s Gini’s coefficient has remained around 0.3, far less than
that of the other cities on the mainland, denoting the city’s
efforts to achieve an equitable growth pattern.36
Box 2.1.1

Productivity and the Prosperity of Cities
53
China: the Hexi Corridor, part of the historical Silk Route, remains economically important.
© 2012 Edwina Sassoon/fotoLIBRA.com
POLICy As cities progress along the development
path, they ought to facilitate
production processes, also address
any technical and organizational
inefficiencies that hinder structural
and operational productivity.
POLICy The importance
of sound governance
structures to prevent
corruption, together with
strong local institutions
and business-conducive
regulations, cannot be
overemphasized.
POLICy To enhance productivity,
cities at all stages of
development should seek
support from a wide range
of stakeholders and set
in motion the process of
desirable change.

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
54
productivity. In addition, cities at intermediate levels of
development should also enhance their technological
capacities with a sharper focus on higher education and
training as well as ICT infrastructure.
In order to sustain higher wages and the associated
standards of living, more advanced cities need to
tap into innovation-driven productivity gains by
supporting businesses’ ability to compete based on
more sophisticated and innovative production processes
and products. While the factors at work are less easy to
grasp than in the case of technical efficiency, experience
from around the world points to the importance of
supporting research and development in quality higher
education and research institutions with both public
and corporate investment.
Promoting an entrepreneurial spirit, particularly among
youth, is a desirable strategy for any city, regardless of
development level or economic strength. Similarly, far from
being a desirable though ultimately dispensable aspiration,
enhancing overall quality of life should be considered as
essential to any economic development strategy, if a city is
to attract creative people and businesses.
Leadership will always be a critical factor, be it
collective, as exercised through sound governance systems,
or individual, i.e. relying on a particularly inspiring
politician or local figure. It takes leadership to change the
prevailing urban paradigm and develop the transformative
vision that will not just boost productivity of a city, or
region, or even country, but also broadly distribute the
associated benefits for the sake of shared prosperity.
Endnotes
1 Buyle-Bodin and Hermant-De Callataÿ, 2011.
2 OECD, 2001.
3 GDP per capita also has the added advantage of being consistently defined across
nations, which makes it better suited for international comparisons.
4 Brussels’ many commuters – roughly 360,000 coming from neighbouring regions of
Flanders and Wallonia – also artificially raise its productivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Economy_of_Belgium).
5 World Bank Data: World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance,
Online database last updated July 9 2012, http://data.worldbank.org
6 UN-Habitat, 2010a.
7 European Commission, 2009.
8 Buckley and Kallergis, 2011.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009.
12 Cities Alliance, 2006.
13 Kenya’s 2008 GDP (PPP current International), total population, population in the
largest city: World Development Indicators (2012); Nairobi’s 2008 GDP (PPP):
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009).
14 PricewaterhouseCoopers, Op. Cit.
15 International Labor Organization, 2003.
16 OECD, 2006.
17 PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009.
18 UN-Habitat, 2008.
19 ActiveUKChina, 2012.
20 UN-Habitat, 2008.
21 This section draws heavily from Turok, I. (2011) Urban Employment and the
Prosperity of Cities. Background paper prepared for “State of the World’s Cities
Report 2012/2013”.
22 As noted by Turok, see Jacobs, J. (1969) The Economy of Cities, London, Jonathan
Cape; Jacobs, J. (1984) Cities and the Wealth of Nations, New York, Random House;
Porter, M. (1998) ‘Clusters and the new economics of competitiveness’, Harvard
Business Review, December, pp.77-90.
23 As noted by Turok (2011), Alfred Marshall (1920) was the first economist to recognize
the benefits for firms of having access to a reservoir of information and ideas,
skills and shared inputs; Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of Economics (8th edition),
Macmillan, London. See also Duranton, G. and D. Puga (2004) ‘Micro-foundations of
urban agglomeration economies’, in Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics,
Henderson, V. and Thisse, J. (eds.) vol. 4, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 2063-117;
and Venables, A. J. (2010) ‘Economic geography and African development’, Papers in
Regional Science, 89(3), pp.469-483.
24 Adebowale, 2011.
25 Turok, 2011.
26 Bloomberg Business Week, April 23, 2011 as quoted by Buckley and Kallergis, 2011.
27 Rio’s Operation Centre builds upon advanced technologies created by IBM Research
labs around the world.
28 Astroman, 2011.
29 Spirou, 2011.
30 Mena, 2011.
31 Kurtul, 2011.
32 Al-Bassam and Mouris, 2011.
33 Liu and Wang, 2011.
34 PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010.
35 China’s urban growth rates: UNDESA (WUP): US’ and Great Britain’s urban growth
rates: Buckley, R. and A. Kallergis (2011) Op. Cit.
36 Jin and Liu, 2011.
37 PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009.

55
Urban Infrastructure:
Bedrock of Prosperity
Infrastructure is crucial for the development, functionality
and prosperity of urban areas. It provides the foundation
on which any city will thrive. Adequate infrastructure –
improved water and sanitation, reliable and sufficient
power supply, efficient transport networks and modern
information and communication technologies (ICTs) –
contributes to the sustainability and economic growth
of urban areas, promotes the competitiveness of local
businesses, improves labour productivity, enhances
the investment climate in a city and contributes to its
attractiveness. Physical infrastructure, such as roads, power
and communication facilities, improves urban connectivity,
which is essential to induce growth and reduce poverty.
Cities that fail to provide adequate infrastructure
are less likely to be prosperous and sustainable in
terms of balancing socioeconomic development with
environmental protection.1
Since inception in 2008 the global economic crisis has
had a pernicious effect on the ability of cities to fund new
infrastructure and maintain current stocks. In the USA
for instance, Community
Block Grants from the
Federal Government to
cities have been slashed
by a quarter in the past
two years.2 Likewise,
Chapter 2.2
Mexico: aerial view of Guadalajara.
© Jesus Cervantes/Shutterstock.com
Cities that have
managed to
attract investment
and enhance
competitiveness in
a highly globalized
economy are those that
have vastly improved
the range and quality
of their infrastructure.
Conversely, poor
infrastructure is a
major impediment to
development, poverty
reduction and improved
standards of living.
© Philip Lange/Shutterstock.com

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
56
New York State faces a funding shortfall of US$80 billion
needed to repair over one-third of bridges and other
crumbling infrastructure.3 In developing countries, frequent
mismatches between the infrastructure requirements
of urban areas and the ability of authorities to provide
the requisite financial resources can exacerbate already
poor living conditions through the proliferation of slums,
unsanitary environmental conditions, and inadequate water
and power supply.
There is a positive link between the provision of
infrastructure and the level of urbanization. More urbanized
countries tend to provide more infrastructures (Figure
2.2.1.). High levels of infrastructure and service provision in
urban areas can partly be attributed to higher densification
Infrastructure provision is closely related to levels of urbanization
% urban % urban
Access to water(%) Access to sanitation(%)
Improved water Improved sanitation
100
r=0.4907 r=0.4778
90
80
70
60
50
1009080706050
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0 1009080706050403020100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: WHO/UNICEF (2010); and World Bank Database (2010).
Figure 2.2.1
Lujiazui City, China: high-speed trains substantially reduce transit
times between cities, a 140 km journey taking only 30 minutes.
© ArtisticPhoto/Shutterstock.com

Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity
57
together with agglomeration and scale economies, which
increase returns on investment. Moreover, the greater
purchasing power and effective demand associated with
urban areas will ensure cost recovery.
TRENDS IN THE pRovISIoN oF URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE: SIgNIFICANT REgIoNAL
vARIATIoNS
Differences in infrastructure across regions have
implications for the prosperity of cities and reflect a variety
of factors, including levels of income or development,
economic growth, pace of urbanization, technical
capacities and political commitment. The lowest levels of
infrastructure provision are to be found in urban Africa
(average water and sanitation coverage is 89 and 69 per cent
respectively; electricity: 69 per cent; paved roads: 28 per
cent; fixed telephone lines: four per cent; cellphones and
Internet connectivity: 57 and 10 per cent, respectively).
Asian cities have strongly invested in infrastructure
development in the past few decades, achieving nearly
universal provision of water, electricity and mobile
telephone services. In particular, China has pursued
a conscious strategy
of infrastructure-led
growth since the 1990s.
Investment in this area
increased from 5.7 per cent
of GDP in 1998 to 14.4
per cent in 2006.4 During
the same period, India
increased infrastructure
spending from 4.1 per
cent to 5.6 per cent of
GDP. The average for
Latin America and the Caribbean is under two per cent
of GDP,5 compared with Africa’s estimated 5–6 per cent.6
In Latin America, public investment in infrastructure
bore the brunt of fiscal adjustment, as it fell from more
than three per cent of GDP in 1988 to about 1.6 per
cent in 1998. Consequently, productive infrastructure
such as roads, electricity and telecommunications – all of
which are crucial for the prosperity of cities – now lags
behind East Asia and China, in a reversal of the situation
prevailing in 1980.
POLICy Infrastructure is the
most common entry
point to prosperity
in cities. Prioritizing
infrastructure is part of
long-term socioeconomic
development, and
environmental protection for
most cities.
Infrastructure coverage by region
Africa LAC
100
120
100
(per cent)
per 100 inhabitants
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
Asia WorldDeveloping countries
�xed telephone lines (per 100 inhabitants)
internet users (per 100 inhabitants)
mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 inhabitants)
broadband (�xed) subscriptions (per 100 inhabitants)
urban population with improved water (per cent) urban population with improved sanitation (per cent)
urban population with electricity (per cent) paved roads as a proportion of total (per cent)
Source: WHO/UNICEF (2010); International Energy Agency (2010); International Road Federation (2009); ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators
Database (2010).
Figure 2.2.2

State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013
58
There are remarkable inter-city differences in local
experts’ perceptions regarding the coverage and quality of
urban infrastructure. These differences are discussed below
with respect to water, roads and ICTs.
Water supply: when good governance changes
the equation
Adequate water supply is essential for environmental
sustainability and quality of life. Access to clean water
reduces morbidity and mortality, and improves the
productive abilities of the poor.
Water scarcity characterizes African cities: Although
official statistics reveal that 89 per cent of the urban
population in Africa is now enjoying improved water
supply, a large majority of Sub-Saharan African cities
experience regular water shortages. The UN-Habitat
survey shows that 11 of the 14 African cities (79 per
cent) under review are associated with such problems.
Experts concur that worst affected are Ibadan and Dar es
Salaam, closely followed by Accra, Addis Ababa, Luanda,
Lusaka, Lagos and Nairobi, which suffer chronic water
shortages. Although 78 to 98 per cent of households in
four of these cities – Accra, Lagos, Nairobi and Lusaka –
benefit from improved access to water, most experts also
identify them as experiencing severe water shortages.
Interestingly, despite its semi-arid climate and location
in a water-poor country, Gaborone experiences the
lowest levels of water shortages among the African cities
surveyed by UN-Habitat. This is partly because, through
expanded water supplies and conservation measures,
the city’s water agency (Water Utilities Corporation) has
put itself in a position to meet the demand, which is in
excess of 20 million cubic metres per annum.7 Similarly,
drought-affected Algiers has in recent years overcome
the problem of chronic scarcity through several water
management initiatives.8
Ranking of urban infrastructure
The local experts surveyed by UN-Habitat report that, across all
developing regions, the least developed components of urban
infrastructure relate to recreation, sanitation and urban transport,
while the most developed is telecommunications. All of this has
important implications for urban prosperity. For instance, the low
priority given to recreational infrastructure implies that access to
public spaces in many cities is limited, as indicated in Chapter 2.3
(Quality of Life). Similarly, the low priority given to urban transport
has wider-ranging implications, in this case for intra- and inter-
urban mobility.
Box 2.2.1
Ranking (<1 = least developed; 5 = most developed) SanitationTransport infrastructure Water Electricity RecreationTelecommunications Africa Asia LAC Arab States All regions 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 0le as t d ev el op ed ranking m os t d ev el op ed Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity 59 The water shortage pattern is more mixed in Asian cities: Half of the Asian cities in the UN-Habitat survey experience water shortages. Those with the more severe shortages are Cebu, Davao, Bangalore, Lahore, and Hyderabad. In Bangalore, water is supplied once in 46 hours for a period of 2–3 hours.9 This trend had been observed by one analyst who noted that: ‘no South Asian city can supply water 24/7 to its residents’.10 On the other hand, water scarcity is unknown in Singapore, according to all local respondents to the survey. Other cities where water shortages are perceived to be relatively insignificant include Chongqing, Gaziantep and Shenzhen. Differences in shortage patterns across Asian cities have to do mainly with water governance. For instance, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board faces several challenges, including: extension of its service area from 226 km2 to 800 km2 in 2007; high costs of production of water brought from a distance of over 100 km; dependence on State subsidies; user charges that have not been revised for about 10 years; and inadequate legislation on groundwater abstraction.11 Water shortage patterns vary significantly across Latin American cities: The UN-Habitat survey found that eight of the 15 cities under review in this region experienced serious water shortages, including Havana, Panama City, Guarenas (Venezuela), Lima, Ciudad del Este (Paraguay) and Guadalajara. Cities where water scarcity is perceived as ‘moderate’ are Tijuana, La Paz and Valparaiso; those without perceived water shortages are Medellín, Fort-de- France (French Antilles) and Montevideo. Differences in shortage patterns across cities reflect The success of Singapore in meeting local water demand is down to effective water governance. The Public Utilities Board has developed a long-term strategy known as ‘the Four National Taps’ to ensure steady, sustainable supplies. The strategy entails using water from different sources: catchment, recycling, desalination and imports. Saudi Arabia: an old water tower, a well-known feature in the city of Riyadh. © Fedor Selivanov/Shutterstock.com POLICy City authorities must systematically maintain infrastructure stocks to ensure that the benefits thereof are fully capitalized. It is in their best interest to improve coordination with various tiers of government for the design, provision and maintenance of infrastructure. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 60 local conditions and the state of water management. In 2011, Havana experienced its worst water shortage since 1961 due to the effects of drought and depletion of fresh supplies as well as a deteriorated network – about 70 per cent of the city’s 3,158 km of pipelines are in poor condition, resulting in significant leakages.14 In contrast, regular supplies in Medellín reflect sound management by Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM), one of the most successful public utility companies in Latin America. In 2009, EPM launched the Litros de Amor scheme to provide free-of-charge water (a daily 25 litres per head) to economically poor households.15 Uneven water shortage patterns in Arab State cities: Despite their typical location in hyper-arid regions, Arab State cities generally do not suffer from severe water shortages. However, according to local experts, three of the surveyed cities are finding water supply a major challenge: Amman, Basra and Saida (Lebanon). In Amman, the situation is quite critical with supplies only once or twice a week.16 In Basra, the supply falls short of around 33 per cent of the needs of the population.17 Residents often complain about quality (taste, smell and colour).18 Arab cities deemed to be meeting their water needs include Aqaba, Doha, Al- Muharrak (Bahrain), Dubai, Kuwait City and Erbil. Trends in road infrastructure The road network will rank amongst any city’s most prized assets, as it facilitates the movement of people and goods. Apart from access, road networks also form the basic grids for trunk infrastructure for water, sanitation and power supplies. Roads also contribute to effective mobility, which is crucial for the prosperity of any city. Congested roads and poor facilities for pedestrians are the most pervasive transport problems affecting cities in developing countries (Table 2.2.1). The UN-Habitat survey shows that to a large majority of experts – 96 per cent in Africa; 91 per cent in Asia; 88 per cent in Latin America; and 80 per cent in Arab States – traffic congestion is the main form of infrastructure deficiency plaguing cities in those regions, hindering free movement and making travel frustrating and time- consuming. The economic costs of traffic congestion are enormous: in the USA in 2010, a staggering US$101 billion was lost in productivity and wasted fuel, or US$713 per commuter;19 and in Mauritius, traffic congestion in cities costs the economy 1.3 per cent of GDP.20 Road infrastructure remains poor in African cities: In most African cities, roads account for less than seven per cent of land area, compared with 25–30 per cent in developed country cities (Table 2.2.2).21 In Kinshasa, Kampala and Ouagadougou, paved roads account for less than 12 per cent of the whole urban network. In many cities, the road Many Arab cities are able to meet their water requirements because of the high political priority given to the provision of this public good.12 City authorities have improved water security through increased supplies, demand management, conservation and desalination.13 Infrastructure deficiencies as perceived by local experts in surveyed cities (per cent) Type of deficiency Africa Asia LAC Arab States All cities Congested roads 96.0 90.6 87.9 79.5 89.3 Poor facilities for pedestrians 89.2 73.4 79.2 42.7 74.3 Power outages 86.1 58.2 58.8 59.5 66.5 Flooding 75.7 59.5 77.1 33.9 65.0 Slow/unaffordable Internet connections 80.6 38.9 63.6 56.3 61.3 Leaking sewers 80.0 49.7 59.4 28.0 57.4 Shortages of potable water 73.3 40.5 55.0 36.7 53.5 Shortage of cooking gas/other sources of energy 55.6 29.2 31.7 14.2 34.6 Interrupted phone lines 51.5 22.3 28.0 31.7 33.9 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Table 2.2.1 Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity 61 network has barely kept pace with urban growth: in Douala, for instance, it has remained unchanged for the past 20 years despite a doubling of the population, increased numbers of vehicles, and urban sprawl.22 The dysfunctional nature of road infrastructure in Africa poses a major challenge to mobility and prosperity and is an important source of congestion. In addition to this, poor maintenance is a major problem: only 18.5 per cent of experts across African cities believe that infrastructure is systematically maintained. However, some African cities have taken innovative steps to enhance mobility and tackle traffic congestion. Lagos introduced a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in March 2008. This commuter-oriented service delivers fast, comfortable and cost-effective urban mobility. Currently in its first phase, the Lagos BRT covers a 22-km corridor, moving more than 200,000 passengers daily, which exceeds expected usage by 100 per cent.23 In July 2010, South Africa’s Gauteng Province launched the Gautrain, a state-of-the-art 80-km rapid railway. Built at a cost of US$3.8 billion, this is Africa’s first high-speed urban train, linking the airport, Johannesburg and Pretoria. The Gautrain was designed to reduce road congestion, promote economic development and provide alternative means of transport,24 and began operations in July 2010, just before the opening of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, with service between Sandton Station and O. R. Tambo International Airport. Operations on the second phase linking Johannesburg and Pretoria commenced in August 2011. Gautrain takes less than 30 minutes to cover the distance between both cities, Road congestion, poor facilities for pedestrians, power outages and flooding are major infrastructural deficiencies, which adversely affect the prosperity of cities. A notable feature of the transport system in African cities is the virtual absence of state-operated/regulated public transport. The private sector is the major provider of transport services, often in the form of second-hand mini- and microbuses, shared taxis, and, more recently, commercial motorcycles.25 The needs of pedestrians are hardly taken into consideration despite the fact that walking accounts for over 60–70 per cent of trips in cities such as Conakry, Douala or Kinshasa.26 Characteristics of the road network in selected African cities City Length of road network (km) Length of paved road network (km) paved roads as % of roads paved road density (metres per 1,000 pop) paved road density (km per km2) Abidjan 2,042 1,205 59 346 2.1 Accra 1,899 950 50 339 2.8 Addis Ababa – 400 – 129 0.7 Bamako 836 201 24 167 0.8 Conakry 815 261 32 174 2.3 Dar es Salaam 1,140 445 39 122 0.2 Douala 1,800 450 25 237 2.4 Kampala 984 118 12 170 0.2 Kigali 610 451 74 225 0.5 Kinshasa 5,000 500 10 63 0.1 Lagos – 6,000 – 400 1.7 Lusaka 2,500 700 28 500 1.9 Ouagadougou 1,827 201 11 185 0.4 Average – – 33 318 1.7 Source: Kumar and Barrett (2008, p.24); figures for Lusaka were obtained for the local study prepared for this Report. Table 2.2.2 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 62 which by car could take up to two hours. With 100,000 passenger trips per day, Gautrain is expected to reduce the number of cars on the main highway by 20 per cent.29 Significant improvements in road infrastructure in Asian cities: In recent years, various Asian countries have embarked on ambitious programmes of road development and expansion. In 1997, India started the Golden Quadrilateral motorway to connect the country’s largest cities – Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai. An east–west corridor has also been recently completed, not just improving connections between cities but also opening up the hinterlands. In China, cities have been at the forefront of massive infrastructure development with emphasis on new roads and subway systems. The urban road network more than doubled between 1990 and 2003,32 largely contributing to urbanization and economic growth. Cities like Beijing and Shanghai have extended infrastructure to suburban areas in a bid to match spatial expansion. Beijing currently allocates 30 per cent of its construction budget to mass transit33 and Shanghai spends 10 per cent of its GDP on infrastructure, of which 40 per cent is for transportation. Singapore’s public transportation system is considered to be one of the best integrated and best planned in the world. In addition, adequate facilities are provided for pedestrians in the form of a safe and comfortable walking environment, which enhances quality of life. Massive economic growth in Asia, particularly in China and India, has spurred spectacular increases in the numbers of motor vehicles. This has contributed to traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, road accidents and higher energy use in the region. In India, the number of passenger vehicles increased by 12.9 per cent between 2007 and 2008 as nine million motorized vehicles were sold over the course of a single year.34 In China, the number of vehicles increased 10- fold between 1990 and 2002; of particular significance is the increase in the number of motorcycles and scooters, from just 200,000 in 1981 to 50 million in 2002. By 2009, China had over 91 million motorized two-wheelers – accounting for 51.2 per cent of the total number of motor vehicles.35 Private vehicles account for over 76.8 per cent of total vehicles in China.36 The situation is similar in India, where public transport accounts for only 22 per cent of urban trips, as increasing numbers of private vehicles ply the roads.37 However, the provision of transport infrastructure in Asian cities is not commensurate with increases in motor vehicles or travel demand. In India between 1951 and 2004, the number of motor vehicles grew from 300,000 to over 30 million – a 100-fold increase – while the length of the road network only increased by a multiple of eight – from 400,000 to 3.23 million km.38 In Mumbai, Delhi, and Chennai, annual average travel demand increased by five, ten and seven per cent, respectively, but growth in roadway supply barely reached one per cent.39 In most Indian cities, infrastructure for pedestrians is lacking. This is confirmed by the UN-Habitat policy survey, which shows that a large proportion of local experts in Hyderabad and Bangalore are of the view that this type of infrastructure is poorly developed. This situation forces pedestrians to share crowded roads with fast moving vehicles. The end result is high ratios of accidents involving pedestrians – 50 per cent in Delhi and 80 per cent in Mumbai.40 In China, most cities provide infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. This may account for the lower incidence of traffic fatalities involving pedestrians – just 25 per cent.41 However, in recent years, walking and cycling amenities have been on the decline in Chinese cities, which are unable to cope with the increased numbers of users. It has been observed that: ‘Many pavements and cycle lanes are eliminated or narrowed to accommodate more car lanes. Some streets and districts are now off-limits to cyclists.’42 Latin America and the Caribbean features the highest rate of motorization of all developing countries: The region has five times as many cars as sub-Saharan Africa or Asia, and about twice as many as the Middle East or North Africa.43 Motorization in the region increased from 100 vehicles per 1,000 in 1990 to 155 per 1,000 in 2005, before reaching 169:1,000 in 2008. Rising incomes, expanding middle classes, high levels of urbanization, an expanding local automobile industry, and availability of low-cost vehicles are the major forces driving motorization in Latin America and the Caribbean. In major Asian cities, about 11 per cent of land space is devoted to roads, well below the 20–30 per cent rate common in US cities.27 In Indian cities, the proportion varies from 21 per cent in Delhi to 11 per cent in Mumbai to five per cent in Kolkata.28 In India, public transport accounts for only 22 per cent of urban trips among ever-increasing numbers of private vehicles.30 A greater proportion of these vehicles is concentrated in only a few cities: New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore, which together host five per cent of India’s population but 14 per cent of registered vehicles.31 Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity 63 As a result, cities in the region experience severe traffic congestion. A great majority of local experts surveyed by UN-Habitat (over 80 per cent) report that the roads in their respective cities are congested. The situation in São Paulo is exceptional, with the world’s worst traffic jams according to Time magazine; on May 9, 2008, traffic congestion extended over 266 km in greater São Paulo.44 While the phenomenon affects all segments of the population, particularly the poor, the rich have resorted to helicopters to navigate the crippling traffic in the metropolis. Traffic congestion costs the city’s economy US$2.2 billion a year in lost productivity.45 Time spent in traffic also results in situations that affect quality of life. This is in addition to deteriorating air quality, traffic accidents, increased fuel consumption and the growth in emissions of greenhouse gases. Cities such as Buenos Aires, Mexico City and São Paulo have witnessed overall declines in the shares of public transport. In São Paulo, public transport as a share of all trips declined from 46 per cent in 1977 to 33 per cent in 1997 and again to 29 per cent in 2001.46 In Havana, the total number of public transport users declined from 3.5 million in 1991 to 540,000 in 2011.47 In Guadalajara, use of private cars increased from 30 to 50 per cent of all trips between the years 2000 and 2010, while the number of public transport users declined from 60 to 30 per cent.48 In Port of Spain (Trinidad and Tobago), despite the problems associated with private car- ownership and although a designated congestion-free east– west bus route had been made available, the use of public buses declined from 16.3 million users in 1990 to 6.4 million in 1998.49 Factors behind these sharp declines include poor perceptions of public bus services; lack of information on availability, routes and schedules; crime POLICy Cities must address road congestion problems that adversely affect their prosperity. A trend closely associated with motorization in Latin American and Caribbean cities is the decreasing share of public transport. This has implications for the mobility of the poorer households.Curitiba, Brazil: a tubular bus station and sleek, modern bus, part of the city’s integrated transport system. © Paul Smith/Panos Pictures State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 64 and safety concerns; and the long distances that commuters have to walk to bus stops/terminals. An indication of the infrastructure for sustainable road transport in Latin American cities can be gleaned from Table 2.2.3. In the selected cities, dedicated bus lanes (often in the form of BRT) amount to a combined 904 km, accounting for only 2.2 per cent of the 42,000 km of public roads used by buses. Bogotá and Curitiba feature the highest shares of dedicated bus lanes, with 1.1 per cent each of roads used by all forms of public transport; in the case of Bogotá, dedicated bus lanes account for 6.4 per cent of public roads used by this type of transport. In Bogotá and Curitiba, the dedicated bus lanes are part of the TransMilenio and BRT systems respectively, which now serve as the models for BRT across the world. In many Latin American cities, facilities for non- motorized transport do not appear to rank high among priorities. The UN-Habitat survey shows that, with the exception of cities such as Fort-de-France, Santos and Medellín, a majority of local experts believe that pedestrian facilities are poorly developed. This is somewhat confirmed in Table 2.2.3, which shows Curitiba as the only city where the length of priority lanes for pedestrians is in double digits (19 km). Cities in the Arab States have the highest rates of vehicle ownership: Over the past two decades, the Arab region has witnessed phenomenal growth in motorization. In 2008, the total number of motor vehicles reached 26.7 million – having grown at an annual average rate of 4.2 per cent between 1997 and 2008.50 The region features one of the highest ratios of vehicle ownership in the developing world. For instance, in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Oman, the ratios of motor vehicles per 1,000 population are 509, 507, 724, 313, and 225 respectively.51 Factors behind this trend include the affluence occasioned by the region’s oil-driven economic boom, strong preference for private cars, subsidized fuel, greater availability of car finance and lack of effective public transportation. These high ratios have led to chronic traffic congestion. According to the UN-Habitat survey, with the exception of Aqaba (Jordan) most experts (over 75 per cent) are of the view that their respective cities experience chronic traffic congestion. Conditions in Dubai typify those of other cities in Gulf Cooperation Council countries: with over one million cars, Dubai’s car-ownership ratio of 541:1,000 exceeds those of London (345:1,000) and New York (444:1,000).52 Being one of the fastest growing cities in the world with vehicle ownership increasing at a 12 per cent annual rate, it comes as little surprise that Dubai has become the most congested city in the Middle East. Commuting to and from work takes an average one hour and 45 minutes53 and this congestion causes losses of US$1.3 billion, or 3.2 per cent of the city’s GDP, every year.54 In Amman, the number of privately- owned cars reached 544,974 in 2009, growing at the rate of 10 per cent per annum and accounting for 72 per cent of the total number of vehicles.55 The quality and maintenance of roads in Arab cities is high by comparison with other developing countries. However, even massive investment in road networks has not kept pace with the rapid increase in vehicle numbers. There priority lanes for buses, cyclists and pedestrians in selected Latin American cities Metropolitan area Bus lanes (km) Cycling (km) pedestrians (km) Belo Horizonte 28 20.0 0.5 Bogotá 85 291.3 2.4 Buenos Aires 16 93.0 5.4 Caracas 0 14.0 2.2 México City 174 30.0 0.0 Curitiba 72 120.1 19.0 Guadalajara 0 0 2.5 León 15 54.3 1.2 Lima 34 59.0 1.7 Montevideo 0 8.4 1.0 Porto Alegre 43 0.0 0.7 Río de Janeiro 24 153.0 0.0 San José 0 0 1.0 Santiago 113 112.8 5.5 São Paulo 301 40.2 7.4 Total 904 996.1 50.5 Source: Corporación Andina de Fomento (2010) Observatorio de Movilidad Urbana para América Latina, Corporación Andina de Fomento. Table 2.2.3 POLICy Cities should develop sustainable public transport solutions that can have positive effects on all the dimensions of prosperity. Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity 65 are areas – particularly the suburbs which public buses do not serve – where commuters have no option but to use private cars. Therefore, providing alternatives to the car appears to be the most viable option. Several cities in the region are moving in this direction. For instance, the Dubai Metro commenced partial operations in September 2009. When fully operational in 2012, this underground railway is expected to reduce the number of cars on the road by as much as 30 per cent.56 In 2010, the Greater Amman Municipality launched a US$175 million BRT scheme covering 32km in three busy corridors. When completed in 2012, capacity will reach 6,000 passengers per hour.57 Information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the prosperity of cities Over the past decade, worldwide expansion in ICTs has been nothing short of phenomenal. For instance, in the sole mobile telephony area, the total number of subscriptions increased from 962 million in 2001 to six billion in 2011 – resulting in a worldwide ratio of 867:1,000.60 It is worth noting that developing countries account for over 75 per cent of global cellular telephone subscriptions. No other component of infrastructure has witnessed such spectacular growth. Advances in ICTs and liberalization of telecommunications markets have led to wealth creation and economic growth, with cities the major beneficiaries. ICTs play a major role in any city’s competitiveness, productivity and prosperity as they facilitate innovation, efficiency and effective service delivery. Overwhelming Public transport systems are inadequate in many Arab cities. For instance, in Beirut, fewer than 10 per cent of commuters are served by public transport;58 in Amman the corresponding figure is 14 per cent.59 Telephone infrastructure in selected African cities 100 Per cent of households with telephone 90 50 70 80 60 40 30 20 10 0 Landlines Mobile phones Ac cra (2 00 8) Ab uja (2 00 8) Ad dis Ab ab a ( 20 10 ) Ale xa nd ria (2 00 8) Ba ma ko (2 00 6) An tan an ari vo (2 00 8) Br az av ille (2 00 5) Ca iro (2 00 8) Da ka r ( 20 10 ) Do ua la (20 04 ) Fre eto wn (2 00 8) Ha rar e ( 20 10 ) Iba da n ( 20 08 ) Ka du na (2 00 8) Ka mp ala (2 00 9) Kig ali (2 01 1) Kin sh as a ( 20 07 ) La go s ( 20 08 ) Lil on gw e ( 20 10 ) Lu an da (2 00 6) Lu sa ka (2 00 7) Ma nz ini (2 00 6) Ma pu to (20 09 ) Mb ab an e ( 20 06 ) Mo mb as a ( 20 08 ) Na iro bi (20 08 ) Nd ola (2 00 7) Nia me y ( 20 06 ) Po rto No vo (2 00 6) Ya ou nd é ( 20 04 ) All ci tie s Source: UN-Habitat Global Urban Observatory Database, 2011. Figure 2.2.3 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 66 majorities of surveyed experts – 85 per cent in Africa; 96 per cent in Asia; 86 per cent in Latin America and the Caribbean; and 90 per cent in Arab States – rank telecommunications infrastructure as ‘highly developed’ or ‘developed’ in their respective cities. In Africa, the total number of cellphone connections has grown by 30 per cent annually since 2001, and by 2011 over 60 per cent of the population was connected.71 In Asia-Pacific, connections increased from 824 million in 2005 to three billion in 2011, making the region the largest cellphone market in the world.72 In Latin America and the Caribbean, mobile connections have grown by 13 per cent over the past four years, reaching 632 million in 2011.73 Remarkable growth rates have also been witnessed in the Middle East, where connections nearly doubled, from 177 million in 2007 to 334 million in 2011.74 ICTs in African cities: Cellphones have leapfrogged landlines in Africa by comparison with developed regions that had invested in landlines before moving to cellphone networks.75 At least 90 per cent of households in Abuja, Accra, Dakar, Lagos, Luanda and Nairobi own cellphones; even where ownership appears to be relatively low, it hardly falls below 50 per cent of the population (Figure 2.2.3). Cellphone numbers surpass those of fixed lines in virtually all cities. In Kinshasa, there are 119 times as many households owning cellphones as fixed lines. In Lagos, Harare, Kampala and Mombasa, households are 12 times more likely to own cellphones than landlines. Apart from facilitating connectivity and communication, cellphone networks also serve as catalysts for growth, contributing an estimated average US$56 billion, or 3.5 per cent of GDP, to the African economy every year,76 and providing over five million jobs. The growth of cellular telephony has spurred many innovative applications, most notable of which is cellphone-based banking. The most successful among such services is M-PESA, which has revolutionized money transfers in Kenya and is contributing to financial inclusion for the poor (Box 2.2.2). ICTs in Asian cities: Cellular telephony has also expanded dramatically in this region. India’s four major cities – Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai – can boast cellphone connection rates of 138 per cent, 112 per cent, 102 per cent and 143 per cent respectively.77 In Singapore, telecommunications infrastructure is highly developed. In 2010, the household fixed-line penetration rate was 103 per cent, and the mobile population penetration rate was 144 per cent, with 82 per cent of households having access to Internet.78 ICTs are major contributors to economic growth in Asia, accounting for US$485 billion, or 2.7 per cent of GDP; they also provide 11.4 million direct and indirect jobs – for each job created by a cellphone operator, eight additional ones are generated.79 The major role played by the mobile telephone sector has seen it act as a buffer against economic recession in the region. If any city must be seen as synonymous with ICTs in Asia it must be Bangalore. Often referred to as the Silicon Valley of India or the IT Hub of Asia, the Indian city stands out as India’s dominant ICT cluster and the fourth largest in the world, accounting for more than 35 per cent of Indian software exports80 and employing over one-third of its ITC professionals.81 Bangalore has developed into a centre of high-technology research and production; 80 per cent of global IT companies operating in India have their research and development centres in Bangalore.82 In 2007, more than 500 major international companies including Hewlett- Packard, Dell, IBM, and Accenture had operations in Bangalore.83 The ICT sector has proved to be by far to the most vibrant of the city's economy; this is evidenced in the 176 per cent increase in the number of IT firms from 782 in 2000 to 2,156 in 2010.84 When cellphones provide pro-poor banking services M-PESA is a cellphone-based service that facilitates financial transactions. With more than 15 million regular users in Kenya.61 It provides mobile banking services to over 70 per cent of the adult population.62 In particular, the network serves people in areas where established banks do not operate. For example, Nairobi’s largest slum, Kibera, does not feature a single bank branch, but is host to over 40 M-PESA outlets.63 Some 26 per cent of all users save money through their cellphones.64 Moreover, the system empowers women, providing them with an unprecedented ability to store and manage their own monies.65 Over time, M-PESA has evolved from a purely money transfer system into a platform that enables firms, non-governmental organizations, schools and hospitals to receive and make payments. In 2010, M-PESA created over 30,000 jobs66 in its 17,653 outlets.67 By September 2011, 32,000 outlets were in operation.68 The network is extensive enough to enable urban users to make remittances to family members in rural areas. In terms of money transfers, M-PESA processes more transactions locally than Western Union does around the world.69 As at March 2011, the total value of transactions through M-PESA since inception stood at US$9.98 billion.70 Box 2.2.2 Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity 67 ICTs in Latin American cities: Cellphones are fairly widespread in the region. Urban areas in Brazil, Chile, Panama and Paraguay feature the highest connection rates, with at least 80 per cent of households owning cellphones.85 In major Mexican cities, ownership varies between 66 and 84 per cent of the population. Compared with Africa and Asia, fixed lines are more developed in Latin American cities. For instance, between 41 per cent and 68 per cent of households in Mexico’s major cities have fixed lines. Still, the cellphone sector contributes significantly to the region’s economy: 1.7 per cent of regional GDP (or US$82 billion) in 2010. Increases in cellphone connectivity have also been found to boost GDP per capita, but this contribution is not linear, since the effect diminishes as saturation levels are reached. The industry also contributes to the region’s public finances, with public authorities garnering US$48 billion in taxes and regulatory fees in 2010.86 The economic contribution of the sector also included over 1.5 million jobs in 2010. ICTs in Arab State cities: Urban ownership of cellphones in Arab States, especially Gulf Cooperation Council countries, is widespread. Penetration rates in Doha, Dubai, Amman, Kuwait, Muscat and Riyadh are in excess of 100 per cent (Dubai’s is the highest in the world with over 200 cellphones per 100 residents). This group of countries has invested in ITC-dedicated parks in a bid to boost socioeconomic growth and to diversify away from an oil-dependent to a knowledge-based economy. Several cities, including Dubai, Doha, Kuwait and Muscat, have used ITC to launch e-government initiatives. This has made it possible to make government services available online and enable cities to develop interactive or transactional websites, integrating functions across multiple government departments. This has reduced bureaucracy and improved overall efficiency of government agencies. The ICT sector plays a significant role in the region’s economy. In the case of the UAE, the sector contributed 5.3 per cent to GDP in 2010, up from 4.1 per cent in 2007, and currently employs over 11,500.87 INFRASTRUCTURE DEvELopMENT AND THE pRoSpERITy oF CITIES It is possible to identify the specific contributions adequate infrastructure can make to the prosperity of cities, but it must be remembered that they are interrelated and interact with one another in a variety of ways. As perceived by experts participating in the UN-Habitat survey, these contributions are the following (by order of decreasing Contribution of infrastructure to the prosperity of cities 100 80 90 30 10 60 70 50 40 20 0 Quality of life Improving slum conditionsUrban growth Reducing spatial disparities Environmental quality Economic growth Mobility Access to health & education Africa Asia LAC Arab States All cities Per cent of local experts Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.2.4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 68 importance): economic growth; facilitating mobility; improved access to health and education; improved quality of life; steering spatial expansion; environmental quality; improved slum conditions; reduced poverty and reduced spatial disparities. These are presented in Figure 2.2.4 for the four regions under review. Economic growth: Infrastructure plays a crucial, supporting role in economic growth. At the same time, it is worth stressing that the reverse is true: economic growth also favours infrastructure through enhanced productivity and tax revenues. Experts surveyed by UN-Habitat view economic growth as the most important benefit attached to infrastructure and, if in an indirect sort of way, to the prosperity of cities (Figure 2.2.4). This finding echoes those in previous studies, albeit at a regional level, which confirm the intuitive notion that infrastructure has a positive impact on growth. Between 1990 and 2005, improved infrastructure contributed one per cent to per capita economic growth in Africa, and 1.2 per cent in Asia.88 In Africa, the greatest impact has been attributed to telecommunications and, to a lesser extent, roads. In Latin America, infrastructure has had a recognized effect on economic growth, with telecommunications, transport and power making stronger contributions than non- infrastructure capital.89 Facilitating mobility: Consistent and targeted investment in transport and communications infrastructure is a major factor underlying urban prosperity. Seamless movement within and between cities through efficient mass transit systems is essential to urban functionality and prosperity. Cities that have enhanced mobility through sustainable transport policies have reaped huge benefits across all dimensions of prosperity. In Bogotá and Curitiba, for instance, BRT enhances daily living conditions. In Bogotá, fast and reliable transport is now available to over 1.4 million passengers per day, in the process reducing traffic congestion.90 Commuting times have been cut by 34 per cent and traffic fatalities by no less than 88 per cent, with greenhouse gas emissions reduced by an average 134,011 tons/year. In the case of Curitiba, 70 per cent of commuters use BRT to travel to work, cutting the number of motor vehicle commutes by an average 27 million a year. When compared with eight other Brazilian cities of Alto, Bolivia: Congested road systems negatively impact productivity and quality of life. © Eduardo Lopez Moreno Urban Infrastructure: Bedrock of Prosperity 69 similar size, Curitiba uses 30 per cent less fuel per capita, with attendant reductions in air pollution. Curitiba’s BRT serves over 1.3 million passengers a day, enabling them to spend only some 10 per cent of income on transport, or only a fraction of the national average.91 In Lagos, BRT has attracted enthusiastic new patronage from those who previously avoided public transport.92 The BRT system has resulted in a 30 per cent decrease in average fares, reduced average commuting time by 40 per cent and waiting time by 35 per cent. BRT has also created direct employment for 1,000 people, together with over 500,000 indirect jobs. Access to healthcare and education: Infrastructure facilitates access to healthcare and education, which are essential components of human development and feature prominently among Millennium Development Goals. Sound health brings better-learning children and better-working adults – both being major assets to any city in the immediate and longer term futures. Education is also crucial to empowerment, reducing poverty and enhancing productivity. Cities with healthier, better- educated workforces are more likely to be productive and competitive. In metropolitan areas such as Istanbul and Mexico City, it has been shown that productivity can be hampered by the low skills of the working population.93 Provision of healthcare and educational facilities in poor neighbourhoods can help reduce inequality. Improving quality of life: Infrastructure can improve quality of life in a variety of ways, including enhanced safety and security, especially for youth and women, and expanded provision of public goods to enhance the city’s appeal. With regard to youth, provision of training, sport and recreational facilities will not only make any city more attractive: it will also positively engage one of the most risk-prone segments of the population and deflect them away from a life of crime and deviant behaviour. In the Grants Pen area of Kingston (Jamaica), a newly created ’Peace Park’ now provides young people with fresh recreational opportunities, contributing to a lower incidence of crime in the area.94 Public spaces, including streets, need to be planned and designed in such a way that they enhance the safety and security of women. Steering spatial expansion: Infrastructure can steer the spatial expansion of a city, facilitating more compact urban development and integrating different land uses. Compact urban forms are deemed to be efficient, inclusive and sustainable in four different ways: (1) lower infrastructure costs; (2) improved access to services and facilities; (3) enhanced livelihoods for the urban poor; and (4) lower degrees of social segregation. Besides, higher densities enable cities to take advantage of agglomeration economies, which are crucial to prosperity. Singapore is planned as a compact city, with high-density residential and commercial developments around multiple transport nodes. Environmental quality: In developing countries, many cities are characterized by inadequate water supply and squalid conditions in terms of sanitation. These two components of infrastructure are vital to improved – i.e., clean, pollution-free – environmental conditions in cities. Furthermore, flood-control infrastructure safeguards urban areas against erosion, flooding, landslides and disasters. Improved environmental quality in cities – particularly in slums and squatter settlements – is linked to reduced morbidity and mortality, greater productivity, improved livelihoods and reduced vulnerability for the poor. In Argentina, child mortality has declined by 14 per cent and 26 per cent in the poor and extremely poor municipalities respectively, following improvements in water distribution and quality.95 For girls, access to improved water supply will have a beneficial impact on school attendance and performance, as they spend less time fetching water. Improving slum conditions and reducing poverty: Infrastructure can contribute to the prosperity of cities through improved slum conditions and reduced poverty. Providing adequate infrastructure for roads, water, sanitation and electricity can reduce the health burden faced by slum dwellers, delivering major benefits in terms of environmental quality. Since the defining features of slums include lack of water, sanitation, etc., provision of infrastructure has a major role to play in any transformation of informal into formal settlements.96 Reducing spatial disparities: Infrastructure can reduce spatial disparities, particularly in sprawling, uncontrolled and largely un-serviced peri-urban areas. The provision of basic infrastructure and services will go a long way toward improving quality of life in these peripheral locations. Given that these locations are often inaccessible to public transport, connective infrastructure can integrate these areas into the main urban fabric. POLICy Provision of infrastructure must take the needs of women into consideration. POLICy Beneficiary communities must be fully involved in the design, provision and maintenance of infrastructure. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 70 Endnotes 1 Choguill, 1996; Teriman et al., 2010. 2 Cooper, 2010. 3 Spector, 2011. 4 Lall et al,2010. 5 Fay and Morrison, 2005. 6 Foster and Briceno-Garmendia, 2010. 7 Toteng, 2008. 8 General Electric Power and Water, 2010. 9 Belliapa, 2011. 10 Harris, 2008. 11 Belliapa, 2011. 12 However, the region is the least provided in the world, with just 1.4 per cent of the planet renewable freshwater (Roudi-Fahimi et al, 2002). 13 The Arab State’s Region is host to 65 of the world’s 100 largest desalination plants (Pacific Institute,2011). 14 Latin American Herald Tribune, 2011. 15 López , 2011. 16 Shabou et al, 2011. 17 Karim, 2011. 18 Takechi, 2010. 19 Schrank et al, 2011. 20 African Economic Outlook, 2011. 21 Kumar and Barrett, 2008. 22 Kumar, 2011. 23 Lagos Metropolitan Transport Authority (n.d) Bus Rapid Transit, http://www.lamata- ng.com/brt.htm 24 Railway-technology.com (n.d) Gautrain rapid rail link, South Africa, http://www. railway-technology.com/projects/gautrain/ 25 In 2007, Lagos had over 100,000 minibuses and 200,000 commercial motorcycles directly employing 500,000 people (Kumar, 2011). 26 Kumar and Barrett, 2008. 27 World Bank. 2002. 28 Pucher et al, 2007. 29 OSEC and Rainbow Unlimited GMBH, 2010. 30 HPEC, 2011. 31 Uddin, 2009. 32 The network increased from 95,000 to 208,000 km from 1990 to 2003 (Pucher et al, 2007). 33 McKinsey Global Institute, 2009. 34 Uddin, 2009. 35 Beijing Traffic Management Bureau, 2010. 36 Ibid. 37 HPEC, 2011. 38 Uddin, 2009. 39 Pucher et al, 2007. 40 Pucher et al, 2005. 41 Pucher et al, 2007. 42 Ibid. 43 Estimated from World Bank (2011) 44 de la Torre et al, 2009. 45 Canassa, 2008. 46 Vicentini, 2010; Luoma et al, 2010. 47 Coyula, 2011. 48 Perez, 2011. 49 Leung, 2009. 50 ESCWA, 2009. 51 World Bank, 2011. 52 Shariff, 2007; Raouf, 2009. 53 Gulf Talent, 2007. 54 Shariff, 2007. 55 Shabou et al, 2011. 56 Raouf, 2009. 57 Al-Rawashdeh, 2011. 58 Kollock, 2010. 59 Shabou et al, 2011. 60 International Telecommunication Union, 2010. 61 Safaricom, 2011. 62 IMF, 2011. 63 Morawczynski and Pickens, 2009. 64 Finaccess, 2009. 65 World Bank, 2010. 66 Vaughan, 2010. 67 Safaricom, 2010. 68 Safaricom, 2011. 69 IMF, 2011. 70 Safaricom, 2011. 71 GSM Association, 2011a. 72 GSM Association, 2011b. 73 GSM Association, 2011c. 74 GSM Association, 2011b. 75 Aker and Mbiti, 2010. 76 GSM Association (2011a) Africa Mobile Observatory 2011, GSMA, London 77 Philip, 2009. 78 Centre for Livable Cities, 2011. 79 GSM Association, 2011b. 80 Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation ( n.d) Bengaluru City Profile, http://bbmp.gov.in/ 81 Government of Karnataka (n.d) Bangalore Urban: the Silicon Valley of India, from http://advantagekarnataka.com 82 Government of Karnataka, 2008. 83 BBC, 2007. 84 Government of Karnataka, 2011. 85 Fernández-Ardèvol, 2010. 86 GSM Association, 2011c. 87 Telecommunications and Regulatory Authority, 2011. 88 Calderón, 2008. 89 Calderón and Servén, 2003. 90 Hidalgo, 2008. 91 Goodman et al, 2006. 92 World Bank, 2009b. 93 OECD, 2006. 94 UN-Habitat, 2007. 95 Galiani et al, 2005. 96 Gulyani and Bassett, 2007. 71 Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity For more than two millennia, quality of life has been part of philosophical discussions: abstract terms, metaphors, interpretations, theoretical positions have evolved over time with different perspectives, moving from the realm of ideas to the urban development agenda. Today no one disputes that quality of life is essential for any city to prosper. The notion is increasingly popular with decision-makers, practitioners and urban populations alike. Everyone agrees on its importance, but everyone will also agree that this notion comes with different meanings and facets. Many efforts have been made to develop a policy-oriented definition, yet the essence of quality of life remains vague when applied to urban areas. For all these different views and understandings, the very basic notion remains largely similar both in the developed and the developing world: people in Jakarta, Naples, Los Angeles or Bogotá will, to a large extent, share similar concerns, including decent employment, material well-being, fulfilling family lives and sound health. Individuals and specific circumstances may mean that one of these factors comes to be valued over others; yet, as noted in the report by the French Government Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (2009), these factors constitute ‘the most important features that give life its value.’2 MEASURINg QUALITy oF LIFE Recently, efforts have turned from definition to scientific measurement of quality of life. To Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, quality of life is determined by the various opportunities open to individuals, and their freedom to choose from these.3 Other conceptual approaches measure quality of life based on the notion of subjective well-being and on economic notions drawn from welfare economics.4 Subjective measures of quality of life are premised on the argument that individuals are the best judges of their life conditions, and they ‘provide valuable information about a crucial component of social change: the values, beliefs and motivations of ordinary citizens’.5 The World Values Survey provides a very comprehensive subjective measurement of quality of life, which reflects representative individuals’ beliefs and values in 54 countries around the world. The survey has a standardized questionnaire on religion, gender roles, work motivations, democracy, good governance, social capital, political participation, tolerance of other groups, environmental protection and subjective well-being.6 More recent measurements of quality of life combine subjective and objective measures. In 2003, the European Environmental Agency investigated eight domains of individual life situations in 25 EU member states, ranging from economic situation, housing and employment to work- life balance, health, subjective well-being and perceived quality of life.7 The international human resource consulting firm, Mercer, focuses on the quality of life of expatriates, taking in criteria such as availability of consumer goods, the economic environment, the natural, political and social environments as well as recreation amenities.8 Also targeting business, the Economist Intelligence Unit has designed a Quality of Life Index using nine factors: material well- being, health, political stability and security, family life, community life, gender equality, political freedom, climate and geography, and job security.9 Chapter 2.3 “Quality of life is often tied to the opportunities available to people, to the meaning and purpose they attach to their lives and to the extent to which they enjoy the possibilities available to them”.1 © Philip Lange/Shutterstock.com State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 72 QUALITy oF LIFE: A SyNTHESIS oF ALL DIMENSIoNS oF pRoSpERITy Quality of life underpins the functionality of cities: the notion is at the crossroads of all policies and actions,10 and represents a synthesis of all the dimensions of prosperity. When a city generates employment and economic growth, quality of life improves. When a city designs better buildings and public spaces that provide attractive, secure, clean and durable surroundings, it is improving quality of life. When a city provides adequate public transport, it improves quality of life for both users and non-users. When a city raises levels of education and provides good healthcare, it ensures quality of life for the foreseeable future. And when a city reduces the use of environmental resources and becomes more energy-efficient, it also improves quality of life. According to the UN-Habitat survey (2011), experts value assurances to live and work freely, good quality of education, adequate housing with basic services, and meaningful employment with decent income as the most important factors promoting quality of life and prosperity in their cities. In Europe, a survey on perceived quality of life in 75 cities (2010) shows that ‘the three most important issues for the city’ were: educational facilities, job creation/reduce unemployment and the availability and quality of health services, among seven other alternatives, namely social services, housing conditions, air pollution, noise, public transport, infrastructure and safety.11 It remains that, as perceived by experts and residents in developing and developed countries alike, the quality of urban life is a broader concept that includes a full range of factors such as economic development, living standards, material progress and individual and collective well-being, which all are important dimensions of prosperity. perceptions about cities’ most important problems (three most mentioned issues) Source: Directorate-General for Regional Policy, European Commission, 2010. Figure 2.3.1 Experts from 50 cities consider quality of life as the second most important dimension promoting prosperity in cities, after infrastructure development. POLICy It is in any city’s best interest to promote public goods such as public transport, green areas, public spaces and ‘urban commons’ such as safety, security and political participation, in order to enhance quality of life and shared prosperity. München (DE) Rennes (FR) Luxembourg (LU) Braga (PT)Leipzig (DE Paris (FR) Vilnius (LT) Warszawa (PL)Hamburg (DE) Marseille (FR) Riga (LV) Kraków (PL) Istanbul (TR) Essen (DE) Lille (FR) Lefkosia (CY) Gdańsk (PL) Diyarbakir (TR) Dortmund (DE) Bordeaux (FR) Verona (IT) Bialstok (PL) Antalya (TR) Berlin (DE) Oviedo (ES) Torino (IT) Graz (AT) Ankara (TR) Kobenhavn (DK) Málaga (ES) Roma (IT) Wien (AT) Piatra Neamţ (RO) Aalborg (DK) Madrid (ES) Palermo (IT) Rotterdam (NL) Manchester (UK) London (UK) Glasgow (UK) Cardiff (UK) Belfast (UK) Stockholm (SE) Malmö (SE) Oulu (Fl) Cluj-Napoc (RO) Praha (CZ) Barcelona (ES) Napoli (IT) Groningen (NL) Bucureşti (RO) Ostrava (CZ) Irakleio (EL) Bologna (IT) Amsterdam (NL) Zagreb (CR) Liège (BE) Athinia (EL) Dublin (IE) Valletta (MT) So�a (BG) Bruxelles/ Brussels (BE) Tallinn (EE) Strasbourg (FR) Miskolc (HU) Helsinki (Fl) Kosice (SK) Bratislava (Sl) Ljubljana (Sl) Burgas (BG) Antwerpen (BE) Rostock (DE) Budapest (HU) Lisboa (PT) Newcastle (UK) 47 30 30 45 37 35 50 33 43 55 32 40 34 43 38 40 47 49 33 38 39 34 68 59 31 66 51 60 51 29 35 52 59 31 69 50 35 43 50 72 51 36 55 44 34 47 38 52 45 39 44 41 54 46 37 59 48 72 39 45 65 40 48 52 36 37 39 51 37 38 50 34 41 36 51 51 42 35 44 47 39 63 48 63 37 38 42 39 73 35 38 62 36 39 49 33 37 39 62 29 48 42 35 44 45 69 59 38 31 53 46 44 47 39 39 50 46 49 78 40 31 45 37 39 46 38 41 44 40 52 41 38 45 46 48 38 41 41 38 71 60 49 44 52 45 43 53 44 46 38 70 43 67 37 51 62 45 45 33 30 30 29 27 23 44 46 66 40 59 53 64 38 54 46 40 40 41 52 58 57 46 49 55 47 51 53 42 44 49 44 47 46 52 50 53 63 39 51 51 56 38 67 47 31 37 37 55 52 34 52 64 32 59 44 52 53 35 50 51 61 61 52 48 47 50 Ro ad s Urb an Sa fet y Air Po llu tio n Jo bs Cr ea tio n Ed uc ati on No ise He alt h S erv ice s So cia l S erv ice s Ho us ing Pu bli c T ran sp ort Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity 73 perceptions about cities’ most important problems (three most mentioned issues) Source: Directorate-General for Regional Policy, European Commission, 2010. München (DE) Rennes (FR) Luxembourg (LU) Braga (PT)Leipzig (DE Paris (FR) Vilnius (LT) Warszawa (PL)Hamburg (DE) Marseille (FR) Riga (LV) Kraków (PL) Istanbul (TR) Essen (DE) Lille (FR) Lefkosia (CY) Gdańsk (PL) Diyarbakir (TR) Dortmund (DE) Bordeaux (FR) Verona (IT) Bialstok (PL) Antalya (TR) Berlin (DE) Oviedo (ES) Torino (IT) Graz (AT) Ankara (TR) Kobenhavn (DK) Málaga (ES) Roma (IT) Wien (AT) Piatra Neamţ (RO) Aalborg (DK) Madrid (ES) Palermo (IT) Rotterdam (NL) Manchester (UK) London (UK) Glasgow (UK) Cardiff (UK) Belfast (UK) Stockholm (SE) Malmö (SE) Oulu (Fl) Cluj-Napoc (RO) Praha (CZ) Barcelona (ES) Napoli (IT) Groningen (NL) Bucureşti (RO) Ostrava (CZ) Irakleio (EL) Bologna (IT) Amsterdam (NL) Zagreb (CR) Liège (BE) Athinia (EL) Dublin (IE) Valletta (MT) So�a (BG) Bruxelles/ Brussels (BE) Tallinn (EE) Strasbourg (FR) Miskolc (HU) Helsinki (Fl) Kosice (SK) Bratislava (Sl) Ljubljana (Sl) Burgas (BG) Antwerpen (BE) Rostock (DE) Budapest (HU) Lisboa (PT) Newcastle (UK) 47 30 30 45 37 35 50 33 43 55 32 40 34 43 38 40 47 49 33 38 39 34 68 59 31 66 51 60 51 29 35 52 59 31 69 50 35 43 50 72 51 36 55 44 34 47 38 52 45 39 44 41 54 46 37 59 48 72 39 45 65 40 48 52 36 37 39 51 37 38 50 34 41 36 51 51 42 35 44 47 39 63 48 63 37 38 42 39 73 35 38 62 36 39 49 33 37 39 62 29 48 42 35 44 45 69 59 38 31 53 46 44 47 39 39 50 46 49 78 40 31 45 37 39 46 38 41 44 40 52 41 38 45 46 48 38 41 41 38 71 60 49 44 52 45 43 53 44 46 38 70 43 67 37 51 62 45 45 33 30 30 29 27 23 44 46 66 40 59 53 64 38 54 46 40 40 41 52 58 57 46 49 55 47 51 53 42 44 49 44 47 46 52 50 53 63 39 51 51 56 38 67 47 31 37 37 55 52 34 52 64 32 59 44 52 53 35 50 51 61 61 52 48 47 50 Ro ad s Urb an Sa fet y Air Po llu tio n Jo bs Cr ea tio n Ed uc ati on No ise He alt h S erv ice s So cia l S erv ice s Ho us ing Pu bli c T ran sp ort State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 74 Treating quality of life as a by-product UN-Habitat survey results show that the more committed a city is to promote quality of life, the more the chances that the effects will be broad-ranging. There is a clear positive association between a high degree of commitment to address quality of life and the possibility of designing specific policies. Unfortunately, the opposite also applies, and many cities treat quality of life as a by-product or an ‘after-effect’ of policy interventions. Even where some cities perform well under other dimensions of prosperity, they fail to deliver better quality of life. Abidjan, Dakar, Dar es Salaam and Kampala provide good examples: they feature moderate or weak values on the ‘City Prosperity Index’, but rank much lower still for quality of life, which goes to show that this dimension cannot be considered just as an indirect or implicit component of any urban policy agenda. A number of studies have shown that the various determinants of quality of life generate complex interactions and diverse causal relations. Sometimes, efforts to promote one element can have unexpected detrimental effects on other elements; for example, prioritizing economic growth per se can have damaging effects on the environment. In other cases, positive linkages between these determinants are quite obvious; for instance, the provision of green open spaces brings health benefits to the population. In some other cases, the relationship can be less evident; for example, individual housing choices may have environmental impacts that affect quality of life in a variety of ways.12 All too often, cities do not clearly perceive the complexity of these interactions and assume that interrelations will always be positive. Several cities in Asia and the Arab States that are experiencing high economic growth are mostly focusing on infrastructure development in the pursuit of higher productivity and therefore higher incomes, assuming that this will lead to better quality of life in the long term. Generally, that is what happens, since economic growth increases purchasing power and demand for goods and services including education, entertainment, financial services and housing, which, in turn, not only create new employment opportunities but also contribute to higher quality of life. However, these infrastructures may not be accessible to the urban poor and may have also negative effects on the environment, thereby affecting quality of life. However, UN-Habitat policy analysis shows that most surveyed cities in the developing world have no clear policies, actions or reliable procedures to deliver and improve quality of life to the whole population. With the exceptions of Singapore, Davao, Ho Chi Minh City and Chongqing in Social equity and quality of life go hand in hand. In practice, though, any policies and actions aiming at improved societal well- being largely depend on the political will of governments and the degree of participation of civil society organizations and, in particular, their degree of autonomy when it comes to advocating, upholding, and fighting for, the rights of all. POLICy Cities that focus only on economic development and provide services that are not public goods tend to further marginalize minority and vulnerable groups, thereby reducing their quality of life. Accessibility, environmental sustainability and health: cyclists on dedicated cycle lanes in Copenhagen, Denmark. © Anne-Britt Svinnset/Shutterstock.com Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity 75 perception of experts regarding their city’s commitment to promoting quality of life Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.3.2 0.08 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.08 0.30 0.65 0.05 0.11 0.33 0.44 0.11 0.10 0.30 0.60 0.060.130.130.25 0.070.400.330.13 0.060.39 0.39 0.64 0.600.40 0.21 0.17 0.07 0.140.570.29 0.260.530.21 0.070.530.330.07 0.090.090.36 0.270.18 0.240.180.470.12 0.290.570.14 0.060.440.380.13 0.270.470.130.07 0.07 0.070.360.360.140.07 0.07 0.140.430.36 0.050.200.500.25 0.290.640.07 0.170.250.420.08 0.08 0.600.40 0.130.470.13 0.27 0.200.130.530.13 0.080.420.420.17 0.170.670.17 0.070.470.47 0.200.730.07 0.200.530.07 0.20 0.080.620.08 0.23 0.070.500.290.14 0.420.500.08 0.07 0.070.130.670.07 0.070.290.290.12 0.21 0.070.270.530.13 0.380.130.50 0.130.400.13 0.33 0.060.290.290.12 0.24 0.070.400.400.13 0.440.190.130.06 0.06 0.13 0.070.130.470.07 0.27 0.440.500.06 0.070.130.670.13 0.120.120.470.29 0.07 0.06 0.33 0.50 0.11 0.07 0.44 0.52 0.28 0.12 0.42 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.300.200.20 0.50 Africa Asia Latin America Arab States Accra (GH) Addis Ababa (ET) Alexandria (EG) Algiers (DZ) Beira (MZ) Dar es Salaam (TZ) Gaborone (BW) Ibadan (NG) Johannesburg (ZA) Lagos (NG) Luanda (AO) Lusaka (ZM) Nairobi (KE) Praia (CV) Bangalore (IN) Cebu (PH) Chongqing (CN) Davao (PH) Gazientep (TR) HCMC (VN) Hyderabad (IN) Lahore (PK) Shenzen (CN) Singapore (SG) Este (PY) Fort-de-France (MQ) Guadalajara (MX) Guarenas (VE) La Habana (CU) La Paz (BO) Lima (PE) Medellín (CO) Montevideo (UY) Panama City (PA) Rosario (AR) Santo Domingo (DO) Santos (BR) Tijuana (MX) Valparaiso (CL) Amman (JO) Aqaba (JO) Basra (IQ) Beirut (LB) Doha (QA) Dubai (AE) Erbil (IQ) Kuwait City (KW) Muharraq (BH) Saida (LB) Shiraz (IR) Do no t k no w No t c om mi tte d Fu lly co mm itte d Co mm itte d No ef for t So me wh at State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 76 Asia, Fort-de-France and Medellín in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Doha in the Arab States (whose commitment to quality of life was highly commended), experts took a critical view of the 42 other surveyed cities on that count. They found public administrations to be generally inefficient and with poor incentives to devise specific quality of life policies, for lack of adequate financial resources, trained staff or political interest. In describing the evident commitment to quality of life improvement in Ho Chi Minh City, one local expert stated ‘investing in human resources is considered to be the best way of seizing more opportunities and turning them into wealth and quality of life to make the city more prosperous’.13 In Cebu City, a local expert argues that ‘it is not only a matter of expanding the pie (i.e., economic development), but also of dividing it and ensuring that Quality of life – the ‘spokes’ and the ‘hub’ of the Wheel of Urban prosperity Quality of life and productivity Productivity and quality of life are increasingly associated. Skilled workers and talented people will move to, and concentrate in, livable cities with high quality of life, and firms will follow suit. Consulting firms rank cities based on their ‘good living’ factors to make informed locational decisions. High human capital, which is a main ingredient of quality of life, attracts firms that cluster in cities to take advantage of common labour pools. Well-planned and designed urban environments, with pedestrian-friendly areas, bicycle paths, mixed land uses and sufficient public goods, attract people and businesses which, in turn, contribute to finance further social amenities and public goods. More and more city leaders are investing in education and the provision of ‘commons’ and public goods as part of a quality of life. Inversely, cities that do not invest in quality of life tend to feature poor public health, low education, limited mobility, and marginalization of the urban poor, all resulting in low productivity. Quality of life and infrastructure development The prosperity of any city largely depends on infrastructure. Physical facilities, such as transportation, power and communications, contribute to economic development, industrialization, trade and mobility of labour. Water supply, sanitation and sewerage, together with education and health facilities, have a direct impact on quality of life. All of these types of infrastructure connect people to people, goods to markets, workers to jobs, families to services, and the poor in rural areas to urban centres − a connectivity process that is essential to induce economic growth, reduce poverty and increase general well-being. More and more cities today are launching into ambitious initiatives to expand/improve infrastructure in a bid to sustain economic growth, prepare for population decline, address climate change issues and/or reduce slum incidence. Conversely, under-developed infrastructure makes life more difficult and more costly: poor facilities discourage industrial development, trade and investment, and reduce competitiveness, not to mention more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, wasted time, fuel and safety costs, and noise. Quality of life and equity Quality of life and equity are inherent in progress and development. No city can claim to be prosperous when large segments of the population are excluded or live in abject poverty, or are deprived of basic goods or services while others live in affluence. Cities pursuing equity in the distribution of resources and opportunities, in law enforcement, in the rules and relationships that govern institutions and in access to public goods will be those where shared prosperity and quality of life are improved. More equitable cities enhance the prospects for people to take part in democratic processes and participate in a more decisive manner in cultural and political life. The benefits of social participation and political voice extend to other domains such as health, employment and the urban environment. Quality of life and environmental sustainability Environmental conditions have an immediate impact on the quality of people’s lives. They affect human health both directly (air, water pollution, and noise) and indirectly (climate change, biodiversity). Well-managed urban commons and public goods can improve environmental conditions and quality of life. Conversely, the pursuit of short-term quality of life objectives can be detrimental to the longer-term sustainability objectives that collectively affect the lives of the whole population. Indeed, individual short-term aspirations to quality of life, such as affordable, low-density housing, can act as major factors behind urban sprawl, which in turn is detrimental to the natural environment through higher use of land, energy and water, along with increased greenhouse gas emissions. Quality of life and the ‘hub’ of the Wheel of Urban prosperity Effective institutions, more appropriate laws and regulations, proper urban planning and new value systems are essential power functions and can make sure that policies, actions and solutions involving any of the ‘spokes’ of prosperity can have positive effects on the others. Sources: Glaeser, E. and Berry, C. (2005); Gidwani, V. and Baviskar, A. (2011); European Environment Agency (2009); Stiglitz, Joseph, Sen, Amartya, Fitoussi, Jean-Paul (2009); UN-Habitat (2008/9). Box 2.3.1 Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity 77 the poor benefit, too (i.e., equity and quality of life)’.14 Dubai, as other cities in the Arab Gulf, recognizes quality of life as a key competitive advantage that contributes productivity, attracting and retaining highly qualified individuals and prestigious firms and investors. Priority is given to those most easily perceived elements of quality of life such as parks, clean sidewalks, leisure, art and culture amenities as well as hospitals. Although not generalized to all the population, the pursuit of prosperity through quality of life is an interesting connection and entry point to development. Quality of life: a variety of local responses UN-Habitat has identified some convergent and divergent forms in which cities address quality of life. Divergent city responses: Actions to improve quality of life will largely depend on the stage of development of the relevant country or city. In most poor cities in the developing world, quality of life is strongly associated with the provision of public goods in the form of basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity, along with improvements in slum neighbourhoods. Tanzania’s National Development Vision 2025 aims at high quality of life for all the population, linking this notion to economic growth and poverty reduction.15 In Ho Chi Minh City, quality of life is directly linked to improved drainage, sewage collection and treatment systems, and other public infrastructures such as road enlargements. In middle-income countries, governments link quality of life to various factors, from improved living environments and enhanced material well-being to higher incomes. Experts in cities as diverse as Fort-de-France (Martinique), Habana, Cebu, Davao, and Beirut explicitly refer to the provision of a decent house and a healthy environment as essential elements for improved well-being and quality of life. In other cities − Rosario, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Alexandria and Guarenas (Venezuela) − improved solid waste disposal is perceived as a major condition for better quality of life. Improvements in healthcare services appear as another major factor. In Singapore, Doha, Chongqing and Shenzhen, local experts implicitly refer to good and affordable medical services for all as a good way of improving quality of life. Shenzhen’s universal healthcare system and Tehran’s Urban Heart Programme are good examples. In rich countries, government responses to the need for quality of life involve access to a number of goods and services and improvements in the domestic living environment. Many European cities emphasize good transport, green open spaces, culture and sports facilities as major factors behind improved quality of life. Although better paid jobs, good levels of education and health facilities always feature in government responses, quality of life is increasingly associated with an inclusive, well- planned, healthy and supportive environment.16 With the prospects of population decline, various cities are enhancing quality of life for elderly and disabled populations. Most notable in this regard are the efforts of the Government of Singapore to make the entire built environment disabled- friendly.17 Convergent city responses: Beyond local Northern European cities such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Groningen, Berlin and Muenster promote cycling and walking as part of new urban culture and in the pursuit of better quality of life. Dresden, Vancouver and Los Angeles have launched into urban conversion programmes in cultural and historical neighbourhoods, adapting urban infrastructure and reusing open land areas for better quality of life. Experts in Beira, Algiers, Praia, Luanda and Addis Ababa, among others, explicitly link improved quality of life to slum upgrading and poverty reduction. Experts in 60 per cent of surveyed cities in Africa and Arab States and slightly more than 40 per cent of cities in Asia and Latin America believe that corruption and poor governance conspire against local prosperity and quality of life for all. POLICy Cities that are committed to quality of life are almost always committed to enhanced productivity and equity, emphasizing the strong relation between these dimensions. POLICy Equitable cities generalize access to urban commons and public goods, preventing private appropriation and expanding the scope for improved quality of life for all. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 78 circumstances, some aspects of quality of life improvements can be found in all types of country. UN-Habitat has identified various areas of intervention which governments with different political orientations and levels of development still consider as priority interventions: safety and security, efficient public transport, public spaces, healthcare and adequate housing, appear to be among the most important. Public Safety and Quality of Life: A safe and secure life for all is an integral component of a prosperous city. As an expert in Nairobi states, ‘quality of life only makes sense when there is adequate security’.22 Experts in 50 cities in the developing world agreed that this is the most important factor contributing to a sense of empowerment and a feeling that one is part of a prosperous city. In Lima, for instance, a survey on quality of life conducted by a citizens’ observatory found that 73 per cent of the population considers urban insecurity as the main problem that conspires against quality of life and prosperity.23 A survey on ‘urban lifestyles’ conducted in 2010 by the Veolia Observatory in seven cities in both developing and developed nations found that in three of these (Chicago, London and São Paulo) insecurity appears as the most important problem, and in another (Paris) it features as the third most important.24 In all these places, urban safety and security means different things to different people: In Latin American cities, this notion is strongly linked to violence and crime.25 In the Arab world, it is more associated with fear of repression, youth exclusion and gender inequalities. In Africa, in addition to the conventional notion of crime, insecurity is strongly linked to institutional weaknesses, conflict for resources,26 and lack of tenure in land and housing.27 In Asia, urban safety is linked to a broader human security notion related to crime and violence, but also to natural risks.28 By itself, security may not bring prosperity to any city, but its absence is fatal. Economic inequity and/or instability nurtures high perceptions of crime and violence in various cities around the world, and inadequate urban planning law enforcement drive many high- and middle-class residents into gated communities or other guarded urban and suburban enclaves,29 creating compounds of prosperity. This type of privilege remains unaffordable to those on low incomes, whose safety is often more at risk. Lack of personal safety is seriously detrimental to freedom, mobility, productivity and public interactions, all of which are crucial to high quality of life. Crime and violence can hinder, and sometimes paralyze, regional and national economies. High rates of violence and insecurity in Kingston (Jamaica) and Nairobi (Kenya) have stultified the otherwise thriving tourist sectors in these countries.30 Even though urban insecurity is, to a large extent, the result of extreme inequalities, it can also In 19 cities out of the 50 surveyed by UN-Habitat, an overwhelming majority of experts (more than 80 per cent) rated security to work and live freely as a major contributor to prosperity. In cities like Praia, Cebu, Algiers, Chongqing, Singapore, La Paz and Amman, nearly all experts rated security as contributing to prosperity. POLICy Effective public safety is a fundamental ‘common good’ that enhances quality of life for all, and is a major foundation of urban prosperity. Quality of life, world-class cities and social inclusion Cities with aspirations to ‘world class’ status will typically equate this notion with competitiveness. Dubai’s 2007–2015 Long- term Strategic Development Plan declares these two notions as twin objectives that will ‘establish the city as a preferred home for current and future residents by improving the well-being of citizens and residents, and helping them live healthier lives enriched with opportunity and choice’.18 In Doha, the capital of Qatar, the transition to a diversified knowledge-based economy is seen by public authorities as contingent on the development and upgrading of the education and skills of the population, together with improved quality of life.19 Singapore considers quality of life as a key competitive advantage to attract skilled foreign labour and investment.20 At a different level, a local expert in Beirut noted that ‘quality of life’ mostly appeared in the advertising brochures of high-end property developments, in response to which non- governmental organizations have used the same notion to draw attention to the lack of public goods in the city, such as public or ‘green’ spaces.21 In Santos, Brazil, quality of life is perceived as involving social justice and inclusion, not just economic growth, as a precondition for sustainable development. Box 2.3.2 Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity 79 generate further social and spatial disparities that restrain access to employment, resources and opportunities. Recent surveys show that fear for personal safety prohibits an alarming high rate of residents from going out at night in various Mexican cities. In Mexico City, many of those plazas, parks and downtown streets where traditionally the capital’s pulse could be felt and public debate and interaction took place, have now become risky.31 High perceptions of crime and violence reduce investor confidence in the local economy. This in turn can lead to brain drain as people More than 40 per cent of respondents to the UN-Habitat survey rated the cities of Algiers, Johannesburg, Lahore, Este, Guarenas, La Paz, Lima and Santo Domingo as ‘not safe’. Cultural vitality enhances quality of life: Sinulog Street dancing, an annual event held on the third Sunday in January celebrates Santo Niño, the patron saint of Cebu, Philippines, as well as Cebuano peoples’ origins. © 2012 John Lander/fotoLIBRA.com State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 80 POLICy Cities that give priority to the notion of the ‘public’ and thereby provide green areas, parks, recreation facilities and public spaces demonstrate a commitment to improved quality of life. Such cities are also likely to enhance community cohesion and civic identity and quality of life. emigrate to safer countries. High perceptions of crime and violence can also engender mistrust and alienation, eventually triggering various forms of social unrest. Recent empirical data in Latin America shows that high crime and violence rates have damaging effects on interpersonal and more general trust, affecting social conviviality and confidence in institutions.32 Moreover, unsafe cities and perceptions of insecurity also lead to more fragmented, sprawling and motor-dependent urban environments. The fear of crime and violence not only increases reliance on private automobiles through the proliferation of low-density, peri-urban gated communities, it also deters the public from using public transport. Extensive provision of public goods such as parks, schools, basic services, sports facilities and community centres, particularly in more violent neighbourhoods, together with strong participation from local communities, has enabled Medellín to enhance safety through social cohesion. In addition to contributing to quality of life through culture, recreation and participation, this model also enhanced less tangible dimensions such as dignity, identity and sense of inclusion. These psychological aspects are by now recognized as lying at the core of youth-related crime and violence, more so than the apparent factor of poverty.33 This is the background against which, in Boston, a scheme known as ‘Strategic Approaches to Community Safety’ has combined with systematic scrutiny of criminal/ violent incidents to result in reduction in gun-related violence.34 Reviving the public space: In a large number of cities, the provision, preservation and improvement of public spaces remains a neglected agenda. According to a local expert in Panama City, ‘in practice, the concept of public space does not exist’.35 In Cebu City, an expert mentions that ‘public parks, playground areas and recreational facilities are grossly inadequate’.36 Another in Al-Muharrak (Bahrain) states that ‘the city has been losing green areas and today the proportion of gardens is small’.37 As with many other public goods, ‘green’ and open areas tend to be enclosed, restricted, or depleted by unsustainable use. In Amman, city authorities have been converting public areas and parks into developments. In India, confessional groups erect temples in public parks. In Bangladesh, developers construct housing in open public areas. In Nairobi, private interests occupy riparian lands.38 In Amman, parks represent 12 per cent of the total land area; however, in the eastern part of the city, where population densities are the highest, open spaces are very scarce.39 In some other cities, particularly those aiming at ‘world-class’ status, parks and ‘green’ spaces have a more ornamental or ‘image’ role than a real ‘public good’ one. In Africa, some 40 per cent of surveyed local experts believe that the limited use of public spaces does ‘not contribute’, or ‘somewhat contributes’, to the prosperity of their respective greenery and quality of life in Asian cities Many cities across the developing world, especially in Asia and the Arab States, are creating new parks in an effort to meet international standards for green area per capita (i.e., eight square metres per head).40 In the past five years, Shenzhen has created 435 new parks as part of the ‘Eco-city Programme’ and the ‘Garden City Plan’, achieving a ratio of 16.3 m2 in 2009. As a result, the urban ecological environment in Shenzhen has gradually improved and, with it, quality of life.41 Also in China, Chongqing has expanded the combined green belt and public square surface area by a multiple of 16 in the past 30 years.42 The city-state of Singapore is a leading example in the world, with greenery over 50 per cent of the surface area and over 450 public parks and gardens. The city is also preserving its rich biodiversity with four nature reserves which cover more than 3,000 ha, and are legally protected to safeguard key indigenous ecosystems. These initiatives contribute to a cleaner environment, shaping the country’s landscape and enhancing quality of life. Recently, greenery has been given even more emphasis, with a new plan for a ‘City-In-a-Garden’.43 Box 2.3.3 Nearly one-third of local experts in Latin America, 25 per cent in African cities and more than 10 per cent in Asia and the Arab States said lack of public security was not properly addressed in their respective cities. Many public spaces are residual urban areas that are exposed to speculation for private profit. In too many cities, public spaces remain concentrated in the more affluent areas. Quality of Life and Urban Prosperity 81 cities. In Accra, Beira, Gaborone, Lagos, Lusaka and Ibadan, this percentage reaches 50 per cent. As many as 65 per cent of experts in Asia and 58 per cent in Latin America consider that improvements to pedestrian areas and cycling paths, though relatively minor by themselves, would enhance quality of life to a disproportionately significant extent. Parks and ‘green’ spaces have always been associated with better quality of urban life. In Praia, Cape Verde’s capital where such spaces are very scarce, a newly opened, small public square has become a major place for recreation, leisure and socialization despite its small dimensions.44 In Guadalajara, Mexico, temporary appropriation of streets and public spaces for pedestrian and cycling purposes has become extremely popular. As a result, this recreational project, known as ‘vía recreativa’, has been extended from 3.4 km to over 25 km and across four municipal jurisdictions. At national level, the Mexican government has launched an ambitious programme to recover public spaces in a bid to improve quality of life and enhance public security, particularly in marginalized neighbourhoods in various cities.45 In Cuba, as part of a ‘non-discriminatory enjoyment of public spaces’ policy, several cultural programmes have been made free or affordable for all, with plazas, avenues and even vacant lots featuring various events that enhance quality of life.46 In Europe, public greens which take the form of corner lots, small community parks, street greens, linear or large parks, and river banks are designed for specific types of activity. The liveliness and continuous use of public space as a public good leads, in turn, to urban environments that are well maintained and safe, making the city an attractive place to live and work.47 POLICy ‘Having access to public spaces does not only improve quality of life, it is a first step to civic empowerment on the way to further institutional and political spaces’.48 Internet café, Maroc telecom, and teleboutique signs in Morocco. Access to the Internet is now a vital asset for both poor and rich. © 2012 Alistair Laming/fotoLIBRA.com Internet, information and quality of life Basic needs are rapidly changing. Access to Internet is increasingly becoming an essential component of quality of life. In many cities today, Internet is used not just to communicate, socialize and learn, but also to promote public participation and to assess citizens’ perceptions of urban affairs. Formal recognition of the right to information (i.e., India, 2005; the Philippines, 2008; South Africa, 2000) empowers citizens and encourages participation in governance and government programmes. The cities of Hyderabad, Cebu, and Johannesburg, among many others, are introducing e-governance in a bid to provide many services on-line − issuance of documents, payments, ticketing, applications and complaints − as a major step towards enhanced quality of life. In India more than 500 million cell phones are currently in use, and many with reduced call rates. This improves connectivity for poor and rich alike, enhancing economic opportunities for the urban poor. As stated by a local expert in India, ‘Internet is an empowerment tool’. Box 2.3.4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 82 Endnotes 1 Stiglitz et al, 2009. 2 Ibid. 3 Andrulis et al, 2004. 4 Stiglitz et al, 2009. 5 World Values Survey, 2011. 6 Ibid. 7 European Environment Agency, 2009. 8 Mercer's 2011 Quality of Living ranking highlights – Global, http://www.mercer.com/ articles/quality-of-living-survey-report-2011; Also targeting business, the Economist Intelligence Unit designed a Quality of Life Index using nine factors: material well-being, health, political stability and security, family life, community life, gender equality, political freedom, climate and geography, and job security, Refer to http:// www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE 9 The Economist, 2004. 10 European Environment Agency, 2009. 11 Bodin-Buyle and Hermant-De Callataÿ, 2011. 12 European Environment Agency, 2009. 13 Dzung, 2011. 14 Fernandez, 2011. 15 Lupala, 2011. 16 European Environment Agency, 2009. 17 Centre for Livable Cities, 2011. 18 Al-Bassam and Mouris, 2011. 19 Mena, 2011. 20 Centre for Livable Cities, 2011. 21 Fawaz and Baghdadi, 2011. 22 Omenya, 2011. 23 Lima Como Vamos, 2010. 24 Veolia Environnement, 2010. 25 PNUD, 2010. 26 Commins, 2011. 27 UN-Habitat, 2010b. 28 UN-Habitat and UN ESCAP, 2009 29 Davis, 2007. 30 UN-Habitat, 2007. 31 Davis, 2007. 32 Beltran and Velasquez, 2012. 33 UN-Habitat, 2007. 34 City of Boston ,www.ojp.usdoj.gov/njj/sacsi/ 35 Mendoza, 2011. 36 Fernandez, F.L., 2011. 37 Al- Kubaisy, 2011. 38 UN-Habitat, 2010a. 39 Shabou et al, 2011. 40 The agreed international ratio is 8 square metres per capita. For instance, Lima, the capital of Peru, has around 3 square metres, the Mexican border city of Tijuana has around one or two, and Al-Muharrak in Bahrain has less than 1 square metre. 41 Jin and Liu, 2011. 42 Liu and Wang, 2011. 43 Centre for Livable Cities, 2011. 44 Fernandez, C., 2011. 45 SEDESOL, 2007. 46 Coyula, .2011. 47 Shehayeb, 2008. 48 Castellanos, 2011. 83 Equity and the Prosperity of Cities The past few decades have witnessed a notable surge in economic growth, but one which has been accompanied by an equally daunting degree of inequity under various forms, with wider income gaps and deepening poverty in many cities across the world. In the 1970s, widening income gaps began an unhealthy co-existence with economic growth, with reduced incomes for households in the middle and lower classes and steady increases for the well- off. Economic inequality is seriously detrimental to the equitable distribution among individuals of opportunities to pursue a life of their choosing and be spared from extreme deprivation in outcomes. Equity involves systematic (re) distribution of the economic benefits of growth or development, with legal frameworks ensuring a ‘level playing field’ and institutions protecting the rights of the poor, minorities and vulnerable groups. Promotion of equity also involves enhancing socioeconomic equality and providing for civic participation by all in the social, political and cultural spheres. THE UNEQUAL WEALTH oF CITIES: INCREASED INCoME DISpARITIES The 2011 OECD report Divided We Stand stresses that income gaps between rich and poor are expanding in both developed and developing countries. In OECD countries, inequalities are as steep as they have been for over 30 years. The Report shows that, in advanced economies, the average income of the richest 10 per cent of the population is about nine times higher than that of the poorest 10 per cent. In Europe’s Nordic countries, the average is a multiple of six but growing, compared with multiples of 10 in Italy, Korea and the United Kingdom, and up to 14 in Israel, Turkey and the United States. These are overshadowed by countries such as Chile and Mexico with multiples of 27, and in Brazil, despite recent declines in inequity (the exception among the BRICs countries), the ratio of incomes between richest and poorest reached a staggering 50:1.3 In the 34 OECD member countries, Gini coefficients have risen by 10 per cent on average between the 1980s and the late 2000s (from 0.29 to 0.316).4 In emerging economies (such as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and South Africa) income Chapter 2.4 Equity has a significant impact on economic performance, since the greater the degree of equity, the greater the chances of a fuller, more efficient use of available resources, including skills and creative talent.1 urban prosperity thrives on equity, which involves reduction in barriers to individual/collective potential, expansion of opportunities, and strengthening of human agency2 and civic engagement. Cities generate wealth, but it is not shared equitably. Despite considerable increases in capital and per capita GDP growth along with reductions in extreme poverty, inequality as a whole is growing in most parts of the world – a process that undermines urban prosperity. In many cities, local experts concur that inequalities are becoming steeper. A review of inequality in cities reveals a steady increase over the long term, as well as in recent decades.5 Paradoxically, this has occurred as wealth rose enormously around the world. POLICy A prosperous city has the reduction of inequity as its fundamental objective. © Clive Shirley/Panos Pictures State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 84 inequality is significantly steeper than the OECD average. Inequality has increased in all these countries over time, reaching extremes in Argentina, Brazil and South Africa. EQUITy CoMES WITH MULTIpLIER EFFECTS Equity and lack thereof work in exactly opposite ways. When actively pursued, equity can act as a powerful catalyst for prosperity, exerting multiplier effects on other prosperity factors, optimizing their respective performances and creating linkages among them. Its absence will have the reverse effect, compounding any existing biases, or dysfunctions already hindering prosperity. Undoubtedly, some cities have demonstrated a capacity to stimulate growth and prosperity even in the absence of equity. However, as has become amply evident in the past three decades, such prosperity, coupled with uneven distribution, remains narrowly confined and is unsustainable. Conversely, cities that have built equity into Income inequalities in the world’s cities: an overview The UN-Habitat database shows that income inequalities are widening in urban Asia; this is also the case in half of the African countries where urban data is available, while the gap has narrowed slightly in Latin America and the Caribbean. According to the database, the most unequal cities in the developing world are Hong Kong, Yichan, Shenzhen, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Davao, Colombo, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City; Bujumbura, Douala, Brazzaville, Addis Ababa, Libreville, Maputo, Lagos, Kigali and several South African cities (the most unequal in the world); and cities in Brazil and Colombia, together with Mexico City, Port-au-Prince, Buenos Aires, Santiago and Quito. Rising inequity is not limited to the developing world, as the recent banking/financial crisis has had serious socioeconomic effects on the developed countries where it started. Box 2.4.1 Urban prosperity, poverty and inequity 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 CPI Gini MPI Mo sc ow Me xic o C ity Ca pe To wn Jo ha nn es bu rg Ja ka rta Ha No i (R ed De lta re gio n) Ma nil a Ca sa bla nc a Na iro bi Gu ate ma la Cit y Ab idj an Ya ou nd é La go s Ac cra Pu nja b* Ph no m Pe nh * Dh ak a* Da ka r* Ad dis Ab ab a* Ka mp ala * Da r e s S ala am * This graph shows the difference between poverty and inequity in the context of rising prosperity. In many developing countries, inequity is often concealed in poverty, thus misdirecting policy and strategic interventions which tend to concentrate only on poverty. Chile (Santiago), although not in this chart, is a case in point. Whereas poverty has been reduced by around 20 per cent, the Gini coefficient increased from 0.542 in 1990 to 0.558 in 2009. A typical example of income polarization can be found in Nairobi, which features a Gini coefficient of 0.59, whereby the richest 10 per cent in the city account for 45.2 per cent of income while the poorest 10 per cent account for just 1.6 per cent. Source: WHO/UNICEF (2010); International Energy Agency (2010); International Road Federation (2009); ITU World Telecommunication / ICT Indicators Database (2010). Figure 2.4.1 * Gini coefficient based on consumption Equity and the Prosperity of Cities 85 their local development strategies are better placed for enhanced prosperity. Equity reduces alienation and exclusion, paving the way for empowerment and engagement of all social groups, and for the realization of the full potential of the entire population. Indeed, cities that have removed impediments to the full engagement of women, youths and even the elderly have invariably enhanced overall prosperity. Equity is not simply a normative concern, related to issues of fairness and justice, important as these may be. It is a material factor which directly impinges on the process of social and material sustenance. In fact, through removal of ‘unfreedoms’, and with the attendant broadening of choices and opportunities, equity enhances the city’s transformative capacity while also promoting identity and agency among the population. The social process that comes with the opportunities made available to all through public goods, such as quality education and skills, enables the population to remain engaged and to stake a claim on the city. In this respect, the way a city shapes, and is in turn shaped by, its population, will largely depend on whether urban systems provide all residents with equal opportunities for development and the ability to exert agency. Inequity is inefficient from an economic perspective. As stressed by Sen, ‘the primitiveness of social developments (such as widespread illiteracy, malnutrition, lack of health facilities and medical networks) is a barrier to the full realization of the benefits of participatory growth and prosperity.’6 Remedies here include such public goods as political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency and security, with the safeguards against a variety of risks that they ensure for basic capabilities. POLICy When equity is embedded in urban development strategies, efficiency is enhanced, asset utilization becomes optimal, productivity improves and social cohesion is strengthened. POLICy Promoting equity must be a dual endeavour: (i) providing the conditions that enable every individual and social group to realize their full potential and harness the collective benefits and opportunities any city has to offer; and (ii) removing any systemic barriers that discriminate against any individual or social group. Kibera, Nairobi: Looking out ... access to good education is one way out the slum. © Eduardo Lopez Moreno State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 86 THE RISkS oF UNCHALLENgED DIvISIoN A growing body of research connects the competitiveness of cities with social cohesion. Analysis increasingly links the importance of tackling inequality at earlier stages of development to the achievement of prosperity. Reducing inequality and poverty has been highlighted as a key aspect of urban quality of life. A UNICEF study on poverty reduction mentioned that ‘evidence from India, China and Brazil indicates very clearly that efforts to ease inequalities generate larger dividends for poverty reduction than a more conventional focus on economic growth’.11 An OECD study has reached similar conclusions: the notion of social cohesion includes dimensions of social relationships, social inclusiveness and social equity, which are major components of broader-defined prosperity. ‘The key idea that has emerged to link these concerns is that social cohesion improves economic performance. This is a more positive way of saying that social division and fragmentation undermine long-term economic success’.12 However, the absence of social cohesion, particularly in the form of equity, not only challenges economic success: it also jeopardizes prosperity as a whole through the multidimensional, and far-reaching consequences which inequity spreads throughout urban society. UN-Habitat analysis (2010) of urban inequality in 47 developing countries challenged the notion that inequity is an acceptable, inevitable aspect of economic growth.13 Recently, OECD experts agreed that economic growth and equality were by no means contradictory variables but instead can, and arguably should, act in a complementary way, stressing that ‘researchers are increasingly finding that regions marked by higher levels of inequality, in fact, find their economic performance damaged.’14 The statement that ‘more equal cities are more prosperous cities’ is increasingly supported by evidence, and has become a development proposition. Without elaborating on the moral principle that inequality is inherently unacceptable, it would appear that when certain groups of people are repeatedly and disproportionately refrained from taking their fair, full share of the More and more empirical data suggests a strong connection between equity and economic prosperity, with equity being a cause, not a result, of economic prosperity. Spatial divisions exacerbate inequality Spatial inequalities are not only a forerunner of social and economic divisions; these in turn cause further inequalities and different forms of exclusion and marginalization. In Jordan’s capital, for instance, 97 per cent of households in Western Amman have computers while in Eastern Amman the proportion is no more than eight per cent. Not surprisingly, in Western Amman more than 50 per cent of males and 20 per cent of females earn more than US$1,400 monthly, compared with only two per cent for males and less than one per cent for females in Eastern Amman.7 The urban divide appears to widen with higher degrees of economic prosperity; at least this is the perception of populations and local experts. In Bangalore, where specialization in computer technologies has brought a fair amount of economic prosperity, a local expert remarked that ‘while quality of life is comfortable for “elite Bangalore”, it is not so for the “other Bangalore” which comprises the majority of the population’.8 In São Paulo, even as municipal authorities strive to integrate favelas, informal settlements and rehabilitated urban neighbourhoods into a more inclusive city, wealthy Paulistanos resist the process and gravitate to more exclusive enclaves. The result is what has been dubbed a ‘city of walls’ where any visible prosperity appears to be largely monopolized by the wealthy. In Lusaka, a local expert reports that ‘increasing degrees of exclusion are reappearing in the city, especially with the new infrastructure under development. Segregation along racial lines is re-emerging.’9 In Dubai, as in some other Gulf cities, the gap between nationals and non- nationals (access to schooling, public hospitals, health insurance, adequate and affordable housing, labour grievances and rights) is unequal in the extreme. Research shows that when combined, the physical and social divisions between rich and poor neighbourhoods can generate further exclusion and marginalization, especially when the poor are confined to farther neighbourhoods with inadequate accessibility. The underprivileged people living in these ‘lost’ areas suffer from a triple jeopardy: long distances, high transport costs and excessive commuting times. This turns into a genuine ‘spatial poverty trap’ that conspires against shared prosperity through restrictions on jobs, compounding gender differences, limiting social interactions and reducing social capital, increasing the likelihood of crime and violence, with worsening living standards as a result.10 The spatial inequalities so visible in so many cities are also the outcome of broader and deeply entrenched processes of unplanned urban development, poor governance and institutionalized exclusion and marginalization of specific groups. Box 2.4.2 Equity and the Prosperity of Cities 87 multidimensional benefits of the ’urban advantage’, the foregoing statement comes with two interconnected corollaries. First: inequality can be linked to poor economic productivity, and experience shows that more sustainable urban economies are frequently associated with lower inequality. Second: persistent, ever-higher inequality carries direct risks. Stark disparities within cities have proven to be social detonators, as recent revolutions in the Arab world and social unrest in some cities in the developed world have vividly demonstrated. Take a city anywhere in the world that can boast sustained economic growth thanks to high productivity, adequate infrastructure, a high quality of life and environmental preservation: the more this prosperity is inequitably distributed, the more precarious it is bound to be. All five ‘spokes’ in the ‘prosperity wheel’ must be developed in a well-balanced way for a smoother ride on the path of sustainable, shared prosperity. The recent society-wide upheavals in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt did not occur against a background of extreme poverty or deprivation. In all three countries, national poverty reduction programmes had gained considerable traction. Slum improvement or eradication had been achieved or was on-going. Large infrastructure projects with adequate transport networks had been deployed or were underway and, in terms of education and health, achievements were approaching or surpassing national Millennium Development Goals. Still, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia were shown to have feet of clay. The sobering message from the Arab Spring, though still in a state of flux, is that leaders and societies ignore inequality at their own peril. A recent report on the East African Community has highlighted a number of remarkable achievements in terms of economic growth over the past decade, propelled by massive increases in trade based on new, all-weather roads and uptake of mobile telephone technology. Still, the actual number of East Africans living below the poverty line has increased from 44 million to 53 million, and income inequality indicators, as measured by Gini coefficients, have also worsened in most countries.15 As a regional expert put it, ‘The reason for this is that inequality is both deepening and widening. Fewer people are enjoying the benefits of economic growth.’16 Inequality and criminality appear to be part and parcel of the same equation. This is all the more so when lack of opportunities and rising unemployment are added to the balance. Perceptions of rising criminality, and the fears thereof, may be strong in cities characterised by high inequity, and even stronger than numbers actually state. In one poll, comparing perceptions and expert opinion in São Paulo and London, criminality emerged as a major concern in both cities, even though actual numbers in São Paulo were a multiple of London’s.17 In the same survey, residents of cities as diverse as Mumbai, Chicago, Cairo, London, Paris, Beijing and São Paulo overwhelmingly agreed (89 per cent) that “a non-dangerous city” was their prime criterion for the ‘good urban life’, a notion that has much to do with prosperity. LINkINg EQUITy To pRoSpERITy ‘Inequalities are increasing day after day’, according to a local expert in Hyderabad. This comment echoes findings from the United Nations General Assembly 2011 Report on Progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which stressed that ‘despite advances towards achieving the MDGs, insufficient emphasis in the MDG agenda had been given to the issue of inequity which is increasing within and between countries.’18 Even in those countries that have made progress towards the MDGs, inequalities have grown. Therefore, as suggested by the UN General Assembly, equity must be mainstreamed in the development agenda, based on more inclusive growth. Evidence showing that equity is a critical dimension of prosperity runs against the conventional development approaches that prevailed before the 2008–09 global financial crisis. A particular case in point is the ‘Washington Consensus’, which reinforced the notion that economic growth is to take place first before equity POLICy If left unaddressed, socioeconomic fragmentation can jeopardize urban prosperity and pose major risks to nationwide political stability. When prosperity remains an elusive proposition for a majority of the population, the prospects of social unrest or full-blown conflicts increase, since the majority’s claims are nothing but demands for effective human dignity. POLICy Cities should pay more attention to inequity as a critical factor affecting prosperity. Deliberate and conscious policies need to emphasize the importance of equity in urban decision- making. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 88 issues can be addressed. Although the Consensus promoted pro-poor growth and the provision of primary education along with primary health and infrastructure development, it was based on the premise that poorer sections of society benefit from whatever ‘trickles down’ the economic and social pyramid, in an environment of free enterprise and deregulation. The dramatic collapse of the banking system in major Western countries in 2008 and the subsequent world economic crisis has seriously discredited the Consensus approach. Ample evidence suggests that structures and institutions are skewed in favour of dominant groups in society. These groups may legally or otherwise maximize their own benefits, not by chance but by design, and perpetuate and enhance conditions that further benefit themselves or their socio-political class. This is particularly true in cities with poor governance arrangements, weak institutions and non- existing or ineffective planning structures − in other words, in cities where the ‘hub’ of the wheel of prosperity is not properly working and fails to steer growth and development in a more equitable manner. The UN-Habitat survey on urban prosperity in developing regions has highlighted corruption as the greatest barrier to equity, followed by weak civil society (with its role in rights advocacy) (Figure 2.4.2). This is the case in Lahore, Bangalore, Amman and Beirut. In the survey, local experts also cited poor governance, lack of political will and structural barriers to pro-equity policies as other significant hindrances to equity. Far from being a historic or inevitable phenomenon, urban inequality in this perspective is understood to be the result of deliberate negligence, structural obstacles and weak capacities to counter prevailing conditions. FoSTERINg SoCIAL INCLUSIoN Unequal income and unequal opportunities are the two main underlying factors of urban inequity. They derive from biases in distribution at national level as well as dysfunctions at the local urban level. In this sense, inequity Factors restricting the scope of greater urban equity 4.5 3.5 4.0 1.5 0.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 0 Inef�cient and ineffective government Lack of democracy Lack of interest from ruling elites Lack of funds Public institutions controlled by ruling elite Weak civil society to claim or defend rights Historic patterns of inequality Corruption Discriminatory practices Africa Asia LAC Arab States All regions ranking Source: Un-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.4.2 POLICy More equitable cities have greater chances to be more prosperous; but prosperity does not happen all by itself, or as a logical consequence of economic growth. The impact of inequity has been overlooked in conventional economic and development theory. Equity and the Prosperity of Cities 89 reveals a differentiation in the manner in which resources are allocated and facilities and services accessed. The main driver of inequity often tends to be differential access to employment as well as to public goods and services. Inequity in this respect reflects biases in the economic realm which effectively concentrate a disproportionate share of resources, services and opportunities in the hands of certain groups or individuals. A common response is the consolidation of redistributive programmes, mainly in the area of social welfare. In developing countries, this has been complemented with the design of local economic development initiatives as well as poverty alleviation measures. However, it has become increasingly evident that beyond dysfunctions in the distributive systems, in both developed and developing countries, some systemic barriers sustain outright discrimination and alienation. Transcending poverty and deprivation, social inclusion as both a process and an outcome entails the removal of barriers to access to goods, services and opportunities as well as the improvement of wellbeing and self-fulfilment. This goes to show that social inclusion is not just reactive; rather, it recognizes the importance of differences and diversity, and harnesses the commonality of lived and shared experiences to achieve positive societal ends. To a substantial degree, the urban protest movements that were referred to earlier in this Report have been about social inclusion (Chapter 1, Part 1). The rallying cry, ‘We are the 99 per cent’, is more of a reaction to exclusion and alienation than a protest against poverty or deprivation. Whereas equity in its primarily economic dimension is driven by ‘macro’ and national policies, most interventions in favour of social inclusion take place at the local level. Therefore, urban authorities have a major role to play when it comes to making shared prosperity a reality within their jurisdictions. In European cities an abundance of initiatives have been introduced to promote social inclusion, and their benefits seem to have registered in the UN-Habitat ‘Urban Prosperity Index’. For example, the ‘Cities Against Social Exclusion’ (CASE) programme illustrates the concerted efforts at local and regional levels to share experiences and improve local action among a network of European cities. Typical interventions, such as in Stockholm, include removal of barriers to full engagement of women, youths, the homeless, the elderly and the disabled. In Vienna, an elaborate action plan involves systems for non- discrimination at all levels, improved political and social participation of all minority groups including migrants, and measurable monitoring of social diversity and integration. As Vienna’s mayor once put it, ‘Social cohesion and a climate of respect are particularly important at a time when we all face new challenges. Good neighbourly relations cannot be enacted by law. The people who live in Vienna need to come to an understanding and formulate mutually acceptable solutions.’19 Similar noteworthy experiences are emerging in developing countries where Medellín, Dar es Salaam and Kigali, for instance, have found effective ways of enhancing prosperity based on relatively lower productivity, infrastructural development and quality of life. Medellín has resorted to civic architecture and public spaces to further inclusiveness and the empowerment of otherwise marginalized social groups. Such groups benefit from expanded public facilities as infrastructure reaches out to them, improving not just their sense of well-being but also their capacity fully to engage with the urban fabric. In Dar es Salaam, a conscientious plan for socially mixed neighbourhoods has brought more inclusion both in space and in social relations. In Kigali, innovative measures aim to consolidate reconciliation and integration as part of the post-genocide reconstruction process. pLACINg EQUITy oN THE DEvELopMENT AgENDA UN-Habitat policy analysis shows that in most developed countries, concerns for socioeconomic equity are typically built into concerted actions from local and national governments. This will usually result in urban policies promoting inclusion, diversity, multi-ethnicity, affirmative Equity is also about social and political relations among urban populations as well as among government institutions and individuals and social groups. It is the relational dimension which underlies the degree to which a city operates and sustains as a collective entity. POLICy Cities willing to embrace shared prosperity must also look beyond equity to ensure the promotion of social inclusion as a whole. POLICy At the city level, social inclusion provides an environment where individuals and social groups feel they belong to the larger whole, have access to ‘commons’ and are free fully to engage in collective affairs. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 90 Medellín, Colombia: children enjoy education at a junior school. © Jez Coulson/Panos Pictures Equity and the Prosperity of Cities 91 action, positive discrimination and pro-poor planning. This in turn can take the form of wide-ranging programmes and actions, from strategic positioning of educational and recreational centres to low-cost housing to quota systems to encourage minority engagement in local politics and representation, as well as targeted subsidies and financial support for new businesses. Similar policies and dedicated institutions are found at the municipal level in most developed countries and in some emerging economies. Local experts in the UN-Habitat survey believe that equity is primarily the responsibility of public authorities; where a failure of political will, or indifference, are to blame for deficient, or total lack of, effective policy. Such failure can be identified at national or local level. In the survey, local experts in Nairobi, Luanda, Kuwait City, Lahore, Lima, Fort-de-France, Erbil and Saida felt that national governments showed little concern for inequity whereas local experts in Alexandria, Algiers, Hyderabad, Guadalajara, Panama City, Beirut and Doha report that it is local policy-makers who show little concern for equity. Elsewhere, local experts report that some cities prioritize equity in planning and policy strategies. Figure 2.4.3 summarizes the types of action they use. In African and Asian cities in the UN-Habitat survey, pro-poor vocational training and skills programmes are emphasized, with some projects explicitly targeting the poor and marginalized. Singapore offers a clear example of repeated commitment by the government to education and training for all in an environment that promotes productivity and social mobility. In Ho Chi Minh City, government-led promotion of the high-tech (IT) and service sectors offers widespread Institutions are not fully contributing to equity. Rulers lack interest and ineffective governments are hampering the potential for more equitable cities. POLICy Addressing inequities requires political will, strong institutions and well- targeted policies. Most notable policy or action the city is implementing to be more equitable 40 35 15 5 25 30 20 10 0 Cash transfers and other forms of �nancial support for disadvantaged groups Other Financial incentives for the urban poor None Speci�c projects targeting the poor & marginalized Vocational education and training to enable skills development Easier access to employment and opportunities New rules and regulations to promote equitable development Africa Asia LAC Arab States All regions per cent Source: Un-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.4.3 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 92 new opportunities for communities to switch away from conventional manual labour.20 In Africa, Addis Ababa’s Micro and Small Enterprises Development Strategy targets the unemployed.21 Johannesburg enhances the skills of poor communities, expanding access to education and training. In Latin American and Caribbean countries, some experts cited cash transfers and other financial assistance in support of marginalized groups, such as Brazil’s ‘Bolsa Familia’ and Mexico’s ‘Oportunidades’ programme. In Arab cities, local experts found that new rules and regulations did promote equitable development. Endnotes 1 World Bank, 2006. 2 Gewirth, 1996. 3 OECD, 2011. 4 Ibid. 5 UN-Habitat, 2010a 6 Sen, 1999. 7 Shabou et al, 2011. 8 Belliapa, 2011. 9 Hampwaye and Nehito, 2011. 10 UN-Habitat, 2010a. 11 UNICEF, 2010. 12 Turok, 2006. 13 UN-Habitat, 2010a; UN-Habitat, 2008. 14 OECD, 2006. 15 Society for International Development (SID), 2012. 16 SID Programme director Aidan Eyakuze as quoted in the The East African [Mungai, C. (2012) ‘East Africa Region’s Economy Expands Amid Deepening Levels of Poverty and Malnutrition’ in The East African, April 7, http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/ A+richer+East+African+Community+with+more+poor+people/-/2558/1381658/-/ v2nkg7/-/index.html] 17 Urban Age, 2009. 18 United Nations General Assembly, 2011. 19 Vienna City Administration (n.d) Vienna Charter. Shaping the Future Together, http:// www.wien.gv.at/english/living-working/vienna-charter.html 20 Dzung, 2011. 21 Admassie, 2011. 22 UNDP, 2009. Making progress on the equity agenda Today, some cities and national governments in the developing world are beginning to prioritize equity through concerted actions. They understand that working together maximizes their possibilities to make positive changes in the living conditions of the urban poor. They also understand that equity is a fundamental aspect of prosperity. Their interventions are closely linked to pro-poor programmes such as: in Alexandria, the Social Fund for Development, which focuses on small- and medium-size businesses; in Gaziantep, the Social Solidarity Fund whose cash transfers are conditional on children being sent to school; in Lahore, the Benazir Income Support Programme; in Shenzhen, social equity policies have brought large numbers of migrant workers and vulnerable groups into the city’s social housing and welfare system; in Ho Chi Minh City, the ‘Doimoi’ reform process has reduced inequalities in Vietnam’s capital. Cities are also allocating funds and introducing local programmes to promote equity. Some of these interventions are becoming best practices and good examples that are inspiring other cities, and sometimes national governments. Authorities in Chongqing have made social equity a primary goal. Priority public rental housing programmes have improved conditions and rural migrant workers’ rights are better protected. In Beirut, vulnerable groups are targeted for special social support as part of a scheme that has significantly reduced homelessness and the number of people (10 per cent in 2009) below the National Poverty line.22 Faced with very steep income inequality (with Gini coefficients as high as 0.75 in 2005), Johannesburg is responding with pro-poor policies including ‘Cash Social Grants’. Singapore integrates equity in national development policies and urban planning. According to a local expert, ‘There is room for upward social mobility among the poor and lower-middle class people through adequate opportunities for all in education and the job market’. Box 2.4.3 POLICy There is no substitute for government leadership to address issues of equity. Civil society’s complementary role is in advocacy and support. 93 Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities The prosperity and environmental sustainability of cities are inextricably linked. Urban areas consume huge amounts of environmental goods and services like food, water, energy, forestry, building materials, and ‘green’ or open spaces often beyond their boundaries. This undermines the assimilative capacity of the natural environment around urban areas.1 For example, the cities of the world generate over 720 billion tons of wastes every year, but in developing regions, even in large, presumably more affluent cities, only 25 to 55 per cent of wastes are collected.2 Demographic and spatial expansion can be so rapid as to outstrip the capacity of cities to provide basic amenities − housing, water and sanitation, etc. − resulting in poor urban conditions.3 A key message is that prosperous cities can operate efficiently and productively without necessarily damaging the environment.4 This is possible only when environmental and social objectives are fully integrated in a city’s overall economic goals for the purposes of a sustainable environment.5 This implies that there is no trade- off between any city’s environmental sustainability and their economic growth and prosperity. Environmental sustainability is central to the qualitative changes necessary to transform cities and urban lives, particularly the lives of the urban poor. This is due to the fact that environmentally sustainable cities are vibrant, and such cities are more likely to attract the skills and entrepreneurship essential for growth and prosperity, which are necessary to solving urban problems and challenges. However, this will require new arrangements – institutions, technology, financial mechanism, innovative and flexible urban planning process; and above all, tacit commitments and political will to formulate and implement appropriate strategies and policies to drive environmental sustainability, hence prosperity in cities. ENvIRoNMENTAL SUSTAINABILITy IN CITIES It is generally assumed that any country can preserve the environment while maintaining economic growth.7 However, a degree of commitment is required from all stakeholders, particularly at local level, if sustainable development is to be achieved.8 This is in line with the principles of Local Agenda 21, where cities are perceived as both sources and solutions to environmental problems.9 It is incumbent on cities and their municipal authorities to deploy and maintain local socioeconomic and environmental infrastructures, preside over local planning processes, and formulate and implement environmental policies.10 A concern for the public interest and shared prosperity will help mobilize the whole population in favour Chapter 2.5 POLICy Cities can be sources of environmental problems within and beyond their jurisdictions, but they are also best placed to provide most of the solutions. Environmentally sustainable cities are able to strike a healthy balance between economic growth and environmental preservation, in the process facilitating both prosperity and resilience, including to climate change.6 Environmentally sustainable cities are likely to be more productive, competitive, innovative and prosperous, which contributes to enhanced quality of life and well- being of the population. © Edwina Sassoon/fotoLIBRA.com State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 94 of the many minor changes in individual lifestyles, routines and behaviour that can bring about more sustainable living conditions for all. Participatory governance obviously has a major role to play in this respect, in addition to strengthening the resolve and commitment that are required of urban authorities when faced with the challenge of a sustainable environment.11 Nowhere are the commitments of cities to environmental sustainability more vital than in developing countries, where urban demographics are growing rapidly. This underscores the need for growth and prosperity to sustain and fulfil basic needs. Vitally important as economic growth may be, it cannot bring about shared prosperity if it does not go hand in hand with a sustainable environment. AFRICAN CITIES Higher oil and commodity prices have enabled Africa’s rate of economic growth to outpace the global average over the past decade. Real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) GDP growth has remained steady, particularly south of the Sahara, where it is expected to continue at an annual rate of at least five per cent.14 However, an overwhelming majority of local experts believe that economic development and related urban activities have unintended effects on the environment in cities such as Nairobi, Lusaka, Praia, Algiers, Dar es Salaam, Ibadan, Accra, Luanda or Lagos. Perceptions are that so far, these cities have been unable to match sustained economic and demographic growth with corresponding expansion in infrastructures and services, with consequent detrimental effects on the natural environment. In Nairobi, for example, local experts point to extensive pollution of the Nairobi River, not just by industrial effluents but also solid waste.15 Traffic congestion is also mentioned as a major environmental problem, and apart from the attendant air pollution, the cost to the local economy is enormous.16 Similar opinions are held by experts in Lusaka, Accra, Algiers, Lagos, Ibadan and Luanda, where rapid urban sprawl and uncontrolled spatial development combine with poor infrastructures and weak regulatory frameworks to undermine quality of life and, more generally, prosperity in their respective cities. In Praia (Cape Verde), experts point to the inability of infrastructure and services to keep pace with economic growth, particularly inadequate and poor quality housing, as well as proliferating informal settlements. In Accra, the benefits of economic growth (four per cent on an annual average rate) have not been brought to bear on rapid urbanization in the form of new infrastructures and services; these indeed have kept lagging behind, with the collapse of sanitary systems a serious environmental concern.17 In Dar es Salaam and Beira (Mozambique), local experts also point to the impacts of economic growth, with unsatisfied demand for urban services – housing, water, waste management and Solar panel assembly at a Suntech factory in Wuxi, China. A high percentage of China's homes use solar-heated water. © Qilai Shen/Panos Pictures In Europe, many cities stand at the forefront of initiatives in favour of environmental sustainability,12 as they keep developing and implementing various policies and strategies.13 POLICy When pursued in an environmentally sustainable manner, economic development and related urban activities are sure to enhance any city’s prosperity. In the majority of African cities surveyed,local experts report that economic development and related urban activities have detrimental effects on the natural environment, due to the fact that sustainability concerns are overlooked by policy-makers. Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities 95 electricity – exacerbating existing problems of informal settlements and urban sprawl. Solid waste management, in particular, is a serious problem,18 including hazardous wastes in the case of Dar es Salaam.19 In 10 of the 14 African cities surveyed for this Report, a large majority of experts perceive a mismatch between economic growth and urban expansion, on the one hand, and environmental preservation on the other hand. In the four remaining African cities in the sample, this view is shared only by a minority of local experts. This comes as no surprise, since these cities seriously pursue environmental sustainability as a matter of policy. This is not to suggest that these concerns are not shared in the other 10 cities, but rather that Johannesburg,20 Beira,21 Alexandria22 and Gaborone23 have deployed relatively effective and comprehensive policies in this respect; these include holistic urban management and governance policies combined with appropriate institutional arrangements. Johannesburg’s case is instructive, and has the most holistic approach to urban environmental sustainability in the region. South Africa’s economic capital has been systematically promoting the creation and preservation of open spaces, pursuing energy efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gases, and promoting solar energy, energy- saving bulbs and insulation as part of a retrofitting scheme. Above all, the city promotes sustainable building design and construction through a comprehensive set of planning regulations, whereby a sustainable approach must pervade all planning stages.24 At the same time, Johannesburg faces all the problems associated with inequality of access and urban opportunities – with 35 to 40 per cent of the population living in poverty.25 In other cities – Accra, Praia, Alexandria and Luanda – the majority of experts report both the serious detrimental effects of economic growth on the environment and a scarcity of environmental policies, but at the same time highlight the huge benefits these policies have brought to the urban population. Accra provides a good illustration of these disproportionate effects, with local experts noting that the environment has been improved by the distribution of energy-efficient electric bulbs to households and commercial facilities, as well as the introduction of waste recycling facilities to tackle the menace of solid wastes, particularly plastics.26 The case of Alexandria is also instructive, and shows that with effective use of the little capacity available to cities, significant improvements can be made to the urban environment. For instance, cooperation between all stakeholders and more systematic inspection of industrial and tourist facilities (regarding effluents discharge into the environment) have significantly improved water quality in Alexandria.27 Environmental impact of growth as perceived by local experts – African cities per cent Na iro bi Lu sa ka Pr aia Alg ier s Da r e s S ala am Iba da n Ac cra Lu an da La go s Ad dis Ab ab a Ga bo ron e Ale xa nd ria Be ira Jo ha nn es bu rg All Sa mp led Af ric an Ci tie s 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.5.1 Johannesburg’s approach to environmental sustainability appears to be the most comprehensive and holistic of all African cities. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 96 ASIAN CITIES Asian cities demonstrate the classic Environmental Kuznets Curve scenario where the initial stage of economic development sees environmental quality deteriorate before improving markedly as a certain income level is reached.28 In practice, polluting heavy and natural resource-intensive industries predominate at the early stages of development. Subsequently, the benefits of economic growth enable industries to deploy less polluting, more resource-efficient technologies. This may explain why, apart from those in Arab States, Asian cities are where the UN-Habitat survey found the lowest numbers of experts claiming that economic development and related urban activities were detrimental to the environment. However, the local expert survey reveals differences across cities. For instance, economic growth is not perceived to have been matched by adequate infrastructure and services in Ho Chi Minh City, Bangalore, Lahore, and Hyderabad. In Lahore, experts point to ground water pollution, extensive air pollution, traffic congestion and urban sprawl as major effects of economic development and urban activities on the environment, which are compounded by inadequate capacity and weak institutions.29 Similarly in Bangalore, experts point to poor air quality, depletion of ground water tables and fast receding lakes as indicative of the environmental consequences of economic development and related urban activities.30 These perceptions contrast with those of local experts in Singapore, Gaziantep (Turkey) and Shenzhen, where very few local experts view economic growth and urban activities as detrimental to the environment (Figure 2.5.2). What can be deduced from the perception of experts across Asian cities, just as in the case of Africa, is that cities with policies that promote environmental sustainability are better able to manage the adverse impacts of growth and related urban activities on the environment. In Asia, close to two-thirds of local experts report that this type of policy is at work in their respective cities, especially in Singapore and Ho Chi Minh City. In Asia, close to two-thirds of the experts are of the opinions that cities across the region have policies promoting environmental sustainability. In Singapore and Ho Chi Minh City all local experts believe their respective cities have policies promoting environmental sustainability. Experts in Singapore point to the strong commitment of the city-State to environmental sustainability. This Environmental impact of growth as perceived by local experts – Asian cities per cent Ho Ch i Mi nh Ci ty Ba ng alo re La ho re Hy de rab ad Da va o Ce bu Ga zia nte p Sh en ze n Sin ga po re All Sa mp led As ian Ci tie s 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.5.2 POLICy When cities promote environmental sustainability as a matter of policy, they are able to cushion the unintended effects of economic development and urban activities. POLICy Environmentally sustainable cities are more compact, energy- efficient, cleaner and less polluted, more accessible, and offer better transport choices. Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities 97 involves an awareness campaign with public authorities working with institutions and grassroots leaders to reach out to the population – with tangible benefits in terms of living standards and prosperity. The ‘compact city’ initiative favours density and facilitates mass transit, while another initiative promotes walking. As many as 58 per cent of solid wastes are recycled, another 40 per cent produce energy through incineration, and the remaining two per cent goes to a purpose-built off-shore sanitary landfill. The city-State’s integrated water management system has allowed it to meet 30 per cent of water needs through water harvesting – with an ambitious plan to increase this to 40 per cent by 2020.31 CITIES IN ARAB STATES Across Arab States, only one-third of local experts consider that economic development and related urban activities have unintended detrimental effects on the environment (Figure 2.5.3). This observation differs markedly from the perception of experts in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and may be explained by the economic structure of the region that is heavily dependent on crude oil exports, an activity that, unlike industrial manufacturing, leaves a relatively small ecological footprint in cities, especially where crude oil export processing is kept to a minimum. However, this favourable overall average conceals sharp differences across cities. Experts that view economic development and related urban activities as having detrimental effects on the environment are an overwhelming majority in Beirut, and 50 per cent in Kuwait City, Shiraz, and Muharrak (Bahrain). The first three of these cities are characterized by relatively large populations and intense economic activity. In Beirut, local experts see a direct link between rapid urban expansion and environmental problems, with one describing the city as ‘a metaphor for brutal real estate speculation’, with attendant noise pollution and traffic congestion.32 Similarly in Kuwait City, local experts point to the construction boom associated with economic growth and urban expansion. As noted by one, this double boom has placed ‘acute pressures on road networks, with traffic becoming a nightmare’.33 However, in Iraq, experts in Basra link environmental problems to the vestiges of war, including ordnance with spent uranium which, combined with particulates and fumes from generators and oil installations, pose serious environmental problems.34 Some cities are promoting environmental sustainability as a matter of policy. This is the case in Doha, Aqaba and Dubai, according to a Environmental impact of growth as perceived by local experts – Arab cities per cent Be iru t Ku wa it C ity Mu ha rra k Sh ira z Am ma n Ba sra Erb il Du ba i Do ha Aq ab a Sa ida All Sa mp led Ar ab Ci tie s 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.5.3 POLICy Across cities, urbanization and economic growth are inevitable; and if matched with appropriate and effective policies and governance, the environmental consequences are manageable. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 98 majority of local experts. Experts in Doha point to several environmental initiatives and policies jointly implemented by the government, municipalities and civil society. These include keeping the environment clean, energy saving initiatives, protection of wildlife areas, and ‘green’ and functional infrastructure policies. In Aqaba, local experts mention the sets of laws, by-laws and regulations for the preservation of natural resources and safeguard the highly sensitive marine ecosystem around the harbour.35 In Dubai, environmental sustainability policies include the Emirates’ Energy and Environment Rating and the Air Quality Management Systems, among other robust schemes and governance mechanisms.36 This is not the case in Saida (Lebanon), Basra and Beirut. In Beirut, ‘environmental concerns are rarely considered’, and this comes within the context of an absence of effective policies for urban planning regardless of pressing needs (e.g., traffic and waste management).37 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Latin America and the Caribbean is the region where a greater proportion of local experts believe that economic development and urban activities have (unintended) detrimental effects on the environment. Two distinct phenomena may be at play here: the region’s high rates of urban spatial expansion, and relatively high degrees of economic development. The consequences of economic development on the environment are considered as ‘serious’ or ‘very serious’ by most local experts in Guadalajara, Lima, Ciudad del Este (Paraguay), Medellín, La Paz and Valparaiso (Figure 2.5.4). Local experts in Guadalajara and Ciudad del Este mention urban sprawl and related phenomena, which put green and open spaces under pressure, with air pollution as the other major detrimental effect of economic activity on the environment. Heavy industry (cement and smelter plants) ranks among the more prominent culprits.38, 39 In Ciudad del Este, local experts instead point to pollution from landfills, as well as unplanned urban expansion, with the attending gradual deterioration of natural resources and contamination of streams and water supplies.40 Waste management is also perceived as a major problem in Valparaiso, where waste once collected is dumped in landfills by the waterfront, causing huge pollution, including release of effluents into the sea.41 In Medellín, experts point to the 224,000 tons of pollutants discharged annually into the atmosphere, of which 66 per cent are traceable to traffic in a city that keeps expanding rapidly in both surface area and population.42 In Santo Domingo, rapid urban sprawl and population expansion are fuelled by natural resource exploitation, and the two combine with weak institutions to compound environmental problems.43 In Lima, an overwhelming number of local experts concur that environmental sustainability has not been a priority in the management of the city. The few existing initiatives are largely uncoordinated, though all under the responsibility of the central rather than local government.44 As suggested earlier, the detrimental effect of urban socioeconomic development (and of urbanization more generally) on the environment is seriously compounded by inadequate engagement with sustainability, as indicated by an absence of effective policies or strategies, as well as relatively few opportunities for wider community participation therein. This finding is further reinforced by the fact that sustainable environmental policies have proved relatively effective in Fort-de-France, Havana and Venezuela’s Guarenas. In the case of Fort-de-France, from 2008 onwards, a determined mayor has taken action, challenging environmental misbehaviour, particularly with regard to solid waste, and vigourously enforcing environmental rules and regulations across all sectors (including households and businesses) through so-called ‘green’ brigades. On top of waste treatment plants, and recycling, the determined drive was supported by educational awareness programmes, daily and public monitoring and reporting of air quality, and promoting public participation in environmental decision-making.45 Similarly in Medellín, the municipality’s environmental department implements a variety of ‘sustainable’ policies with regard to noise pollution, global warming, water conservation and reforestation. A range of abatement targets and initiatives has been established. These include controls on greenhouse gas emissions and air quality, use of non-polluting fuels and waste treatment/ control systems, together with encouraging walking and cycling (dedicated paths). A range of targets have been set The overall picture in Latin American cities is one of inadequate commitment to environmental sustainability, owing to weak policies and strategies from public authorities. This leaves relatively few opportunities for wider participation in environmental policies, something that can further exacerbate the detrimental effects of economic development and urban activities on the natural environment. Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities 99 involving various greenhouse gas emission controls and air quality. As one local expert put it, ‘the municipality is awakening and educating people towards a more responsible environmental behaviour.’46 ENvIRoNMENTAL SUSTAINABILITy: A CATALyST FoR CITy pRoSpERITy Environmental sustainability offers cities huge scope for the balanced economic growth that is associated with prosperity. This includes opportunities for new types of employment and investment, poverty alleviation and reduced inequality, together with new types of infrastructures and services. All of these are significant socioeconomic aspects of urban prosperity, along with quality of life and equal access to urban opportunities. Therefore, the relevance of environmental sustainability to urban prosperity cannot be overstated. THE poTENTIAL FoR joBS AND INvESTMENT Unemployment is the bane of most cities and its impacts can dampen the growth and prosperity of cities. Job creation is a critical challenge for cities throughout the world. In rapidly growing and developing cities worldwide there is a continuous influx of new residents in search of full-time employment. Within slower growing (or shrinking) cities in Europe, North America, Japan and elsewhere, there is a need to maintain the existing employment base in the face of industrial restructuring, albeit taking advantage of the economic opportunities presented by environmental sustainability to replace obsolescent high-carbon processes and activities. The employment potential of environmental sustainability is huge, deriving mainly from wide ranges of climate-change mitigation and adaptation measures against the threat of the destructive effects of climate change: reducing demand for non-renewable resources, seeking renewable alternatives, recycling and reusing materials.47 On top of this, huge employment potentials are associated with the production and deployment of new technical systems: renewable energies, sustainable urban transportation, waste recycling, retrofitting old buildings, new sustainable buildings and infrastructures, and environmental services.48 POLICy Cities that are environmentally sustainable are likely to increase employment potential in terms of: substitution of renewable alternatives for non-renewable resources, recycling and reusing materials,49 production and installation of renewable energy systems, sustainable urban transport, waste recycling, retrofitting old buildings, construction of new sustainable buildings and infrastructures, and provision of environmental services.50 Environmental impact of grow thas perceived by local experts – Latin American and Caribbean cities per cent Gu ad ala jar a Lim a Es te Sa nto Do mi ng o Me de llín La Pa z Va lpa rai so Pa na ma Sa nto s Gu are na s Tij ua na Mo nte vid eo La Ha ba na Ro sa rio Fo rt- De -Fr an ce All Sa mp led LA C C itie s 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 2.5.4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 100 RENEWABLE ENERgIES The renewable energy sector – solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and bio-fuel – continues to attract huge investment. By 2010, a total US$243 billion had been committed to this sector worldwide;51 and this is projected to rise to US$630 billion by 2030, in the process creating as many as 20 million jobs.52 Although much of this has concentrated on developed countries, investment in renewable energies is beginning to materialize in the developing world as well.53 Around the world, about 300,000 workers are employed in the wind power sector alone, and another 100,000 in solar photovoltaic, while some 1.2 million jobs have already been created in the biomass sector in Brazil, China, Germany and the USA.54 In the UK, 250,000 people are already employed in the various renewable energy sectors estimated to be worth US$53 billion annually.55 While developed countries have the lion’s share of jobs in the sustainable sector around the world, huge opportunities are available to developing countries. India is looking to create no fewer than 100 million jobs in this sector within 10 years, most of which are expected to be in solar energy.56 In Nigeria, estimates show that a biofuel industry based on cassava and sugar cane crops could generate 200,000 jobs,57 significant proportions of which would be located in urban areas. South Africa reckons that 98,000 new ‘low carbon’ jobs are possible in the short term, and close to 717,000 in the medium to long term,58 to be split into recycling, solar energy and retrofitting of old buildings for energy efficiency. The potential contribution of environmental sustainability to urban prosperity seems to be dawning on urban decision-makers in developing countries. So much transpires from the UN-Habitat survey of local experts, as summarized in Table 2.5.1: where more than half of local experts in Asia, over 40 per cent in Arab States, and over one-third in Africa believe countries in their respective cities have programmes and practices that support the use of renewable energy. This affords huge opportunities to enhance economic growth and prosperity in these cities with no adverse impacts on urban environment, given the carbon neutrality of renewable energy sources. WASTE MANAgEMENT AND RECyCLINg Waste management provides cities with another major source of employment, and based on the experiences of developed countries, recycling offers huge investment and business opportunities.59 For example, in Copenhagen only three per cent of waste ends up in landfills, 32 per cent is recycled, while 39 per cent is converted into useful energy sufficient for 70,000 households.60 This also applies to cities in developing countries, where an estimated 15 million people are already involved in waste collecting and processing.61 In Bangladesh, 800,000 of the 3.5 million potential jobs associated with environmental sustainability are in recycling.62 Besides new jobs, waste management and recycling have also spawned technical innovations, leading to the creation of many specialized small- and medium-sized urban businesses in developing countries.63 In Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, a collection/recycling plastic waste project has improved environmental conditions, creating jobs and incomes for local people in either of these two activities. Environmental sustainability: extant policies, as perceived by local experts (per cent) Regions Support to renewable energy use New parks built in the last 5 years Encouraging use of recycling facilities Alternatives to motorized public transport Africa 33 31 25 41 Arab States 41 70 32 23 Asia 52 77 65 56 Latin America & Caribbean 22 60 33 27 All regions 36 58 39 37 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Table 2.5.1 POLICy Cities that Invest in renewable energy can generate more employment and income. Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities 101 On top of generating US$35,000 in incomes (in a country where average income per capita is US$300), the project has resulted in a cleaner environment in the suburbs.64 BUILDINgS Buildings anywhere in the world have major roles to play in environmental sustainability, including climate change mitigation. This is because of the disproportionate amounts of natural resources, energy waste and pollution involved in buildings. For instance, 60 per cent of the operational energy of a typical building goes to cooling and heating, 18 per cent to water heating, six per cent to refrigeration and three per cent to lighting. This is why buildings offer the greatest potential for reduced greenhouse emissions.65 Given this situation, two simultaneous avenues are available to cities, in developing as well as in developed countries: construction of new buildings to ‘green’ standards; and retrofitting existing buildings with energy-saving materials (a major source of additional employment creation). ‘Green’ construction standards are gaining ground mostly in highly urbanized developed countries. The USA already numbers over 40,000 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-accredited professionals involved in design, construction, operation or maintenance of energy-efficient buildings. In Australia, 900 professionals can boast a ‘Green Star’, and 1,197 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)-licensed assessors are at work in the United Kingdom.66 These numbers have been increasing and are projected to rise further as green building takes over a Dhaka, Bangladesh: in a factory producing Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) flakes, women sort plastic bottles collected from the streets. Bangladesh exports over 20,000 tons of PET flakes made in 3,000 factories across the country. The industry is worth GBP 7 million, and growing by 20% per annum. © G.M.B. Akash/Panos Pictures The construction industry has the largest potential to create ‘green’ jobs in urban areas. Building and construction together employ over 111 million worldwide, or an average five to 10 per cent of total employment in every country (75 per cent in developing countries, of which 90 per cent are micro-firms, i.e., those with fewer than 10 employees).67 POLICy Waste recycling and processing offer cities an immense source of employment, as well as investment and business opportunities. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 102 larger share of the construction market. In India, 1,500 professionals are already LEED-accredited. Developing countries need alternative strategies in the pursuit of ‘clean’ buildings. This is because they cannot afford the technological solutions at the core of ‘intelligent’ or energy-efficient buildings in developed countries. A more suitable strategy for these countries is the use of ‘passive’ technology that combines flexibility, accessible know-how and traditional knowledge through vernacular architectures adapted to local climatic conditions. Urban areas might want to consider combining such ‘passive’ methods with some features of modern technology taking advantage of their declining cost in recent years (solar photovoltaic/ thermal energy, water harvesting, etc.). URBAN TRANSpoRT In Europe, the average multiplier effect of investment in public transport is 2 to 2.5 jobs for every single direct job created, but the ratio can be as high as 4:1 in some cases. A survey of some 170 cities in the European Union found that 90 per cent of urban bus fleets are made up of inefficient, polluting vehicles.68 Less-polluting alternatives have been implemented in a number of cities in Europe, the USA, Canada and other developed countries using compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biodiesel or hybrids. Some developing countries have also introduced low-pollution public transportation systems, particularly in Brazil, but also in India, Colombia, Mexico and other emerging economies. Retrofitting not just old, polluting buses but also other vehicles used in urban transport will create jobs while reducing air pollution. Motorized two- and three-wheeled vehicles represent a widespread mode of public transport in many developing countries; in the Philippines, pilot projects suggest that retrofits of two-stroke engines cut fuel consumption by as much as 35 to 50 per cent, and emissions of air pollutants by as much as 90 per cent. In this case, retrofitting cuts operational costs on top of creating jobs through installation and maintenance of the kits.70 The bicycle industry also offers employment, but only in a few countries. The manufacture of bicycles is dominated by five producers: China, India, the European Union, Taiwan and Japan account for 87 per cent of global production. China alone produces more than half the world’s bicycles. Production of electric bicycles is booming, reaching about 12 million units in 2005. Almost all of them were manufactured in China.71 DRIvERS AND CApACITy-BUILDINg FoR ENvIRoNMENTAL SUSTAINABILITy Environmentally sustainable urban policies are driven by seven main factors. These include: availability of financial resources, human resources, appropriate technology, specialized institutions, access to information, adequate organizational arrangements, and supportive legal frameworks – none of which can be taken for granted in developing countries. Approximately one-third of local experts across all surveyed regions are of the view that mechanisms for coordination between city and national authorities regarding environmental sustainability are already in place (Table 2.5.2). Fewer than one-third report that cities are mobilizing investment to support sustainable resource use, or pulling their resources together in order to enhance environmental sustainability. These efforts can only go so far, it would seem, as experts simultaneously highlight the widespread problem of inadequate capacity. This refers not just to lack of finance, but also of effective arrangements to facilitate partnerships with stakeholders, together with weak institutional frameworks and poor urban governance structures.72 These conditions exercise drastically restraining effects on cities’ ability for effective mitigation and adaptation measures in the face of climate change. Similarly, cities and local authorities in developing countries may find it difficult to prioritize environmental sustainability issues and challenges over and above unemployment, poverty, housing shortages, infrastructures and services, especially where local political expediency demands this type of action. This underscores the need for cities to achieve growth and prosperity in order to build the capacity necessary to facilitate environmental sustainability but this requires cities to be innovative and inventive in dealing with historic urban environmental problems while shaping an environmentally sustainable future. This situation highlights the fact that the twin dynamics of sustainability and economic prosperity are inevitably subject to a number of structural constraints that are specific to each and every urban area regardless of size. Public transport jobs account for one to two per cent of total employment in many countries. In Europe and the USA, some 30 jobs are created for every US$1.4 million invested in public transport infrastructure, and another 57 in transport operations proper.69 Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities 103 Cities are best able to combine sustainability and shared prosperity through effective urban governance and transformational leadership. This type of leadership recognizes the complex interactions between urbanization and the environment at the local, regional, and global levels. The next step is to put in place appropriate institutions and build the institutional building capacities required for environmentally sustainable urban systems including transport, energy, waste management, rehabilitation of the built and natural environments, and management of ecosystem services. The linkages and interactions between the environment and the other four dimensions of prosperity – productivity, infrastructure, equity and quality of life – must be recognized in policy- and decision- making. Mainstreaming environmental concerns into those four other policy dimensions can go a long way towards enhanced sustainability, and urban planning has a major role to play. So have adequate human and financial capacities. Cities should seek financial and technical assistance from multilateral and unilateral organizations in order to build and enhance their capacities for environmental sustainability. For example, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which is an independently operating financial organization, brings together 182 governments in partnership with international and non-governmental organizations, along with the private sector.73 The GEF provides grants to developing and transition countries for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. These projects benefit the global environment, linking local, national, and global challenges and promoting sustainable livelihoods. So Drivers of environmental sustainability in cities, as perceived by local experts (per cent) Region Mechanism for coordination between local and national authorities concerning sustainability Leveraging investments to support sustainable resource use and lower greenhouse gas emissions Municipalities in same city/ region combining resources & partnering together for enhanced environmental sustainability Africa 31 20 20 Arab States 37 35 35 Asia 48 49 48 Latin America & Caribbean 26 18 20 All Regions 34 29 29 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Table 2.5.2 Kuwait City: the construction industry offers 'green' potential. © 2012 Wael Hamdan/fotoLIBRA.com State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 104 far, the GEF has allocated a total US$9.2 billion, leveraging more than US$40 billion in complementary co-financing, for more than 2,700 projects in more than 165 countries. Through its Small Grants Programme, the GEF has also made more than 12,000 direct allocations to non-governmental and community organizations, for a total US$495 million. Across all developing regions, local experts confirm the importance of capacity-building and resource availability at local level as crucial for implementing environmental sustainability policies and programmes. Capacity-building comprises human, scientific, technological, organizational, and institutional resources and capabilities.74 Experts highlight an absence of financial and institutional capacities as a major problem (Table 2.5.3); this may be the reason that, according to an overwhelming majority, no efficient systems are in place in their respective cities to monitor environmental sustainability or develop effective local transport policies. This is an indication of the challenges facing cities. However, more than half of the local experts are of the view that their cities are integrating environmental protection plans and concerns into policies and strategies. The need for adequate capacity is further underscored by the fact that whereas environmental sustainability is widely recognized as essential, local authorities, when faced with competing demands and budget constraints, consider it to be the least of priorities.75 This has implications for cities, especially given the role they must play in local environmental issues, including when it comes to responding to the needs of the population at a time when the need for environmental preservation is gaining more recognition in public opinion.76 Nevertheless, cities need not wait until full capacity is built before adopting and implementing adequate environmental policies and strategies: indeed, in many cases cities have managed to enhance overall quality of life despite modest financial and institutional capacities – every environmental sustainable effort, no matter how small, will count. Appropriate governance structures, which recognize the capacity of individuals and civil society to deliver, will encourage wider participation in environmental sustainability strategies and policies. As might be expected, Asia and the Arab States appear to be best placed, in terms of financial and institutional capacities to deal with environmental concerns and bring about more sustainable urban environments. Cities with the capacity to implement environmental sustainability programmes, as perceived by local experts (per cent) Region Cities with financial & institutional capacity Integration of environmental protection concerns into policies and strategies Efficient monitoring system for environmental sustainability Cities with local environmental transport policy Cities making progress towards more sustainable urban environment Africa 22 48 17 9 36 Arab States 60 46 37 8 4 Asia 64 65 45 31 70 Latin America & Caribbean 24 47 21 8 46 All regions 39 51 28 36 43 Source: UN-Habitat, City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Table 2.5.3 POLICy Environmental sustainability requires capacity-building and resource availability at the local level. POLICy Cities should build those financial and other institutions required to achieve environmental sustainability, without which economic growth will fall short of ensuring shared prosperity. Environmental Sustainability and the Prosperity of Cities 105 Endnotes 1 Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 1996. 2 UNEP, 1996. 3 UN-Habitat, 2003. 4 Cities Alliance, ICLEI and UNEP, 2007. 5 Pacione, 2003. 6 UN-Habitat, 2011a. 7 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. 8 United Nations, 1992. 9 Ibid. 10 Redclift, 1996. 11 Lafferty and Eckerberg, 1998. 12 Portney and Berry, 2011. 13 Lafferty and Eckerberg, 1998. 14 African Economic Outlook,2012. 15 Omenya, 2011. 16 Ibid. 17 Olokesusi, 2011. 18 Mazembe, 2011. 19 Lupala, 2011. 20 Awuor-Hayanga, 2011. 21 Mazembe, 2011 22 Ayad, 2011. 23 Kalabamu, 2011. 24 Awuor-Hayanga, 2011. 25 Article 13, 2005. 26 Olokesusi, 2011. 27 Ayad, 2011 28 Tierney, 2009. 29 Zaidi, 2011. 30 Belliapa, 2011. 31 Centre for Livable Cities, 2011. 32 Fawaz and Baghdadi, 2011. 33 Khattab, 2011. 34 Karim, 2011. 35 Shabou et al, 2011. 36 Al-Bassam and Mouris, 2011. 37 Fawaz and Baghdadi, 2011. 38 Perez, 2011. 39 Flores, 2011. 40 Ibid. 41 Gonzales, 2011. 42 Urán, 2011. 43 Castellanos, 2011. 44 Galimberti, 2011. 45 Yerro, 2011. 46 Urán, 2011. 47 UNEP, 2008. 48 Simon et al, 2011. 49 UNEP, 2008. 50 Simon et al, 2011. 51 UNEP, 2011a 52 UNEP, 2009. 53 Martinot et al, 2002. 54 UNEP, ILO, IOE and ITUC, 2008. 55 Peacock, 2011. 56 Shukla, 2012. 57 UNEP, 2011b. 58 Maia et al, 2011. 59 Simon et al, 2011. 60 Ibid. 61 UNEP, ILO, IOE and ITUC, 2008. 62 GHK, 2010. 63 Simon et al, 2011. 64 ILO, 2007. 65 Simon et al, 2011. 66 This British system is claimed to be the world’s most widely used environmental assessment method for the rating of buildings (www.breeam.org). 67 Simon et al, 2011. 68 UNEP, 2011b. 69 UNEP, ILO, IOE and ITUC, 2008. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 UN-Habitat, 2011b. 73 Global Environmental Facility, 2012. 74 UNCED, 1992. 75 Hess and Winner, 2006. 76 UNCED, 1992. Part Three Policies for Prosperous Cities © Steve Forrest/Panos Pictures 108 Chapter 3.1 From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity Geography has always played an important role in the evolution of cities. Historically, coastal cities and cities in river deltas have been preferred locations – at present, 14 of the world’s 19 largest cities are ports. However, with advances in transport and communication technologies and also with increasing specialization, other locational factors, beyond positions along waterways, have accelerated the growth and development of cities. Even when located in the hinterland, cities located close to other major urban centres or to important urban agglomerations have significantly gained from their position and demonstrated relatively higher levels of development. Indeed, new configurations such as mega-regions and urban corridors generate regional economies and trigger the evolution of new patterns of economic activity which contribute to prosperity. Similarly, cities which lie in the vicinity of markets and infrastructure, or close to transnational borders, have also exhibited a tendency to grow and prosper much faster.1 The increasing numbers of large and dynamic non- port cities confirms that much as geographic location is an important correlate of a city’s prosperity, it does not explain everything. Many cities derive their prosperity from their capacity to harness other advantages, particularly through repositioning themselves in the national, regional or global context. Common among all of them has been their capacity to change and adjust to new circumstances and to build upon their own history and identity. Such cities have been able to envision a new future and to use their different forms of capital and assets. Critical also has been the ability of these cities to build social and political consensus. In essence, many cities today are able to deploy the capacity of human agency and to steer growth in the new direction of choice. Indeed, the prosperity of any city is no accident. It is the result of innovation, sustained vision and good governance. It is also a result of proper laws, regulations and institutions, as well as reinvigorated planning and adequate policies. Effective use of these instruments and processes has enabled many cities around the world to optimize their comparative advantages and to set themselves along the path of prosperity. They have used a range of avenues and capitalized on different sets of ‘spokes’ in their drive to shared and sustainable growth and well-being. Some cities are enhancing prosperity though strategic thinking and conscious planning policies. This is the case with Dubai in the Persian Gulf, which took advantage of its privileged geographic location to become the largest re- exporting centre in the Middle East, and today is emerging as a cosmopolitan centre. Other cities are devising long- term visions with well-defined implementation plans, such as Melbourne’s or Rio de Janeiro’s strategies for improved quality of life. Some other cities are enhancing prosperity based on national economic policies and investments with financial support from central government. The Jordanian city of Aqaba on the coastline of the Red Sea was designated the Aqaba Special Economic Zone (ASEZ) in 2001 and Geography alone does not determine which cities will grow and which will decline. Other factors such as government policies, corporate strategies, human capital, major political forces and decisions, investments in strategic sectors, all have an influence on the fate of cities. © Denis Mironov/Shutterstock.com From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 109 benefited from a public–private venture that created a duty- free and multi-sectoral development. The Zone contributed to enhanced infrastructure development, restoration of the city’s historic core and enhanced prosperity through the development of the tourism industry.2 Shenzhen, too, has benefited from national economic and industrial policies and related strategic investments. These examples show that success depends on careful design of regional and economic strategies, effective coordination across government tiers, massive infrastructure building, outstanding industrial and entrepreneurial strategies, and pro-equity policies. Other cities still pursue prosperity through improved provision of goods and services at regional level. Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, is capitalizing on the newly-created East African Common Market and Customs Union to enhance its communications and information technology sector, while at the same time developing its transport infrastructure to improve efficiency and productivity. Prosperity can also be pursued through other important dimensions such as knowledge development. Doha is developing education and arts as part of the city’s new cultural vision. Concepción in Chile, like the Algerian cities of Blida, Tlemcen, Sidi-bel-Abbès and Setif, are growing and becoming more prosperous through education institutions and higher learning.3 Some cities showcase their tangible and intangible cultural heritage and identity, in a bid to bring about social and economic transformations.4 Gaziantep in Eastern Turkey is a case in point, with its efforts to develop cultural heritage tourism. Restoration and rehabilitation works enhance quality of life and at the same time create alternative means of economic development. Valparaiso, Chile’s most important seaport and a well-known tourist resort, is repositioning its image as a cultural centre with facilities for entertainment, leisure and tourism. Many other cities are developing innovative ideas and strategies to shape new urban identity in the pursuit of prosperity. This typically includes revamped public spaces, rehabilitation of architecture and historic landmarks, re- creation of the street as part of the soul of the city, shaping a ‘sense of place’ with monuments, piazzas, marketplaces and streetscapes as open venues for arts and cultural expression. All of these achievements testify not just to the creative and innovative powers of municipal and other public authorities; they are also the outcomes of the interplay between the various power functions at work in any city. This driving power behind urban change and transformation acts as the ‘hub’ at the centre of the ‘wheel of prosperity’. Urban power functions are where the public, collective interest is determined, together with the practical rules, plans and actions that are to embed it in a specific area. The hub is where decisions are made to activate any of the five dimensions of prosperity, keeping them well balanced and maintaining the momentum in the wheel. POLICy Beyond geography, well-managed urbanization stands out as the new comparative advantage in the 21st century. La Paz, Bolivia: providing public goods for all, irrespective of neighbourhood or income bracket. © Eduardo Lopez Moreno State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 110 Part 2 of this Report detailed the respective roles of the five dimensions of urban prosperity, with the various interlinkages and multipliers involved. Part 3 presents the policy-related factors underlying the prosperity of cities, including drivers and constraints. It also focuses on urban power functions – the ‘hub’ holding together, activating and controlling the five ‘spokes’ of the ‘wheel of prosperity’ across the length and breadth of any urban jurisdiction, regardless of geographic location, size or resources. Just like productivity, infrastructure or a well-preserved natural environment, these urban power functions are human constructs; it is for governments, local and municipal authorities, and society at large to make sure that these power functions work for the benefit of the majority of the population and keep enhancing shared urban prosperity. Policy-Related Factors Underlying the Prosperity of Cities: Drivers and Constraints The policy-related factors underlying the prosperity of cities are multifaceted. They can be described in terms of drivers and constraints. The drivers could be the traditional and nonconventional factors that create an environment conducive to prosperity; they often affect the prosperity of cities in a positive manner. The constraints stand in the way of urban prosperity. These factors are further mediated by the local context, and as such, their effects may vary across cities and regions – one particular factor might be important in one city or region, but not in another. A clear understanding and appreciation of these factors is important in redirecting policies, and supporting structures and mechanisms that can affect the prosperity of cities. It is therefore important to discuss these factors in a comparative manner drawing on examples from cities across various regions. FACToRS BEHIND A pRoSpERITy-INDUCINg URBAN ENvIRoNMENT According to the local experts surveyed by UN-Habitat, eight main factors create a favourable environment for cities to prosper, namely: effective urban planning and management; decentralization polices and appropriate institutions; a system that creates equal opportunities for all; participation of civil society; elected local officials; a favourable business environment; access to basic amenities; and public transport and mobility. It is self-evident that, just like the five ‘spokes’ in the ‘wheel of prosperity’, these factors are interrelated or complementary and they affect the prosperity of cities both individually and in their various combinations. The importance of these factors with respect to the various regions is presented in Figure 3.1.1. In most cases, similarities can be found in the nature and importance of the factors across regions, with nuance and differences in other cases. Actualizing dreams of prosperity: penthouse in El Alto, Bolivia. © Eduardo Lopez Moreno Effective urban planning and management is perceived to be the most important factor behind a favourable environment for the prosperity of cities. From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 111 Effective urban planning and management The perceived importance of urban planning is most pronounced in the Arab States, followed by Africa and Asia. However, in Latin America and the Caribbean, urban planning emerges as the third most important factor. These differences can be attributed to several contextual factors. Urban planning can contribute to the prosperity of cities in various ways. As a starting point, policy-makers should view urbanization as a positive phenomenon. While there is growing recognition of the benefits, positive contribution and potential opportunities associated with cities, urban planners and policy-makers in some developing countries are still ambivalent about the importance of urbanization, in some cases even showing aversion to the urbanization process. This should not be the case, because cities generate the bulk of GDP; they are the engines of growth and centres of innovation. This suggests that capitalizing on the positive potentials of urban growth should be placed high on the agenda of governments. Managing urbanization is essential to nurturing the prosperity of cities. There are at least two ways to achieve this. The first is to nurture the growth of high-productivity activities – particularly manufacturing and services, which benefit from agglomeration economies. The second entails managing the negative externalities associated with the economic growth and success of cities – congestion, inequality, crime and violence, and soaring cost of land and housing, among others.5 Urban planning within the context of rapid urbanization is not a luxury, but a necessity.6 Rapid urbanization in the absence of effective urban planning has resulted in the proliferation of slum and squatter settlements, spiralling poverty, inadequate infrastructure, and degrading environmental conditions – all of which tend to erode the prosperity of cities. Neglecting cities even in countries with low levels of urbanization can impose significant costs.7 Factors underlying urban prosperity as perceived by local experts 35 15 5 25 30 20 10 0 Policies that promote participation of civil society Access to basic amenities including public transport Elected local of�cials Sound business environment & entrepreneurial culture Ef�cient urban planning & management Decentralization policies & appropriate institutions System that creates equal opportunities for all Africa Asia LAC Arab States All regions per cent of respondents Source: UN-Habitat City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011. Figure 3.1.1 POLICy Cities that want to grow and be prosperous in all five dimensions must make urbanization work well. POLICy When urbanization is planned and well managed, and distributive mechanisms of prosperity are put in place, it can contribute to poverty reduction. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 112 The positive nature of urbanization can be beneficial to the poor if the common deprivations that affect their daily existence are adequately addressed. Such deprivations include limited access to income and employment; inadequate living conditions; poor infrastructure and services; risks associated with living in slums; spatial issues which inhibit mobility and transport; and inequality associated with exclusion. The global assessment of slums shows that 828 million urban dwellers worldwide reside in slums.8 In the developing world, 33 per cent of the urban population lives in slums, with sub-Saharan Africa having 62 per cent of its urban population living in slums. Effective urban planning along with political commitment has contributed to the low prevalence of slums in countries such as Argentina, China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia. In Tunisia, slum upgrading has been a key component of the country’s urban planning programme. This along with massive investments in water and sanitation has contributed to a remarkable decline in the number of slum dwellers from 425,000 in the 1990s to 188,000 in 2005.9 Since the 1980s, Morocco has used urban planning as a means of implementing large-scale slum upgrading. The programme – Villes sans Bidonvilles, which was initiated in 2001 – has the following components of urban planning: in-situ upgrading; extending basic services; land tenure and post-facto planning approval; development of serviced resettlement plots; and resettlement housing to assist bidonville households that need to be moved.10 One positive outcome of urban growth is that it increases urban land values. Components of urban POLICy Urban planning can bring about more livable cities by tackling slums and informal settlements, as no city can claim to be prosperous when large segments of the population live in slum conditions. POLICy Urban planning and appropriately developed institutions and regulations can play major roles in improving urban equity through the capture and redistribution of rising land values. Kathmandu, Nepal: the relentless urban sprawl of the Kathmandu Valley. The Vishnumati River is surrounded by suburbs which have sprung up in recent years. With few building regulations, the city keeps on growing, as many look for a better life in the city than in the countryside. The result is environmental chaos with severe noise, air and water pollution problems. © 2012 Jonathan Mitchell/fotoLIBRA.com From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 113 planning systems – such as re-zoning, granting of planning permission, and the provision of infrastructure and services – also contribute to higher urban land values. Experience in North and Latin America shows that value capture can be an effective way to link urban planning and land use regulations, as well as to control land use, finance urban infrastructure, and generate local revenue to fund urban management. Uncontrolled sprawl presents a major challenge for urban planning and has implications for the prosperity of cities. Urban sprawl contributes to high numbers of cars, distances travelled, length of paved roads, fuel consumption, alteration of ecological structures and the conversion of rural land into urban uses – all of which are environmentally unsustainable. Compact urban development has several advantages. It is more efficient, inclusive and sustainable. The cost of providing infrastructure is lower, access to services and facilities is improved since thresholds are higher, the urban poor find that livelihoods are less of a challenge, and social segregation is reduced. Urban planning has played a significant role in Singapore’s compact layout and modern, convenient public transportation. The city-State is transit- oriented, with high-density residential and commercial developments integrated into transport nodes, which improve accessibility to public transport. Decentralization and appropriate institutions Decentralization refers to the transfer of responsibilities for planning, management and financing from the central to lower tiers of government and other subsidiary units.11 The most common forms of decentralization are deconcentration, delegation and devolution; in many countries, decentralization is often a combination or hybrid of these forms. Bringing decision-making closer to relevant urban populations can encourage municipal authorities to better focus on prosperity.12 In Latin America and the Caribbean, decentralization is perceived to be the most important factor behind enhanced urban prosperity. This is an indication of the effectiveness or higher degree of advancement (particularly in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico) of decentralization policies compared with other regions. Research on decentralization in sub- Saharan Africa13 revealed that South Africa and Uganda have the highest levels of decentralization; Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda and Namibia have moderate levels, while countries with the lowest levels include Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Mali, Eritrea, and Zambia. Countries that have done well with respect to decentralization are those that have achieved significant devolution and empowerment of local communities backed by both political will and clear legal mandates.14 Many Asian countries have made remarkable progress in instituting decentralization policies. For instance, Indonesia commenced the decentralization process in 2001 as it sought to give greater political and financial autonomy to local authorities15. In the Philippines, the enactment of the Local Government Code in 1991 marked a defining moment in decentralization, devolving to municipal authorities the responsibility for basic services such as health, primary education, public works and housing. It also advanced financial autonomy by devolving expenditure responsibilities and expanding local government taxing authority. Arab States appear to lag behind other regions, as highly centralized governance structures undermine the efficiency of municipal authorities, obstruct political participation and erode the relationship between the citizenry and the level of government closest to them.16 Underlying decentralization is the concept of subsidiarity, which implies that decisions regarding the provision of services should rest with the government entity which, being closest to the community, is in a better position to deliver these services in a more cost-effective way. Box 3.1.1 highlights how decentralization can play a key role in the prosperity of cities. While the responsibilities of municipal governments have increased following reforms in recent years, many have no access to the financial resources needed to undertake these functions. The resulting mismatch between responsibilities and financial resources is a major reason why decentralization has been less than successful in certain countries. National POLICy If decentralization is to strengthen urban authorities’ commitment to urban prosperity, it must be backed by fiscal devolution. POLICy Urban planning can encourage more compact, efficient and sustainable development. Decentralization policies emerge as the second important factor enhancing urban prosperity. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 114 reforms relating to various aspects of decentralization – revenue allocation, community participation, local elections, local planning, pro-urban development strategies – all provide enabling environment for cities to prosper. A system that creates equal opportunities The importance of a system that creates equal opportunities for all is most pronounced in Arab States compared with other regions. Even prior to the uprising in the region, Arab States existed as one of the most egalitarian in terms of income distribution in the developing world. This is reflected in an overall (low) Gini coefficient of 0.36, which has been declining over time.17 The low degree of inequality in the region has been attributed to a strong, cohesive social system, and the fact that redistribution constitutes a policy priority in Islamic economies.18 A prosperous city is one in which the aspirations of all groups of people are realized. Highly unequal cities are a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Indeed, ‘extreme inequalities can create social and political fractures… that have the potential to increase social unrest or develop into full-blown conflicts, which discourage investment and induce greater government spending on non-productive sectors.’19 A system that creates equal opportunities for all can use redistributive policies that give priority to low-income groups and areas. In Venezuela, the government has used redistributive policies to bring significant improvements to the living standards of the urban poor through massive investment in health and education.20 With the provision of over 8,000 clinics in the barrios, people are able to access health services 24 hours a day at no cost. Similarly, illiteracy has been eliminated, pupils are no longer restricted to elementary school, and those with the required academic qualifications can attend university. Another form of redistribution policy involves conditional cash transfers. These enhance the human capital of beneficiaries through transfers which are made conditional on certain requirements such as school attendance, visits to clinics and periodic immunization.21 Brazil’s Bolsa Família scheme, which benefits 11.1 million families, is the largest of its kind in the world, and has contributed to reducing poverty and inequality.22 Indeed, 80 per cent of Bolsa Família benefits go to families living below the poverty line; the programme also accounted for 21 per cent of the decline in inequality in Brazil between 1995 and 200423 – all of which contribute to making cities more prosperous. In Africa, countries such as Botswana, Lesotho, Mauritius and Namibia have universal pension schemes designed to address old-age poverty. Decentralization and the prosperity of cities A major benefit of decentralization as it relates to the prosperity of cities is that delivery of essential services such as water, sanitation and waste management, healthcare and education can be carried out more effectively. Decentralization can make for better urban conditions as it provides greater opportunities for community-based groups to lobby for improved services. Proximity to physical demand for a service encourages effectiveness and promotes a more rational use of resources, while also allowing for closer monitoring by the beneficiary population of any projects intended to serve them. Devolution of authority can lead to an institutional framework through which various political, religious, social and ethnic groups – together with multiple government/administrative tiers – can participate in making the decisions that will affect them. Residents can make decisions about the location of services and determine priorities. This is why when matched by devolution of taxation powers to municipal authorities, decentralized decision-making can provide a better framework for poverty reduction. Decentralization can also accelerate economic development through active engagement of regional and municipal government units and local enterprises. Source: UN-Habitat (2012) Decentralization in Iraq: Challenges and Solutions for Federal and Local Governments, Nairobi: UN-Habitat Box 3.1.1 POLICy Decentralization works well when backed by strong commitment and support from central government. A system that guarantees equal opportunities for all is the third most important contributing factor to the prosperity of cities. The more egalitarian a city is, the more prosperous it becomes. POLICy For a city to be truly prosperous, it must ensure equal opportunities for all, especially the more vulnerable – the poor, women, children, the elderly, youth and the disabled. A prosperous city is one where the aspirations of all segments of the population are realized. Highly unequal cities are ticking time-bombs only waiting to explode. From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 115 Civil society participation The perceived importance of participation of civil society varies across regions. It is seen by local experts as the second most important factor in Latin America and the Caribbean, but is ranked only fifth in Arab States. This is not surprising, given that participation of civil society has very strong roots in Latin American cities, where the best-known participatory approaches involve budgeting and planning. A classic example of participatory planning process in Asia is the People’s Campaign for Decentralized Planning, Kerala (India), which was launched in 1996; it aims to strengthen democratic decentralization by identifying local needs and establishing local development options and priorities through local consultation and participation.24 An evaluation of the scheme in 2001 revealed several positive features that include:25 substantial fiscal devolution was achieved in that 35–40 per cent of state development budget was allocated to municipal authorities; structures of participatory governance were created where none previously existed; active participation of disadvantaged groups especially women; institutionalization of participatory governance; positive developmental impacts especially on the poor who are the major beneficiaries; reduction in corruption and greater transparency and accountability of both representatives and officials. Elected local officials The election of city officials presupposes the existence of stable democracy through which citizens are empowered to elect and remove their leaders through an open, free and fair ballot. Political institutions like democracy are essential if the conditions for prosperity are to be laid out and nurtured. Research shows that durable democracy is correlated with economic development.26 Across the world, the more prosperous cities (at least economically) tend to be located in countries that are stable democracies. Democratically elected local officials owe their mandate to the people, and as such, are best placed to respond to the people’s needs, which include providing good conditions for employment, providing adequate infrastructure and urban services, improving the quality of life, making society more equitable, and ensuring environmental sustainability, among others. Of course, there are instances where non- democratic leadership is associated with a degree of economic prosperity, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, non-democratic regimes are coterminous with pathologies such as predation and expropriation, and in the long-run undermine the institutions underlying that prosperity.27 The election of local officials provides the political incentives and avenue for leaders to respond to the needs and demands of the people.29 Leaders that are unable to do so risk being voted out at the next available opportunity. It has been noted that autocratic governments often distribute benefits to an elite group, while democratic governments distribute benefits more widely to gain the support of the general public.30 A study of 44 African countries shows that democratically elected governments spend more on primary education;31 and in Latin America, democracy is associated with higher spending on education, health and social services.32 The adaptive efficiencies and institution- building needed to promote economic development and good governance – all of which are crucial to the prosperity of cities – flourish best in democratic societies. A favourable business environment Cities with a favourable business environment and entrepreneurial culture are more likely to be prosperous. A system that ensures that local officials are elected is ranked by local experts as the fifth most important policy-related factor that enhances urban prosperity. POLICy Participation of civil society has the potential to empower communities, build social capital, lead to better design of urban projects, and allow for citizens’ concerns to be incorporated into development strategies. Policies that promote the participation of civil society are perceived by local experts as the fourth most important factor behind enhanced urban prosperity. Lessons from experience suggest that successful civil society participation is dependent upon certain preconditions such as: (i) a political system that encourages active citizenship and is committed to equity and remedial action; (ii) the legal basis for participation; (iii) available resources in terms of skilled and committed professionals, as well as well-resourced and empowered local governments; and (iv) informed and organized communities and stakeholders.28 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 116 A business-conducive environment is needed for a vibrant private sector, attracting and retaining investment (including foreign direct), creating jobs and improving productivity – all of which are important for the promotion of growth and for expanded opportunities for the poor.33 Given the role that entrepreneurs play in creating economic opportunities for themselves and others, central governments in conjunction with cities authorities often take steps to improve the investment climate and boost productivity growth.34 Specifically, countries have undertaken varying degrees of regulatory reforms aimed at making it easier to handle nine crucial steps: starting a business; dealing with construction permits; registering property; obtaining credit; protecting investors; paying taxes; trading across borders; enforcing contracts; and handling insolvency. Based on these reforms, the World Bank shows that the city-State of Singapore – which by all accounts is a prosperous city as indicated in previous chapters – ranks first out of 183 countries.35 What this shows is that Singapore provides the most favourable environment for business and entrepreneurship, which, in part, accounts for its high levels of prosperity. Other Asian countries that rank high with respect to the ease of doing business include Hong Kong, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. This means that the major cities in these countries – Hong Kong, Seoul, Busan, Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo, Yokohama and Osaka – all offer favourable business environments, which ultimately pervade all dimensions of local prosperity. In Africa, countries such as Mauritius, South Africa, Rwanda, Tunisia and Botswana rank high for favourable business environments. This implies that it is easier to do business in Port Louis, Johannesburg, Kigali, Tunis or Gaborone than in Kinshasa, Conakry, Asmara, N’Djamena or Bangui, whose respective countries rank low for business environment. Generally, cities in the former group of countries tend to be more prosperous than those in the latter. In Asia, a favourable business environment is perceived as the most important factor promoting prosperity, highlighting the role played by cities in creating an enabling environment for business and attracting foreign direct investment. Bogotá , Colombia. Efficient transport systems, well-made streets with lighting, and adequate drainage systems all encourage entrepreneurial activity. © Gary Yim/Shutterstock.com From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 117 Rwanda is a typical example of a country that has consciously created a business-friendly environment, and in the process brought a higher degree of prosperity to its capital, Kigali. In recent years, Rwanda has undertaken reforms to streamline business procedures, create a favourable legal framework, reduce bureaucracy, and improve service delivery in order to promote both domestic and foreign investment.36 For instance, in Kigali, registering a business takes only three days and costs less than five per cent of the average income in an environment devoid of corruption, making the city ‘a very easy place for a global firm to operate.’ 37 Access to basic amenities The chapter (2.2) on infrastructure clearly shows that access to basic amenities, including improved public transport and information/communication technologies, can deliver major benefits that can make cities more prosperous. For instance, an efficient mass transit system is essential for the seamless movement of people and goods within and between cities, which in turn is vital for the prosperity of cities. Bogotá’s bus rapid transport (BRT) provides fast and reliable transport for over 1.4 million passengers per day, and in the process reduces traffic congestion and enhances environmental quality.38 In Lagos, the BRT system has attracted new patronage, lowering average fares and created 1,000 jobs as well as indirect employment for over 500,000 people.39 In South Africa, the Gautrain express rail system is expected to reduce road traffic along the all-important Johannesburg– Pretoria axis by 25,000– 30,000 cars per day; this is one of the busiest roads in South Africa where traffic increases an average seven per cent every year.40 In addition to the foregoing, access to basic amenities can deliver major prosperity-enhancing benefits such as: supporting economic growth; contributing to achievement of Millennium Development Goals through improved health and education; improving quality of life especially for youth and women; enhancing environmental quality through improved access to water and sanitation, which in turn reduces morbidity and mortality, and fosters greater productivity and reduces vulnerability of the poor. SoME IMpEDIMENTS To THE pRoSpERITy oF CITIES Based on the UN-Habitat local expert survey, there are seven main impediments to urban prosperity, as follows: poor governance and weak institutions; corruption; lack of appropriate infrastructure; high incidence of slums and poverty; high costs of doing business; low levels of human capital; and high crime rates (Figure 3.1.2). The hard-won prosperity gains made by cities in terms of productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability can be jeopardized or eroded, either individually or collectively by these impediments. Poor governance and weak institutions The impact of poor governance and weak institutions on urban prosperity appears to be more pronounced in African and Arab cities, where over 40 per cent of experts cite this factor as the single most important impediment. What this implies is that countries in Africa and Arab States should do more to improve urban governance and institutions. Indeed, in many developing countries, the institutions required for urban prosperity, if any, are poorly developed. Proper institutions are crucial, both of a formal (constitution, laws and regulations) and informal nature (social norms, customs and traditions), which together determine how people, organizations and firms make decisions of an economic, social and political nature, maximizing potentials and optimizing resources.41 Sound institutions matter for the prosperity of cities, as they provide the superstructure that enables, or otherwise, underlying factors to operate and deliver a maximum of benefits to the largest possible majority of the population. Institutional inadequacies take the form of weak (if not altogether lacking) legal and institutional frameworks,42 disregard for the rule of law, poor enforcement of property rights, excessive bureaucracy, and proliferation of corrupt practices among others. All these are incompatible with urban prosperity. Poor governance and weak institutions act as major impediments to urban prosperity. Access to basic amenities and infrastructure, including improved public transport and ICTs, is a factor that will enhance the prosperity of any city. This factor is considered as most important in African and Asian cities. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 118 Corruption Generally, corruption is defined as the abuse of public office for personal gain. The seriousness of corruption as a hindrance to the prosperity of cities varies across regions. While grand corruption has the most devastating impact, corruption in any form serves to destroy the confidence in the fairness of government, the rule of law and economic stability.43 In Arab States, corruption is ranked as the joint first factor along with poor governance and weak institutions; in Asia it is the second most serious impediment; in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is the third important obstacle; and in Africa, it is the fourth most serious hindrance. Whatever the case, local experts surveyed by UN-Habitat unanimously concur that corruption is a major threat to the prosperity of cities. This is in line with the view that corruption is the single largest obstacle to development.44 Corruption can adversely affect the prosperity of cities in a variety of ways. First, it acts like a tax and a deterrent to foreign direct investment.45 Several studies have reported a significantly negative correlation between perceived corruption and inflows of foreign direct investment.46 One of the reasons that foreign firms are attracted to cities such as Bridgetown (Barbados), Santiago (Chile), Gaborone (Botswana), Doha (Qatar), San Juan (Puerto Rico), Port Louis (Mauritius), Kigali (Rwanda) or Victoria (Seychelles) is because all enjoy low levels of corruption. Second, corruption undermines the ability of city authorities to provide municipal services in a fair way, as it distorts planning and allocation processes. Corruption is a significant factor for those living in squatter settlements as they are usually not recognized by urban authorities as having rights to basic services, such as water, sanitation and electricity. Consequently, access to such amenities can be dependent upon payment of bribes to local officials. Third, corruption is particularly evident in large-scale urban infrastructure projects, and distorts infrastructure spending in various ways.47 It can increase public expenditure on new infrastructure, since such capital projects can be easily manipulated by politicians and high-level officials to obtain bribes. Corruption can divert financial resources away from the operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure, reducing relevant budget allocations. It has been shown that the least Impediments to the prosperity of cities as perceived by local experts 45 40 15 5 25 35 30 20 10 0 High incidence of slums and poverty High levels of crime High cost of doing business Low levels of human capital Poor governance & weak institutions Corruption Inadequate infrastructure Africa Asia LAC Arab States All regions per cent of respondents Source: UN-Habitat City Monitoring Branch, Policy Survey, 2011 Figure 3.1.2 Corruption is considered by local experts as the second most important hindrance to enhanced urban prosperity. It can be detrimental to urban prosperity in a variety of ways. From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 119 corrupt cities in Africa and Asia spend more on building and maintaining infrastructure.48 In extreme cases, the maintenance of existing infrastructure may deliberately be neglected so that such infrastructure rapidly falls into disrepair to the point where it must be rebuilt, providing an opportunity for highly placed officials to extract kickbacks from the enterprise that will rebuild the project. Fourth, corruption can reduce the financial resources available to city authorities for the provision of basic services such as water, sanitation, education, healthcare and recreation, which are all essential for urban prosperity and Millennium Development Goals – many of which are urban-related. Research has shown that in Africa, government spending on education is affected by corruption, with highly corrupt countries devoting only small shares of their budgets to education. This, of course, has implications for the development of human capital and the quality of labour in urban areas. Finally, corruption can result in shoddy delivery of urban services. When contractors pay bribes to secure contracts, they are likely to cut back and compromise on quality in order to recoup part or all of the bribe paid. The phenomenon partly accounts for the frequent collapse of buildings that have occurred in cities such as Lagos and Nairobi, and substandard roads in these and many other cities that are often washed away or riddled with potholes following innocuous rainfall.. Inadequate infrastructure Cities with deficient infrastructure will be adversely affected on many fronts; they are less likely to be prosperous, sustainable or productive. For instance, inadequate water and sanitation facilities will lead to deterioration of the urban environment, adding to the burden of disease for the urban poor, particularly in slums and squatter settlements. Deficient infrastructure can drive up the costs of doing business in urban areas and reduce business productivity by as much as 40 per cent;49 the impact can be as significant as those of crime, bureaucracy, corruption or financial market constraints.50 Deficient infrastructure also acts as a major impediment to trade and competitiveness in many developing countries, particularly landlocked and small island States. In the case of Africa, the proportion of paved roads is about five times smaller than in high-income OECD countries; the end-result of this infrastructure bottleneck is that transport costs are 63 per cent higher in Africa compared with developed countries.51 This has major implications for the competitiveness of African cities on local and international markets. In Africa, transport costs as a share of export values range between 30 and 50 per cent; in landlocked countries, the proportion can be as high as 75 per cent. By comparison, the average for other developing countries is just 17 per cent.52 These figures are in line with earlier findings whereby congested roads and poor transport infrastructure are among the most pervasive infrastructure problems hampering the prosperity of cities. High incidence of slums and poverty Slum prevalence is highest in Sub-Saharan Africa where basic services are lacking not only in informal, but formal settlements. North Africa has the lowest prevalence of slums. In Asia, the proportion of urban population living in slums varies from 25 per cent in Western Asia to 35 per cent in South Asia. In Latin America and the Caribbean, slum prevalence is 24 per cent. To a large extent, regional patterns of slum prevalence reflect different degrees of access to basic services such as water and sanitation, as well as the nature of urban development policies. Cities where a large number of people live in slum conditions are less likely to be prosperous. This is because slums have the most deplorable living and environmental conditions and are characterized by inadequate water supply, poor sanitation, overcrowded and dilapidated housing, hazardous locations, insecurity of tenure, and vulnerability to serious health risks – all of which have major implications for quality of life. Slums are also known for their atmosphere of fear and the social and economic exclusion of their residents.53 Slum dwellers are often stigmatized on account of their location and are often discriminated against in terms of access to public and social services, as well as employment. Large concentrations of slums impose enormous burdens on urban authorities that often lack Inadequate infrastructure is another major impediment to the prosperity of cities. The effects of deficient infrastructure appear to be more pronounced in Asian and African cities and less so in Arab States. Slums are the physical negation of everything that shared urban prosperity stands for, what with lack of infrastructure, appalling quality of life and inequitable socio- economic conditions, low-productivity, informal economies and a variety of environmental hazards. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 120 Mumbai, India: where there is inadequate access to, or provision of, resources, people will improvise dwellings using whatever comes to hand. © 2012 Nicola Barranger/fotoLIBRA.com POLICy Cities with large concentration of slums should adopt proactive approaches to urban development, rather than antagonistic or fragmentary approaches. From Comparative Advantage to Urban Prosperity 121 the political will and resources to provide even the most basic services, with implications for the prosperity of cities. Rather than being proactive in their approach to urban development, cities with large concentrations of slums are likely to adopt a reactionary and fragmentary approach to urban development, which tends to be expensive in the long run. High costs of doing business The high cost of doing business can serve as an impediment to cities becoming more prosperous. A high cost of doing business has obvious implications for investment, productivity, employment, income generation, taxation and poverty reduction – all of which impact on the prosperity of cities. In Africa, countries like Mauritania, Cameroon, Burundi, Benin, Eritrea, and Guinea Bissau are ranked low in terms of the ease of doing business.54 This means that their major cities – Nouakchott, Yaoundé, Bujumbura, Porto Novo, Asmara and Bissau, will be characterized by a high cost of doing business and, thus, likely to be less prosperous compared to other African cities located in countries where the cost of doing business is low. In Latin America and the Caribbean, Brazil, Honduras, Bolivia, Haiti and Suriname are ranked relatively low on ease of doing business. In the case of Brazilian cities, the business environment is bogged down by the labyrinth of bureaucracy. For instance, it takes an average of 119 days and 13 procedures to register a business.55 Anyone wishing to start a business will require approval from no less than 12 different government agencies.56 As one store owner lamented: ‘You need a document. But to have that document, you need to hand in seven documents. And to get each of these seven, there’s a different demand.’57 Similarly in Jamaica, the private sector is held hostage by the web of bureaucracy. Filing of taxes involves 72 steps, which takes up 400 hours in a year.58 It takes manufacturers three months to get connected to electricity, and costs five times more than in Trinidad and Tobago. Crime is also a major problem that drives up the cost of doing business in Jamaica, as many hotels spend up to US$100,000 a year on security guards. All these impact negatively on the prosperity of Jamaican cities. Poorly developed human capital Education is essential not just for nurturing, but also for attracting talents and bolstering innovation. The development of Boston, Silicon Valley, Oxford and Cambridge (UK) clearly benefited from the presence of reputed universities.60 Availability of highly- skilled human capital in turn attracts and generates innovative and knowledge- based industries. Within the OECD, the productivity of some metropolitan areas has been attributed to human resource endowments. For instance in Montreal, the relatively low productivity of high value-added sectors has been linked to lower educational attainment and inadequate investment, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises.61 Similarly, in Istanbul and Mexico City, productivity, and hence prosperity, is hampered by low skills, as well as by the extent of the informal sector, where adult education and skill upgrading are difficult to provide.62 Attracting and cultivating talents has become common practice for cities in the pursuit of prosperity. From New York to London, Boston to Vienna, Dubai to Singapore, or Bangalore to Shenzhen, many cities can illustrate this phenomenon. Munich’s experience with vocational education can be particularly inspiring. The capital of Bavaria (as well as the economic, cultural, technological and transportation centre of South Germany), Munich is one of Europe’s most prosperous cities. It ranked 8th for technological innovation (as measured by international patent applications) among the 500-strong sample in the 2010 Global Urban Competitiveness Ranking; GDP per capita was US$58,197 in 2007 with three per cent economic growth on an annual average basis in 2001– 2007.63 Munich’s manufactured products (including motor cars) enjoy a good international reputation and export competitiveness. The city’s large proportion of high-skilled workers, nurtured through its vocational education system, has been crucial to the city’s prosperity. The myriad of laws, taxes and regulations and bureaucracy involved in registering or running a business has been cited as one of the main reasons why 40 per cent of Brazilian startup businesses hardly survive for more than two years. The cost of bureaucracy is staggering; in 2010 bureaucracy cost the Brazilian economy 46.3 billion reals.59 This has implications for the prosperity of cities in Brazil. POLICy Low levels of human capital and skilled labour can hinder urban prosperity. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 122 High crime rates Safeguarding people and property against crime and other insecurity is a prerequisite for urban prosperity, which involves a shared sense of mutual confidence for both the present and the future. Crime is a major deterrent to domestic and foreign investment and can cause capital flight. In Africa, more than 29 per cent of business people report that crime is a significant investment constraint.64 Investors generally worry about violent crime for fear of direct losses to business and lack of security for staff. High crime rates can have a crippling effect on the prosperity of cities. In Lusaka, for instance, fear of crime in the poverty- stricken community of Chawama can prevent teachers from showing up at work.65 In South Africa, a survey of major cities showed that over a quarter of respondents would not consider opening a business due to fear of crime, with more than 25 per cent saying they were reluctant to allow their children to walk to school, while 30 per cent gave up on public transportation.66 In Jamaica, crime has a pernicious effect on national tourism and is often cited as a major reason for the country’s weak economy. In large cities in Latin America, high numbers of murders deter people from working evenings and at night.67 All these have implications for local economies, quality of life and the attractiveness of public spaces, on top of lost opportunities for socioeconomic advancement that is so crucial for the prosperity of cities. Endnotes 1 UN-Habitat, 2008. 2 Shabou et al, 2011. 3 UN-Habitat, 2008. 4 Costas, 2011. 5 Spence et al, 2008. 6 Bloom and Khanna, 2007. 7 Annez and Buckley, 2008. 8 UN-Habitat, 2010a. 9 UN-Habitat, 2006. 10 Cities Alliance, 2003. 11 UN-Habitat, 2010b. 12 Ni, 2011. 13 Ndegwa, 2002. 14 Ibid. 15 UN-Habitat, 2006. 16 UN-Habitat, 2012. 17 UN-Habitat (2004) State of the World’s Cities 2004/05: Globalization and Urban Culture: Earthscan, London. 18 Ibid. 19 UN-Habitat, 2008. 20 Scipes, 2006. 21 Hailu and Soares, 2008. 22 Britto, 2008. 23 Soares et al, 2006. 24 UN-Habitat, 2009. 25 Heller et al, 2007. 26 Sharma, 2005. 27 Ibid. 28 UN-Habitat, 2009. 29 Sharma, 2005. 30 Holcombe, 2012. 31 Stasavage, 2005. 32 Avelino et al, 2005. 33 World Bank and International Finance Corporation, 2011. 34 World Bank (2012). 35 Ibid. 36 Rwanda Development Board, 2012. 37 The Economist, 2012. 38 Hidalgo, 2008. 39 World Bank, 2009b. 40 BBC, 2011. 41 Sharma, 2005. 42 Oyeyinka, 2012. 43 UNODC, 2004. 44 UN-Habitat, 2007. 45 Dong and Torgler, 2010. 46 Wei, 2000 ; Smarzynska and Wei, 2000; Habib and Zurawicki, 2002. 47 Arimah, 2005. 48 Ibid. 49 Escribano et al, 2008. 50 Foster and Briceno-Garmendia, 2010. 51 African Economic Outlook, 2012. 52 Ibid. 53 Bloom et al, 2008. 54 World Bank and International Finance Corporation, 2011. 55 Ibid. 56 Gomes, 2012. 57 Ibid. 58 The Economist, 2012. 59 Gomes, 2012. 60 Ni, 2011. 61 OECD, 2006. 62 Ibid. 63 Ni, 2011. 64 UNODC, 2005. 65 Moser and Holland, 1997. 66 UNODC, 2005. 67 Hamermesh, 1998. Crime emerges as a major impediment to the prosperity of cities. No city can claim to be truly prosperous if it is crime-ridden and the population lives in a perpetual state of insecurity. 123 Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century Throughout history, cities have played a major role in creativity and innovation. Creative people and systems, innovative milieus, knowledge creation mechanisms and new technological developments have all primarily happened in cities and all contributed to societal development and prosperity. Creativity and innovation involve a variety of areas that range from technology to institutions, organizations and modes of operation to information and knowledge, finance and human development. Innovation also comes under a variety of forms, including improved design and quality, changes in organization and management, higher efficiency, high- and medium-technological industrial development, new linkages and coordination mechanisms, scientific research and the commercialization of technical knowledge.1 This goes to show that, to a large extent, creativity and innovation are already embedded in economic functions and, as such, under the control of financial capital.2 In technologies and the arts alike, innovation is increasingly dominated by the private sector. Creativity and innovation are largely influenced by six main types of factors: (i) locational advantages (i.e., economies of agglomeration and ‘positive externalities’ at regional scale); (ii) knowledge networks; (iii) cultural factors; (iv) the economic environment; (v) organizational factors; and (vi) State/government interventions (i.e., policies, incentives, institutions). ‘Innovation’, as glorified in association with ‘creative cities’, the ‘creative class’ and ‘city competition’, more often than not is in the sole benefit of business and economic elites,4 and it fails to integrate the various dimensions of prosperity, particularly equitable development and environmental sustainability. Innovation is a creative capital that is brought to bear on various dimensions of development and prosperity, in the process unleashing undeveloped potential and making fuller use of local resources and assets. The culture of creativity must be embedded in the way Chapter 3.2 Creativity and innovation can flourish in many areas such as developing and managing urban life, renewal of social institutions, improved urban policies, development of knowledge networks, etc. POLICy The cities and countries best placed for economic growth and prosperity are those that invest in building knowledge and innovation institutions and related systems with strong support from public authorities and the private sector.3 Innovation should be seen as a broader notion that has to do with creative approaches to planning, the economy, social inclusion, the environment, culture and local identity.5 POLICy A creative city must establish a balance between ‘hardware’ factors – infrastructure and technology – and ‘software’ factors (including mind-set, dynamics of place, the connection between thinkers and doers, and a change-friendly environment).6 © Jon Spaull/Panos Pictures State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 124 cities operate.7 Therefore, it is not just for government or business, but also for communities and the public at large, to contribute their own powers of imagination. And this has to be not just encouraged but legitimized as well, in a bid to broaden the range of available solutions to urban issues. THE FACToRS BEHIND URBAN INNovATIvENESS Innovation can emanate from a creative worker, a community leader, a business person, an artist, a public servant or a scientist, etc. Innovation can respond to a specific problem, reduce risks, anticipate challenges, result in new products or processes, or harness existing or emerging opportunities. For the purposes of urban prosperity, innovation has a clear role in improved conditions for populations and the way they live, work, move, relax and more generally make the most of the urban advantage. If its existing creative capital is to be enhanced, or activated where dormant, a city should become a locus where sociocultural diversity can be staged, and where links can flourish among both individuals and institutions. In practice, all of this requires well-adapted physical environments, which in turn have to do with urbanization economies9 and better urban planning. From a more institutional point of view, support to knowledge exchange and networking is another way of stimulating creative capital, along with favourable conditions for research and development. As for the productive sector, creative stimulation can also derive from economies of agglomeration and an entrepreneur-friendly environment. It may come as no surprise that in Asia, most local experts see a strong link between research and development (R&D), on the one hand, and enhanced prosperity on the other, with public authorities and other stakeholders playing significant roles in the areas of business, industry and technology. This was the case in Singapore, in Hyderabad and Bangalore (India), Shenzhen and Chongqing (China), Gaziantep (Turkey) and Cebu (the Philippines). In Singapore, gross expenditure on R&D increased from 1.9 per cent in 1990 to 2.8 per cent in 2008 and three per cent in 2010,10 with the focus on applied research, technology, sustainable urban living and ‘clean’ energy.11 In Bangalore, the emergence of the city as a knowledge hub is a visible outcome of policy, entrepreneurship and innovation all combined. With more than 66 engineering colleges and 55 polytechnics, the city has developed as a centre for scientific innovation and research in aeronautics and electronics, with strong public research facilities.12 Biotechnologies and computer/communications also feature highly in Hyderabad, India’s pharmaceutical capital, with support from central government and more than 40 research and educational institutions.13 Shenzhen has developed a State-led endogenous innovation strategy with investments from government agencies, industrial firms and universities. In just a few years, the city has developed a high-tech, modern service industry, actively promoting industrial transformation and upgrading, which focuses on electronics, biological engineering and new material technology. The city has also made important innovations in the service industry (finance, logistics and culture) in a further effort to sustain economic growth and prosperity.14 Still in China, Chongqing has Measuring innovation and creativity The ‘Creative City Index’ was recently developed to measure ‘the imaginative pulse of cities’, combining a variety of indicators including political and public frameworks, diversity, vitality and expression, openness and tolerance, entrepreneurship, vision, liveability, learning and professionalism, among 10 specific dimensions. In 2007, Melbourne-based ‘2thinkNow’ developed an ‘Innovation Cities Program’ along with an ‘Innovation Cities Index’ in a bid to enhance understanding of the links between innovation and the way cities operate. The measure also uses a large variety of indicators, involving cultural assets, infrastructure and networked markets in areas such as commerce, finance, food, the arts, health, technology, religion, the media, etc. On this basis, cities are classified in five categories: ‘nexus’ (cities featuring critical innovations),’hub’ (cities that are influential in key areas), ‘node’ (cities combining broad- ranging performance and imbalances), ‘influencer’ (cities that are competitive but unbalanced on the whole), and ‘upstart’ (cities with potential for future performance). Sources: www.charleslandry.com; www.2thinknow.com. Box 3.2.1 POLICy The culture of creativity must be embedded in the way cities operate.8 The UN-Habitat survey of local experts shows that five main factors are at play when cities innovate: creative urban management; entrepreneurial capacity; the promotion of the arts and culture; the emergence of industrial clusters; and research and development (R&D). Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 125 Karnataka, Bangalore, India: A road sign hangs over the entrance to ‘Electronics City’, an industrial complex dedicated to the IT and electronics industries. Located ten miles (16km) outside Bangalore, the complex has been hugely successful in attracting foreign investment. © Chris Stowers/Panos Pictures State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 126 used State-led investment to stimulate the economy and improve social welfare, optimizing endogenous development through research and technology. Chongqing’s strategy, known as ‘Three Centers, Two Hubs, and One Base’, connects business, finance and education with strong support for infrastructure, communications and a modern base of high-tech industries.15 In southeast Turkey, Gaziantep – one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world – has deliberately embraced R&D and innovation, with various educational institutions explicitly supporting entrepreneurship. Business has cooperated with public authorities to launch a number of initiatives known as Trademark City, Smart Industry, Teknopark, Innovation Valley and R&D Movement in a bid to open up markets, diversify the economy and promote employment in the pursuit of prosperity.16 In contrast to Asia, the share of R&D expenditure in GDP in Africa and Latin America is low at around 0.6 per cent on average. In some African countries, such as Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, among many others, this share was under 0.4 per cent. In the two regions, the highest expenditure – about one per cent of GDP in 2008 – was recorded in South Africa and Brazil, with central government playing a strong role.17 South Africa’s national R&D strategy is based on so-called ‘Triple Helix’ cooperation among business, government and higher education centres, focusing on engineering, the natural sciences, and medicine/health.18 As might be expected, the Gauteng and Cape Town regions appear to be particularly innovation-friendly with more highly trained graduates involved in research and making the more significant contribution to scientific excellence.19 It does not come as a surprise either that in Johannesburg, the consistency between the city-region’s own science/technology policies and the national Growth and Development Strategy is deliberate. A vARIETy oF SoCIAL AND INSTITUTIoNAL INNovATIoNS Many factors stand in the way of urban innovation, especially in developing countries. Not all these factors have been sufficiently identified, understood or addressed. Still, seven major types of deficiency seem to play significant roles: (i) poor physical and knowledge infrastructure; (ii) an absence of appropriate innovation policies (due to lack of interest or understanding); (iii) limited financial resources; (iv) weak local institutions (formal or informal); (v) inadequacy of human resources (number and qualification of personnel); (vi) lack of stakeholder participation and coordination in the elaboration and implementation of innovation policies; and (vii) poor incentives (where any). In other cases, the problems instead lie in technology transfer and poor adaptation to local know-how.20 But then ‘home-made’ innovations, too, can be poorly related to local and national conditions, or overlook the needs of the underprivileged, when they fail ‘to take into due consideration the plurality of knowledge and technological options’ that are locally available.21 The city of Johannesburg has adopted an innovative governance model to rebuild local government and improve service delivery. Bangalore, too, has launched technology-based public–private experiments in governance in a bid to deliver better public services. In Latin America and the Caribbean, Rosario, just like Santo Domingo, has introduced significant institutional innovations in terms of participatory governance. In Nairobi, the private sector has launched a new Internet/ cellphone-based virtual payment platform enabling low- and middle-income residents to conduct e-commerce transactions and even to pay school fees. Many other social and institutional innovations involve the creation of new systems and models to meet the needs of underserved populations in a more efficient, effective, and sustainable manner. In Tehran, the scope of the WHO-UN-Habitat ‘Urban HEART’ Programme has been extended to assess Innovations are often duplicated or transferred from abroad. More often than not, though, this causes problems when foreign innovation runs against the grain of the social or cultural features of the target communities. In contrast to Asia, the share of Research and Development expenditure in GDP in Africa and Latin America is low, where not next to nil. In the absence of any systematic public sector involvement, creativity and innovation largely remain the purview of the private sector. POLICy It is in the best interest of cities to promote social and institutional innovations in response to local problems, in a necessary effort to address social needs and improve the efficiency and quality of urban management. Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 127 equity under not just the health dimension but also a more general social perspective. Shenzhen has created a multilevel social security system that includes basic social insurance, poverty insurance, compensation for job seekers, and special care for patients and the disabled. These innovative schemes redistribute the benefits of prosperity among migrant workers (up to 75 per cent of Shenzhen’s population) under the form of social security, working conditions, rights, education and access to public services.22 Chongqing has created investment companies to mobilize public capital in order to accelerate construction of infrastructure and public facilities, using a combination of innovative funding mechanisms: taxes, land reserves, fees, and government bonds.23 Apart from new, dedicated schemes, social and institutional innovation can take the form of enlightened rules or legislation. In Cebu, the Philippines, an ordinance now encourages those employed in outsourced business processing services to enrol in (post)graduate studies, in a bid to expand the pool of highly skilled people. Rosario, Argentina, has declared itself a ‘Human Rights City’, with a commitment to openness, transparency and accountability.24 Some other institutional innovations connect urban planning and design with the use of social public space. In Colombia, Bogotá has improved many diverse public spaces (sidewalks, public parks and libraries) in a bid to rebuild social cohesion. Singapore’s ‘Skyway’ is a spectacular aerial walkway among giant man-made trees that collect rainwater and generate solar energy, and is an invitation to view the city from a different perspective. In Korea, the municipality of Seoul resorts to urban design to improve the efficiency and enhance the attractiveness of the city with innovative projects, such as the ‘Han River Renaissance’ scheme and the ‘City in the Park’ initiative.25 THE TRANSFoRMATIvE poWER oF INNovATIoNS Almost by definition, innovation processes are not linear, nor are they easily controllable. However, as far as urban innovation is concerned, a consistent basic pattern seems to be at work. Whether in response to new risks or immediate emergencies, or in more ordinary circumstances, urban innovation seems to result from cooperation and dialogue among a broad variety of stakeholders. Such dialogue acts as a catalyst, bringing together a variety of perspectives, resources, capacities and types of human capital.26 Nairobi, Kenya: children play in a schoolyard in Kibera. The newly introduced Pesapal system enables school fees to be paid by the Internet or mobile telephone. © Meunierd/Shutterstock.com State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 128 Innovations introduce knowledge, products, processes and programmes that change the ways of doing business or using resources, or even social attitudes and preferences. Innovations lie at the core of all economic processes and they contribute to knowledge generation and information flows.27 Innovations of a technological nature have added value and helped transform the urban space (e.g., connectivity, proximity and distance, outsourcing of manufacturing). Although innovations take place mainly in major metropolitan centres, they are not restricted to those. The transformative power of innovation is closely linked to the various components of prosperity – productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and environmental sustainability. Innovation can contribute to any of these dimensions, or respond to the supporting institutions and policies at the core of these dimensions (see the ‘Wheel of Urban Prosperity’, Chapter 1.1), steering the course of the city along the path of prosperity and sustainable development. From this more general, strategic perspective, innovation can bring four major types of benefits: (i) reviving and sustaining the social economy (e.g., better policies for human needs satisfaction); (ii) changes in social relations (e.g., new societal arrangements, new social pact); (iii) reinforcing existing, or creating new, institutions for improved urban management and governance (e.g., regulation of land or social conflicts, new legislation); and (iv) forward-looking changes to the urban space (e.g., resource redistribution, expanded access to services and public goods). Any value added by all these social and institutional innovations will accrue primarily to society as a whole, rather than private individuals or groups,28 enhancing the prospects of prosperity and giving its full meaning to the notion of ‘spatial justice’.29 Being a social construct, any city can be steered and shaped towards higher levels of prosperity. A fresh, different vision of urban planning and design can combine with new, more insightful change narratives and development ideas. As urban risks and challenges keep changing over space and time, existing safeguards, instruments or mechanisms must come under review and be adjusted as and where required. Innovation must also help reduce the costs of urban living. Innovative rules and legislation must support the transformation of the existing urban model. The current model is unsustainable for several reasons: endless physical expansion, intensive energy use, alarming and dangerous contributions to climate change, multiple forms of inequality and exclusion, and inability to provide decent jobs and livelihoods.30 If ongoing urbanization is to usher in the city of the 21st century, then this transformation must be grounded in a more effective and sustainable use of urban space. More compact cities can preserve Local authorities should be aware that promoting interactions, synergies and adequate environments can enhance local creative capital and prosperity. A pedestrian bridge (part of the railing stolen for scrap) near Cape Town, South Africa © 2012 Rodger Shagam/fotoLIBRA.com POLICy It is in cities’ best interests to strengthen the links between policy-makers, business, academia, civil society and a variety of practitioners to promote urban innovations. Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 129 open spaces and reduce the costs of transport and service delivery, while encouraging economies of agglomeration and urbanization. These in turn help reduce the overall costs of societal transactions and harness regional potential. Innovation is a catalyst of productivity, which has a major role to play in urban transformation. As demonstrated at their own modest level by innovative, entrepreneurial youth in African, Latin American or Asian slums, urban socioeconomic dynamics calls for optimization of all local assets, potentials and opportunities. At the same time, this ‘endogenous growth’ process positions the city against the broader background of regional, national and global development. The city of the 21st century is a reinvented city that is more productive, equitable and sustainable. It is a more prosperous city. Urban Prosperity Through Planning and Design In the midst of ongoing demographic, socioeconomic or environmental cross-currents, cities must reassert control over their destinies with reinvigorated urban planning and design for the sake of shared prosperity and harmonious development. This imperative comes as a reminder of the fact that so far, in most cities of the developing world, modern urban planning (where any) has proved unable to nurture shared socioeconomic advancement. For all the paraphernalia of legislation, complex regulations and spatial design plans, a majority of those cities have continued with the flawed models which, as ‘advanced’ countries have finally found out, are unsustainable in a variety of ways. Cities have found themselves woefully unprepared in the face of the spatial and demographic challenges associated with urbanization, not to mention those of an environmental nature. With a few commendable exceptions, modern urban planning has failed to integrate the urban poor in the socioeconomic fabric of the city. As an expert in Bangalore put it, ‘The poor have survived despite master planning.’32 Understood primarily as a technical tool, planning has been unable to address the power relations that have been at work to the detriment of the great majorities of urban populations. Planning has also proved unable to prevent environmental degradation or the formation of slums, and is notable for serious shortcomings in terms of transport and urban mobility. Conceived as a comprehensive, long-term strategy, a master plan – the quintessence of modern planning – typically represents an ideal end-state for a particular city, but with serious gaps between the initial vision and actual results. This brought a scholar in 1996 to talk of ‘the dark side of planning’,33 something an expert in Montevideo has referred to as ‘urban plans that are at odds with the notion of prosperity’.34 The shortcomings of modern urban planning have triggered significant reform since the 1980s and 1990s, in an effort to move away from comprehensive plans, top- down decision-making and broad-ranging regulation.35 A more flexible approach was adopted to improve conditions in cities, through ‘strategic planning’ and other methods that are more pragmatic, incremental and typically focused on ‘getting things done’. However, too many ‘strategic urban plans’ have effectively imposed an entrepreneurial view of the city, promoting mostly economic prosperity and often turning into marketing gimmicks in all but name, complete with oversized architectural designs and mega-developments. In emerging or developing countries, these initiatives typically favour the gentrification of entire areas and, at times, massive displacement in order to make room for highways, skyscrapers, luxury compounds, shopping malls, etc., at the expense of the habitat and livelihoods of the poor.36 UN-Habitat policy analysis in 50 cities in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Arab States (2011) shows that up to 80 per cent of local experts believe that the benefits of economic prosperity mainly serve the interests of the wealthy and Whatever the planning approach, powerful political and economic interests keep interfering with the design and implementation of strategic plans and the pursuit of urban prosperity for all. From Asia to Africa to Latin America, ‘master’, ‘blueprint’ and layout plans have had similar, harmful consequences in cities: spatial segregation, social exclusion, excessive mobility needs and consumption of energy, together with poor regard for the potential economies of scale and agglomeration that any city can offer.31 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 130 politicians (a view shared by up to 90 per cent of African experts). Through political influence, bribery and corruption, these powerful interest groups manage to distort urban plans, dodge spatial or legal rules, reduce the production of public goods and manipulate the power of eminent domain; in the process they capture unfair shares of a city’s potential, resources and prosperity to the detriment of large, poor majorities of urban populations. The New Urbanism Movement of the early 1980s broke with conventional master-planning and introduced a number of welcome innovations: livable, pedestrian- friendly cities, dense neighbourhoods with mixes of housing and job-creating commercial and business sites, together with mixed land uses having a diversity of buildings in terms of style, size, price and function – all of this with a strong focus on local communities.38 For all these fresh efforts, though, a conventional approach to urban development has remained dominant to this day. In developing and emerging countries alike, cities are still hostages to a mix of homogeneous forms or functions on the one hand, and spatial/social segregation on the other hand. Urban areas continue to expand across endless peripheries, with serious, pervasive problems of traffic congestion, enhancing the dependence on motor vehicles and intensive use of expensive fossil fuels. This dominant type of city is detrimental to the built heritage and the environment, including surrounding agricultural land, as well as biodiversity. This is the pattern which UN- Habitat refers to as the ‘Global Standard Urbanization Model of the 20th Century’ (GS20C),39 which privileges individualism, consumerism, new (artificial) values and lifestyles, excessive mobility and privatization of the public space. RE-poSITIoNINg URBAN pLANNINg AT THE HUB oF THE WHEEL oF pRoSpERITy ‘The city has many scars to treat and many wounds to cure; urban planning is powerless to do that’,40 claims an expert in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic). Still, in the 50 cities surveyed by UN-Habitat in 2011, efficient urban planning and urban management are perceived as the most important conditions for shared prosperity.41 However, efficient urban planning requires a reinvigorated notion that can really contribute to the pursuit of shared prosperity, and for that purpose four conditions must be met: (i) restoration of public confidence; (ii) repositioning of urban planning in decision- making; (iii) deployment of the fullness of its functions across the five dimensions of shared prosperity; and (iv) support for these functions with adequate financing. Restoration of confidence: Public confidence must be restored in the capacity of urban planning (alongside other urban power functions) to represent the interests of all the population – including the poor, women, children, youth, elderly or disabled people, immigrants and ethnic minorities – so that the public, collective interest prevails at all times and across the whole jurisdiction over any other, and more particularly the vested or special interests of the rich and powerful. Repositioning: If it is to play this stronger role to the full, urban planning must be re-positioned. No longer a mere technical functionality, urban planning must sit at the core of urban power. As the expression of the collective agreement on interests and vision, urban planning can only be as good as the values it represents and the governance mechanisms that frame it. POLICy As a decision-making tool, urban planning must better defend the ‘public’ against the menace of ever-expanding ‘private’ interests and its consequences: shrinking public spaces and reduced provision of public goods, which affect more collective, intangible dimensions like quality of life, social interaction, cultural identity and social values. POLICy If urban planning is to be in a better position to address the shortcomings of the Global Standard Urbanization Model of the 20th century, both theory and practice must come under serious review to ‘rescue’ the discipline from its role as a mere technical tool, restoring it to its rightful position in the public sphere. Today, the Global Standard Urbanization Model of the 20th century appears to be predominant across the world, being largely driven by land speculation and real estate interests that build cities according to financial and economic parameters often radically at odds with shared prosperity.37 Very often, planning has failed correctly to represent collective values and agreements, instead of contributing to the perpetuation of the urban divide with excessive, outdated, irrelevant requirements. Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 131 Working on the five ‘spokes’: Interdependencies and interactions among the five ‘spokes’ in the ‘wheel of urban prosperity’ (productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and environmental sustainability) can be deliberately enhanced (as opposed to being allowed to occur all by themselves) through the strategies and interventions that are part and parcel of urban planning. For example, the process of designing a street which supports multimodal transport as part of the infrastructure development of the city leads also to the improvement of productivity, quality of life and social inclusion (see Table 3.2.1.). Financial support: For urban planning to work more efficiently as an urban power function, it must be reinforced from a financial and legal point of view. Cities need more permanent funding mechanisms to support the provision of public goods and the design and implementation of sustainable technical solutions if their performance and functionality are to be improved. Few cities or countries are in a proper legal position to do that, and where they are, they find themselves faced with systematic interference by special interest groups or political expediency.42 Here again, the public interest must prevail, and governments must look to improve and enforce the mechanisms that enable local authorities to capture urban land and site values, in the process generating the revenues needed to extend prosperity to the poorest areas.43 POLICy Land legislation and planning must combine to put municipal authorities in a better position to extract land values and related capital gains, with the additional revenue available for the funding of infrastructure extensions and other projects. POLICy Restoring urban planning at the central point of the ‘wheel’, where a solid and efficient institutional ‘hub’ holds together, controls and activates the five ‘spokes’ , can only enhance the conditions for sustained, shared prosperity. Streetwise versus petrol-powered prosperity In Peru’s capital Lima, it has taken ‘only’ an open-air public staircase all the way downhill to the city centre to change the name of an informal settlement from fearful ‘Quick Sands’ to ‘The Belt of Hope’. This goes to show the regenerating power of planning for urban public spaces and their decisive role in shared prosperity – well away from the constraints of the outdated automobile-based model of urban development. Indeed, public spaces, as symbolized by ‘the street’, can make significant contributions to socioeconomic prosperity, if only they are adequately configured. The street acts as the interface between public and private spaces, with retail businesses and jobs dependent on the quality of the pedestrian environment. In British towns, customers have been found to spend nearly twice as much when walking instead of driving. In Mexico, research has shown that ‘walkability’ improves home and land values. Public spaces provide the physical support for urban infrastructure. However, and particularly in the developing world, streets are designed mainly for motorized traffic, overlooking the human dimension and only adding to congestion with more or wider streets. The resulting huge imbalance in transport options damages other aspects of urban functionality. A number of cities have sought to counter this trend in a variety of ways. As early as 1962 motor vehicles were banned from Copenhagen’s main street and bicycle commuting was facilitated. In Melbourne, improved sidewalks, new pedestrian streets, squares and urban design have together increased pedestrian traffic by 39 per cent in daytime and 100 per cent at night. Combined with other modes of popular transport like biking and walking, Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) has spread from Curitiba (Brazil) to Jakarta to Bogotá, Guatemala City, Guangzhou, Istanbul, Mexico City, Brisbane and Los Angeles, among others. Upgraded and better designed public spaces have the potential to improve overall quality of life. In Cape Town under the Dignified Places Programme, more than 40 projects have brought dignity, beauty and better functionality to various areas, in the process demonstrating that after decades of repression it was once again` possible to meet and talk in a shared space. Finally, planning can make public spaces more compatible with a healthier, less polluted environment. Once one of the most polluted capitals in the world (with a 70 per cent contribution from public transport), Delhi in 2008 combined a popular, low-cost transport with an alternative source of energy to substitute hybrid for petrol- powered rickshaws. Box 3.2.2 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 132 ExpANDINg pRoSpERITy: CHANgINg CITy LANDSCApES In many cities, urban planning has been instrumentalized by the real estate business. Cities that respond to the interests of the better-off or only focus on strategic economic interventions in specific spaces tend to create enclaves of prosperity for a select few. Urban planning can be so unrealistic or over-ambitious as to overlook the need to steer and control spatial expansion, with large parts of the city ignoring existing plans or regulations. ‘The city falls out of the map, making it irrelevant’, deplores an expert in Panama City.44 More often than not, these are divided cities, splitting the ‘South’ from the ‘North’, and the ‘high part’ from the ‘low part’, as these partitions are known colloquially in many parts of the developing world, creating patches of prosperity surrounded by middle-class and deprived areas. Either by action or omission, this type of urban planning contributes to the production of spatial inequities, rather than better shared prosperity. UN-Habitat proposes a reinvigorated notion of urban planning, one that comes with a new value system that relies on effective institutions, well-adapted laws and regulations, sustainable urban solutions and active civic involvement in public affairs. This type of planning signals a paradigm shift towards a new urban pattern − the city of the 21st century: a city that can better respond to the challenges of our age, optimizing resources to harness the potentialities of the future; a people- centred city, one that is capable of transcending the inefficient, unsustainable GS20C model, in the process integrating and nurturing the five dimensions of urban prosperity as defined in this Report. However, if urban planning is to be reinvigorated, it must shift away from the ‘spoke’ of productivity, where it has been predominantly operating these past several decades, to the centre of the ‘wheel’, right in the ‘hub’: indeed this is where, as an urban power function, planning will be in a better position to make its beneficial influence felt across all five ‘spokes’, enhancing the scope of shared prosperity across the whole of the city. This will, of course, involve political choices and commitments, which must be turned into tools, regulations and sustainable technical solutions, which will be all the better accepted by society at large as they are seen to embed shared prosperity across the whole urban space. FACILITATINg ACCESS To ‘CoMMoNS’, pRovIDINg pUBLIC gooDS, IMpLEMENTINg SUSTAINABLE SoLUTIoNS Facilitating access to ‘commons’: A prosperous city facilitates equitable access to the ‘commons’. These include water, air, biodiversity, knowledge and other shared resources, including public infrastructure, together with more intangible forms such as a better environment, a sense of identity and cultural and symbolic spaces that in principle belong to everyone. Cities with islands of prosperity tend to enclose the ‘commons’, restrict their use to a select few, or deplete them through unsustainable use. Prosperous cities require ‘commons resource pools’, which can take the form of institutional arrangements where conflicts are solved through negotiation, and consensus is built for decision-making. ‘Commons’ also include any legal or statutory provisions facilitating community participation in planning decisions, available quality information, transparency as well as cultural norms and social compacts. Some public goods, such as community civic centres, will often be found to function as ‘space commons’, facilitating the integration of marginal and voiceless groups, in the process promoting pluralism and diversity, which are inseparable from shared prosperity. Contrary to conventional POLICy UN-Habitat calls for a fresh, different type of urban planning and design – one that has the power to transform city landscapes and expand existing enclaves of prosperity to the entire city. POLICy The 21st century is in a position to ensure equitable development, preserve the natural environment, promote inexpensive energy sources, provide necessary infrastructures and ensure inclusive economic growth. POLICy UN-Habitat’s reinvigorated notion of urban planning involves sustainable use of, and equitable access to, the ‘commons’ through appropriate policies and schemes. In general, the production and enjoyment of public goods rely on a set of preconditions such as better connectivity, public security and safety, predictability, property rights under their various forms, street nomenclature, etc. Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 133 wisdom, not all ‘commons are tragic’,45 i.e., free access and unrestricted use do not necessarily deplete existing ‘stocks’ of ‘commons’. Rather, fresh evidence shows that under certain circumstances, collective responsibility for some ‘commons’ creates sustainable conditions, and can even be more efficient than individual property rights. 46 Providing public goods:47 A prosperous city makes a profusion of public goods available to all: efficient public transport, educational opportunities, healthcare, quality public spaces such as libraries, recreation areas, parks and open spaces, etc. A substantial part of urban well- being is derived from access to and consumption of these public goods, which in principle must be ‘non-excludable’ (everyone can enjoy their benefits) and ‘non-rivalry’ (individual consumption of the good does not decrease the amount available for consumption by others).48 Enclaves of prosperity ‘fence in’ or restrict availability of public goods, concentrating public investment in selected areas only, limiting access and privatizing control over a number of such goods. The provision of public goods contributes to economic advancement with environmental preservation and quality of life, which, incidentally, are fundamental ‘smart growth’ concerns, too.49 Bogotá has transformed its own landscape with a variety of public goods such as multi-modal transport, social infrastructure and quality public spaces that have contributed to sharing more of the benefits of prosperity with poor and middle-income neighbourhoods. Still in Colombia, Medellín has resorted to bold civic architecture, public spaces and other public goods in a bid to enhance collective prosperity. Involvement of urban planning with education, culture, infrastructure, safety and community development has enabled the municipality to connect poor barrios (which, according to the head of municipal planning, ‘always had lots of energy, but were disconnected from the city’) with more affluent neighbourhoods in the process planting the seeds of mutual trust and expanding shared prosperity.50 A public good is typically produced by the public sector, but it can also be provided by public agencies, private enterprises or community organizations, although with a degree of government support to ensure universal access. Production of public goods can be requested from a private developer in exchange for the right to develop and benefit from the surroundings where they want to locate a project. It is for appropriate planning to secure such participation from private developers (land owners, real estate developers, etc.) in the production of public goods, quantifying the amounts required, vetting values and development plans, and ensuring orderly deployment across space. Acting from the ‘hub’ of the ‘wheel for prosperity’, urban planning can identify strategies and plan for optimal production of public goods, in the process contributing to social capital, enhancing sense of place, safety and security, integrating social groups (e.g., youth), and increasing the economic value of the areas where these goods are provided. This strategy can generate widespread benefits to all urban residents, expanding prosperity across different areas. Such prosperity in turn can be leveraged for maintenance and further enhancement of public goods. Implementing sustainable solutions: Prosperous cities must plan and implement a variety of technical solutions to improve functionality and achieve sustainable urban forms. Although solutions can vary according to local conditions, UN-Habitat has identified a number of key interventions in various areas to assist the transition away from the current ‘Global Standard Urbanization Model of the 20th Century’ (GS20C), which is unsustainable on many accounts, to the city of the 21st century. As suggested earlier, it is in the power of well-calibrated planning rules and interventions to help embed the five dimensions of shared prosperity across the length and breadth of any urban jurisdiction. Making the city more functional, preserving access to the commons and producing useful public goods can be achieved through five different, sustainable types of intervention: Increase population density to sustainable levels: More intense land occupation and activities result in sustainable population densities which contain or reduce urban sprawl and depletion of limited resources. Greater proximity will, in turn, POLICy A reinvigorated notion of urban planning would give any city tighter public control over the use of land, change the form and function of cities based on sustainable development principles, as well as expand the provision of, and access to, public goods. POLICy As it manages space (the form and function of the city), urban planning can steer the overall functioning of the ‘wheel’, modulating each dimension of prosperity and ensuring synergies between them in order to maintain overall balance and sustainable growth. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 134 facilitate supply and distribution of goods and services. An efficient layout (together with adequate land legislation and policies) can reduce the cost of infrastructure. In addition to suburban densification and sprawl remediation, land use can be intensified through area redevelopment, planning for new areas with higher densities, ‘brownfield’ development (i.e., decontaminating and developing land previously used for industrial or certain commercial purposes), building conversions, and transit-oriented developments. Encourage social diversity and mixed land-use: Land planning can bring about clusters of land uses in appropriate locations, with the flexibility needed to adapt to the changing requirements of the population. Urban planning must facilitate the deployment of common spaces that allow encounter, interaction and dialogue between different social-ethnic groups. Moreover, physical urban structure facilitates communication between economic activities and residential areas, providing employment and services on a neighbourhood scale, with positive repercussions on productivity, infrastructure, equity, quality of life and the environment. Urban design strengthens and empowers structures through infrastructure and facilities (education, healthcare, commerce, manufacturing and culture/ entertainment). Devise multimodal mobility strategies: Urban planning can provide alternatives to the current widespread dependency on private motorized vehicles and reinforce use of public transport in combination with non-motorized modes and proper sidewalks. An integrated urban transport strategy generates immediate effects on productivity, including reductions in travel times. Improved transport systems come with environmental benefits such as better air quality due to reduced exhaust fumes. Accessibility for all potential users is essential to ensure equal mobility opportunities. Plan infill development and guided expansion: Urban planning must combine both of these for the sake of proper density and provision of affordable urban land. Infill development can revitalize dilapidated areas in the city. In those developing countries where urbanization continues apace, new areas must be developed for the benefit of newcomers if further slum expansion is to be avoided. Properly planned spatial patterns can reduce pressure on land, provide for urban services and alleviate the burden London, UK: the Olympic Park for the 2012 Olympics was constructed on brownfield sites in Stratford, an area of east London that had been previously rundown. After the Olympic games, the site is to be used to accommodate low-cost housing as well as leisure activities. © 2012 Alistair Laming/fotoLIBRA.com Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 135 Urban planning/design and prosperity prosperity Dimensions Urban planning Commons/goods/ Sustainable Solutions Productivity Harness the benefits of agglomeration economies. Commons Improve access to productive advantage (knowledge, quality of the environment, etc.). Commons Provide sufficient public space for circulation of goods and people and deploy adequate infrastructure. Provide efficient transport systems for people and goods. Public goods Encourage polycentric urban development, allowing synergies between centres and sub-centres. Promote mixed-land use to enhance economies of agglomeration and scale with better clustering. Intensify urban nodes and corridors to maximize the benefits of concentration. Sustainable solutions Infrastructure development Provide ’clean’ infrastructure, closing ‘energy waste loops’ to preserve climate, air and water quality; improve connectivity. Commons Expand multimodal transport systems with sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. Provide social infrastructure such as civic centres, libraries, sports facilities, etc. Public goods Ensure eco-efficiency of infrastructural systems. Support density through integrated infrastructure development, enhancing efficiency and access. Sustainable solutions Quality of life Enhance identity and culture through symbolic spaces and heritage preservation. Improve safety and security. Support place-making through urban design. Commons Ensure high quality of public spaces that engage interaction among communities. Promote green spaces. Public goods Enhance the role of the street as a multi-functional urban space and integrate natural spaces and recreational areas. Sustainable solutions Equity and social inclusion Enhance freedom of movement. Commons Provide well-located, adequate public infrastructure and amenities (incl. education, healthcare, recreation, etc.). Public goods Create mixed neighbourhoods with the diversity of jobs and housing options. Plan infill development and guided expansions. Promote mixed-used land development, ensuring involvement from marginalized groups. Improve connectivity between neighbourhoods and access to services. Turn land and development thereof into a revenue source. Sustainable solutions Environmental sustainability Ensure clean air, unpolluted water and preservation of biodiversity. Act on climate change adaptation/mitigation. Maximize the natural benefits of the site (sunlight, water bodies, winds, etc.). Plan for restoration of ecosystems. Commons Enhance public parks, waterfront and ‘green’ areas for recreational and productive purposes. Public goods Use ‘passive urban design’ to reduce carbon emissions. Plan for urban density to reduce energy consumption and settlements footprint. Reduce fragmentation of natural systems; reduce spatial footprint through careful design of infrastructure networks and settlements. Sustainable solutions Table 3.2.1 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 136 on existing infrastructure. In addition, forward-looking planning can put a halt to land speculation while facilitating access to affordable housing and urban services. Promote livable public spaces and vibrant streets: Public spaces and streets must be seen as multifunctional areas for social interaction, economic exchange and cultural expression among a wide diversity of participants. It is for planning to organize for those public spaces, and for design to encourage their use, in the process enhancing a sense of identity and belonging. Safety and security are important dimensions to be considered in any such design, together with vital underground infrastructure (water, energy and communications). Empowering Laws and Institutions for Urban Prosperity Laws, regulations and institutions are a critical factor in determining the success of cities in achieving holistic and integrated prosperity. In almost all cases of prosperous cities cited in this report, progress along the five dimensions of prosperity is either accelerated or impeded by existing bodies of laws and regulations, the strength of enforcement, as well as by the configuration, capacity and flexibility of the institutions responsible for steering urban development. Laws and institutions provide the normative and organizational underpinnings of urban change and it is no wonder that in recent years, there has been a resurgence of policy reviews and scholarly studies striving to address these aspects. Laws and institutions provide the power and rigour for enabling action, granting authority, defining relations and generally sustaining continuity or triggering change. At a time when so many crisis-struck nations find that a fresh start on the path of prosperity depends more than ever on cities, these elements of the process of urban development must be mobilized to their full potential.51 Business, academia, civil society – non-governmental and grassroots organizations, trade unions and professional associations, political parties, etc. − are all the legitimate expressions of the various forms which a city’s specific potential can take; and the needs to which these stakeholders give ‘voice’ relate to the preservation and further development of their respective potentials. More than ever, cities need empowering, not forbidding, legal and institutional systems for their prosperity. Amartya Sen emphasizes this point when he argues a city does not need to be deemed fit for a prosperity-oriented legal and institutional system; rather, it must become fit through such a system – which, again, is needed now, and for the city as a whole.52 Indeed, cities do need such systems now − and they are at hand’s reach, if only public authorities can find the political will (as this chapter will show, some do). Addressing legal and institutional dimension fosters integrated prosperity by promoting the universal demand for justice, fairness and legitimacy. It is a process which transcends cultural barriers and it can be met in a variety of ways as determined by local urban power functions. It forms part of the hub that drives the ‘wheel of urban prosperity’, which supports and shapes the five ‘spokes’, adjusting them over time as conditions, needs and fresh risks may require. At the same time, in all parts of the world, laws and institutions have always been shaped by the complex interactions of socio-cultural factors, with new forces constantly bringing their own influences to bear. 53 As shown in this chapter, urban power functions – governance, urban planning, legal and regulatory frameworks and strong institutions – form the ‘hub’ that controls the ‘wheel of urban prosperity’ and give it direction, pace and momentum (see Chapter 1.1). Shared prosperity requires the As the proximate reflection of society’s values, and as representing political and social relations, laws and institutions serve as the most powerful instruments available to shape urban development. POLICy Promoting prosperity involves deployment of proper laws, regulations and institutions which have a direct or indirect bearing on equity, productivity, infrastructures and living standards, and which extend across the length and breadth of the whole jurisdiction of the relevant urban authority. In the cities of the world today, the power to be mobilized against the crisis emanates from a variety of stakeholders, not just public authorities, although these retain a decisive role. Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 137 predominance of the public interest as embodied in public authorities54 to ensure that none of the five ‘spokes’ gain prevalence to the detriment of the others. Abstract values and norms are institutions because they guide individual and collective action.55 Box 3.2.4 shows how, in China and in Europe centuries ago, the State imposed the prevalence of the public over other interests and needs, treating them all equitably for the sake of shared prosperity. The importance of laws and institutions in urban settings is manifested in a variety of ways. This includes the delineation of powers and functions in the governance structure of a city, which often derive from promulgated city charters, local government frameworks, or directly from the national constitution. Similarly, the rights and responsibilities granted to individuals and firms in cities are all dictated by prevailing legal frameworks. Also, the interaction among urban residents as well as the modalities of production, distribution and consumption of urban space have always been regulated by explicit and implicit codes of behaviour and practice. The transformative potential of any city has, therefore, always been a function of the enabling scope of its laws, regulations and institutions. The degree to which such instruments can be deployed as they are, or consolidated, or even reformed will determine a city’s degree of prosperity. In the metaphor of the ‘Prosperity Wheel’, the legal and institutional framework as a whole acts as the ‘hub’ which steers the development of the five dimensions (‘spokes’) of prosperity, modulating momentum, relaying its energy to the other dimensions, and maintaining the overall balance of the ‘wheel’. Internal dysfunctions in the legal and institutional framework, or any disconnect between the hub and the spokes, interferes with the operation of the ‘wheel’ and makes any existing momentum unsustainable (for example, if based on only one of the five dimensions). THE LEgAL-INSTITUTIoNAL BASIS oF THE 20TH-CENTURy CITy Advances in industrial development, consolidation of the market economy and the permeating influence of liberal democracy (both in its origin in the West and the post- colonial variant in the developing world) have created a shared legal and regulatory foundation in much of the urban world. The legal, regulatory and institutional fundamentals of the contemporary city tend to be identical, differing only in levels of development, institutional characteristics and performance ability. Indeed, the legal-institutional basis of the 20th-century city is fairly uniform; and this explains the similarities not only in functional modalities but also in the all-too-visible imbalances characterizing the 20th-century city in its generic sense (i.e., spatial segregation, social exclusion, a predominance of motorized mobility, high energy consumption and poor regard for the potential for agglomeration economies). Driven by the dominant paradigm of the pursuit of individual interests and sustained by a vigorous quest for ever-maximized exchange values, the pivotal dynamics of the 20th-century city has been its age-old accumulation function. Cities have become places of transactions realized through the Weberian formal rational-legal systems. This feature has evolved from the institutional traditions of Western European states that were devised to Laws and the associated institutional set-up have determined the very genesis of the modern city, both in its essence as well as its functionality. Individual versus collective interests The legal foundation of the 20th-century city lies in the ancient tenets of Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code, together with the subsequent elaboration into modern civil and common law. The gist of this legal corpus is the pre- eminence of the individual, who is considered as possessed of inherent rights as represented in the 18th-century French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. Within this individualistic legal tradition, property rights reign supreme, with the emphasis on the rights of owners to the detriment of their social implications and other, broader, collective interests, including duties and responsibilities. With particular regard to urban settings, ‘land and property are conceived largely as commodities whose economic value is determined by the owners’ interests.’56 In this system, the role of the State at all levels is relegated to harmonizing and mediating these interests, and to overseeing those assets and facilities that require collective use. Box 3.2.3 Although the 20th-century city tends to exhibit fair degrees of vibrancy and dynamism, whatever attendant prosperity it experiences is often skewed and unsustainable – and therefore ridden with perennial crises. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 138 provide predictable conditions for market transactions and to facilitate investment and economic growth. The community dimension of the city, which has played a major role in the genesis of urbanism, is granted only marginal treatment, while the harnessing of opportunity provides the central impetus for development in general, and urbanisation in particular. As a result, in the words of Lawrence Haworth, ‘societies that not very long ago cultivated relationships, conversation, and reasonably vibrant public forums, now cultivate disconnectedness, [and have become] self-absorbed, narcissistic individuals.’57 ToWARDS A NEW LEgAL-URBAN oRDER FoR HoLISTIC pRoSpERITy During the past two decades, the pitfalls of the conventional urban development model have become more glaring. As shown in the previous section (Urban Prosperity through Planning and Design) the potential of cities has not been fully harnessed, a more common trend has developed where urban development tends to be spatially fragmented and the benefits of prosperity remain socially segmented. The financial centre of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. © Publio Furbino/Shutterstock.com Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 139 In contrast, over the past two decades there are a few cities in the world that have undertaken a major re-examination of the prevailing urban legal order, and initiated bold practical schemes inspired by a set of alternative, radical urban doctrines and jurisprudence which depart from the classical liberal legalism exalting individualism and private property. Among these are cities in Brazil, which, in 2001, after a long period of consultations and negotiations, adopted a nationwide City Statute which enshrined the notion of a Right to the City. The Statute makes an important contribution to urban law, facilitating shared prosperity, particularly in the context of a developing country. The Statute also ‘broke with the long-standing tradition of civil law and set the basis of a new legal-political paradigm for urban land use and development control’.58 A prominent scholar highlights four dimensions of Brazil’s 2001 City Statute: ‘A conceptual one, providing elements for the interpretation of the constitutional principle of the social functions of urban property and of the city; the regulation of new instruments for the construction of a different urban order by the municipalities; the indication of processes for the democratic management of cities; and the identification of legal instruments for the comprehensive regularisation of informal settlements in private and public urban areas.’59 This new urban legal order has had highly visible effects. As a nation and at macro-economic level, Brazil is among a handful of countries in the world that has been able to achieve remarkable growth rates for much of the early years of this century, despite the global economic turbulence. More significantly, Brazilian cities have been able to expand the middle-class segments of their populations and to improve economic and living conditions for substantial numbers of poor residents. Although still very high, cities are reducing income inequalities, as measured by the Gini coefficient, which decreased from 0.606 in 1990 to 0.569 in 2009.60 The experience of Diadema, in the São Paulo metropolitan region (the main hub of Brazil’s motor industry), is a case in point. At the beginning of the 1980s, the city was effectively a dormitory town, with a majority of residents living in slum conditions. Only 22 per cent of the road and street network was up to urban standards, on top of a general lack of drainage, surfacing, water and sewerage networks. Around 30 per cent of the population lived in favelas without any attention from local public authorities. Education, health, cultural and leisure services and amenities were in very short supply. The city was among those with the highest child mortality rates in Brazil (83/1,000 live births). A generation or so later, by 2009, only three per cent of Diadema’s population were still residing in favelas. The municipality has incorporated some of the instruments and mechanisms provided in the 2001 City Statute in its own urban planning and participatory management. A proper infrastructure has been put in place, the local economy is dynamic and the city has demonstrated its capacity to mobilize the population. On top of productivity, infrastructure and quality of life, Diadema has also promoted equitable standards in spatial development.61 REvITALIzED ‘RIgHTS To THE CoMMoNS’ AND ExpANSIoN oF THE pUBLIC REALM ‘Commons’ reinforce the social function of property and that of the city as a whole, while recognizing the dynamism of private assets. Laws, regulations and institutions as factors of restraint, opportunity and action act as the levers that can optimize the social function of property and balance it out with private rights and assets. It must be stressed here that this social function is not about ownership rights or their transactional implications. Rather, it is essentially about user rights for enhanced human value. The ‘Right to the Commons’ is an ancient concept in legal jurisprudence originating in feudal England, where it referred to the extension of user rights for all on a manor’s grazing land. Lately, the notion has resurfaced in urban settings (including public goods, societal institutional arrangements, public culture, and heritage sites), where it is perceived as an effective way of countering not just rampant enclosures and appropriations, but also the rise of duality under the form of inequity and segregation. The relevance of the ‘commons’ concept to the legal-institutional dimensions of urban prosperity lies in its ability to emphasize and materialize the inherent collective dimension of urbanism. In this respect, Those few cities featuring balanced and sustainable prosperity have effectively deployed adequate laws, regulations and institutions in support of their transformation. POLICy Shared urban prosperity is about enhancing the public realm, equitable sharing of public goods and consolidating rights to the commons for all. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 140 cities such as Helsinki, Toronto and Barcelona, which achieve high rankings on the UN- Habitat City Prosperity Index (CPI), feature more extensive public realms than Monrovia, Nairobi or Dakar, or similar cities with low CPI readings. In essence, the extended public realm, with its negation of any spatial, social or functional duality, fills a two-way function as both a cause and a consequence of the cumulative operation and interaction of the five ‘spokes’ of the ‘wheel of shared urban prosperity’. Legal and regulatory instruments exert a major bearing on the origination and preservation of the commons, and also in ensuring indiscriminate access. Statutes, ordinances and regulations are the bases for the guidelines and standards regulating spatial layouts and construction designs. The same applies to institutional relationships, functional allocations and authority designation, besides resource distribution. The legal framework in turn enables civic organizations and community activities. Equally significant is the overall manner in which legal-regulatory and institutional frameworks delineate the public and private spheres and guide the interaction between and within them in the everyday workings of the city. One component of the commons that lately has attracted a lot of attention is the management of public spaces.62 In Panama City, one of the local experts surveyed by UN-Habitat put it as follows: ‘The more degraded public space, the more degraded the citizen, because public space is not only about quality of life but also the expression of citizenship’.63 Another local expert, in Santo Domingo, underscored the same point perhaps more incisively: ‘Citizens need to gain positive empowerment, to defend space enclaves where public life is still alive and where laws and norms for doing so are available.’64 REvISITINg URBAN CoDES FoR SHARED pRoSpERITy Rules and regulations constitute a key instrument in urban management and development. That is why appropriate institutions are required to ensure implementation and enforcement as well as awareness building and mobilization. Whereas laws must empower both spaces (e.g., serviced land) and stakeholders (e.g., secure tenure) for shared prosperity, it is for rules and regulations to embed the public interest on the ground (when effectively enforced). Supporting institutions in this endeavour include programme implementation, education and training, as well as awareness building and mobilization. Rules and regulations have significant roles to play, as they generally steer and circumscribe planning and construction. One author has even gone so far as to ascribe the ‘shaping and misshaping of American cities’ to poor planning regulations.65 Indeed, zoning regulations, building codes, utility standards, deed restrictions and the many other instruments that shape the urban built environment, will determine not only the pattern, use and form of spaces and structures, but will also strongly influence the quality of life in cities. The review of regulatory frameworks is of particular importance for those cities in the developing world that have long operated with externally derived standards and codes, who must also tend to effective implementation and enforcement capacities. Revisiting the codes developed for formerly colonial or apartheid cities like Nairobi, Dar es Salaam or Johannesburg in a bid to achieve an inclusive urban form is a challenging endeavour. This calls not only for major institutional restructuring, but also a revision of zoning and In this era of enclosures, privatization and even invasion of the traditional urban commons (including beaches, river banks, forests, school yards and even pavements), the size and quality of a city’s overall public space acts as a good indicator of shared prosperity. POLICy Laws, rules and institutions must be kept alert, not inert, to current and evolving needs and risks if a city’s whole human potential is to be harnessed, not repressed – empowering the whole population with ‘basic capabilities’ or ‘generic conditions of agency’ at the service of today’s and tomorrow’s prosperity. The capacity for a city to maintain extensive and quality shared spaces and facilities provides a good indication of its degree of prosperity. POLICy As cities work on the five dimensions of prosperity, there also occurs a progressive expansion in the size of the commons. More amenities are brought into collective use and more access is provided, enabling larger numbers of urban residents to use and enjoy shared spaces, services and facilities. Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 141 building codes to support urban reforms, not to mention squatter regulation and slum upgrading. In addition, cities today must provide accommodative measures, allowing for progressive construction, smaller plot sizes and multiple variants of land tenure. Similarly, utility standards must be adjusted, and new development financing channels devised, in the face of inequity and exclusion. Indeed, the need for revisiting rules and regulations for shared prosperity applies across all the five ‘spokes’ of the prosperity wheel. The on-going transformations in Hong Kong and China show that even in an aspect such as environment there is an urgent need to pay attention to the legal and regulatory implications of change. Adequate rules and regulations66 are required not just for the purposes of improved quality of life, or climate change adaptation, but also because in developing countries the poor are heavily reliant on natural capital for their subsistence.67 At the same time, urban rule-makers must remain well aware of the inter-linkages between environmental protection and slum/ poverty reduction. INSTITUTIoNAL TRANSFoRMATIoN Some of the real-life experiences outlined in this chapter suggest that when it comes to structuring the urban power functions that form the hub of the ‘prosperity wheel’, it is for every city to make its own choices. Indeed, many choices have already been made; but common to all is the adaptation and consolidation of key institutions which harness the energy and engagement of all stakeholders in a city. Major stakeholders, such as business, professionals, civic organizations, besides neighbourhood associations, must be provided with an institutional avenue for effective engagement with urban prosperity – how it is generated and how it is shared. Such engagement transcends the traditional participatory practices of forums and consultative mechanisms; it turns socioeconomic conditions into levers of enhanced prosperity, with every household and business considered as an asset to be safeguarded, optimized and promoted – empowered – for the benefit of all. An exemplary case of institutional innovation for shared prosperity is that of Medellín. During the past decade, the Colombian city’s prosperity has experienced major turnaround, as it endeavoured to overcome the combined challenges of poverty, inequality, exclusion and informality, besides rampant violence, through a whole new social dispensation. Conditions have been put in place for civic mobilization, bringing together politicians, the private sector, professionals and communities, with the aim of building a future that benefits everyone. The collective energy behind this compact reconstructs the foundations of shared prosperity in all socioeconomic spheres. It strives to expand the civic order through cooperative endeavours, using local economic development as the entry point. It is in this regard, for example, that the limitations of the informal economy (locally known as the ‘chasita economy’ (chasita being small trolleys the poor use to peddle wares around the community) have been addressed and measures taken to create more sustainable business enterprises. Well-adapted, modern financial institutions have been established, such as the strengthening of ‘Banco de las Oportunidades’, which is a microfinance initiative, along with networks of business development agencies (CEDEZOs). All these are targeting growth-oriented, small and medium-sized enterprises in a bid to generate momentum for systemic transformation in favour of growth and inclusiveness. Furthermore, as a way of enabling the municipality to cater for the overall needs of its residents the local authority enhanced its resource disposition by consolidating a community-owned agency – Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM). It is now acknowledged that owing to its effective management, not only does the Agency contribute about 30 per cent of its net revenue into the city budget, but it has also provided close to 99 per cent utility connections to the city residents. Recent reviews have confirmed that the funding from EPM has enabled the city to ensure a minimum income floor to the poorest residents.68 Helsinki, a city that features prominently in the UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index, has optimized on POLICy Shared and integrated prosperity is a socio-political project, involving a commitment by all stakeholders and entailing a re-examination of laws, regulations, and the corresponding institutional framework. As some cities have discovered, shared prosperity involves a serious review of regulatory frameworks. POLICy Shared prosperity is not accidental, nor is it an automatic outcome of economic growth or market forces. It is a human, collective construct which requires vision, leadership and a coherent programme of action. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 142 partnerships, and vertical linkages as well as system modernization. The main accent of its prosperity building strategy has been through investing in human capital by promoting innovation. The city uses a multi-pronged approach to building prosperity, thus it is not surprising that it remains in the top category of the prosperity index.69 Barcelona and Toronto have similarly managed to enhance prosperity by a comprehensive deployment of legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks. Making full use of the stronger powers vested into it, the municipality of Barcelona was able to use physical improvements to public spaces to rebuild social and political cohesion among the population. The nexus between regulations and institutions, on the one hand, and the social and political sphere on the other hand, has played a crucial role in Barcelona’s success. The same applies to Toronto, which has been consistently meticulous in organizational performance. Using its rich diversity as an asset, the city has been able to utilize effectively its metropolitan status, an engaging relationship with the province and federal government to maintain its economic competitiveness and a high level of quality of life for its residents.70 The case of Dubai brings out an institutional factor which is common to most of the above cities, but somewhat more prominent in this city-state. This is the aspect of vision and leadership. The transformation from a desolate desert land to a global business hub is an outstanding achievement, notwithstanding its current poor performance in the equity dimension. The city’s prosperity has been driven by institutional modernization, In Helsinki, the enabling potential of legal and regulatory instruments is used to build a dynamic institutional framework which enhances shared prosperity. A metro train downtown in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The driverless system opened in 2009. © Philip Lange /Shutterstock.com Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 143 and also a judicious application of rules and regulations in planning and management. Being a state in itself and also very small in size, much of the progress achieved is led by the central government.71 While in the case of Dubai, the overall national leadership and the royal family is credited with the city’s success, for many others the role of particular mayors is also recognized.72 At this juncture it is worth noting that most of the cities that can be called ‘prosperous’ are impacted by development forces which operate beyond the boundaries of single municipalities. There is an increasing process of metropolitization in triggering the dynamic of prosperity to the extent that metros are described as the building blocks of prosperity.73 At the same time, complementarities of higher levels of government – State and national – are needed for the prosperity project to succeed. The balance of this relationship has not always been easy, with fears about the erosion of municipal power, particularly in the United States.74 Legal and institutional transformation for the sake of prosperity is not confined to the cities of the developed world. Despite the formidable challenges facing them, a number of Asian and African cities are taking significant steps, with some already achieving visibly higher degrees of prosperity. Cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad, South Africa’s Gauteng urban region, Nairobi, Dakar and Dar es Salaam are all engaged in the pursuit of shared, sustainable prosperity through effective legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks. Bangalore clearly demonstrates the challenges of a higher prosperity path against a developing country background; but the city benefits from strong institutional synergies, with investment by national, state and local government, including Greater Bangalore authority. The private–public partnership model seems to be the driving factor behind the city’s enhanced prosperity, together with a well-adapted regulatory framework for Information Technology Parks, an attractive environment for highly skilled labour, and facilitation of the establishment of training and research institutions. Law, institutions and the public interest Urban space is shaped by laws, rules and institutions (or lack thereof) in response to the needs and requirements of varying numbers of stakeholders. In this sense, the prosperity of a city is also a legal and institutional construct, and the past has some lessons for early 21st-century central and municipal governments. Major legal systems around the world have long recognized that far from being just an abstract norm, law and institutions have the capacity to shape up a variety of interests across ethnic, cultural and other divides. They do so within the spatial confines of their jurisdictions, and with a long-term view.75 This is the background against which the state has historically emerged as the apex body of an interdependent network of powerful repositories of different kinds of power – legal, religious, bureaucratic, economic, etc.76 In this role, the state has gradually built a monopoly over universality. This went hand in hand with the constitution of bureaucratic functions independent of particular interests – family, religion, the economy – with agents that were mandated to embody the public interest. Along with this came the constitution of a new, ‘public’ kind of resources that embodied universality, or at any rate a degree of universality that was superior to that of previously existing resources. This public realm gradually stood out against particular interests, and also against private appropriation of public functions through patronage or nepotism. As the state evolved into ‘the geometric focal point of all perspectives’ and a principle of public order, it established a unified space – imposing spatial over social, genealogical or other types of proximity. In the process, public authority has gained more recognition from the various segments of society, which further consolidates both its privileged position and its efficiency. As a result, the notion of ‘public interest’ can pave the way for consensus and mobilization; at any rate, it sheds light on reality and becomes a shared evaluation criterion. Historically, in China as in Europe, the city has served as the privileged locus of the emergence of the state and the public interest as we know them today. In 11th-century Western Europe,77 it fell to municipal authorities to control violence as well as economic and political relations. Although the poor were effectively left out of some functions, they were equal members of the assemblies in charge of endorsing municipal officials and laws (including those on economic activities). Moreover, purchase, sale and mortgaging of land and buildings were open to all. At the time, the protections and safeguards provided by cities also aimed at preserving their prosperity from heavy-handed monarchs or emperors. Box 3.2.4 POLICy Shared and integrated prosperity in cities is about the reclaiming of a sense of community and sustainability through urban power functions. It is about regaining the very objective of people converging in cities – the ‘urban advantage’, with the notions of shared social and cultural values attached to it. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 144 A pedestrian footbridge at night in the modern city of Shenzhen, China. © Fuyu Liu/Shutterstock.com Innovating to Support the Transition to the City of the 21st Century 145 Endnotes 1 Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Sampath, 2010. 2 Kratke, 2011. 3 Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and Sampath, 2010. 4 Kratke, 2011. 5 Landry, 2000. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 ‘Urbanization economies’ refer to the advantages gained from a specific urban location: proximity to markets, available labour force, communications, and auxiliary business services. 10 Government of Singapore, 2010. 11 Centre for Livable Cities, 2011. 12 Belliapa, 2011. 13 Vejella, 2011. 14 Jin and Liu, 2011. 15 The city’s GDP rose from 136.024 billion Yuan in 1997 to 789.424 billion Yuan in 2010. Even during the serious financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, Chongqing maintained a high growth rate of GDP of 14% [ Liu and Wang, 2011] Kurtul, 2011. 16 Kurtul, 2011. 17 World Bank, 2012. 18 Gabara, 2008. 19 Lorentzen et al, 2010. 20 SET-DEV, 2011. 21 Ibid. 22 Jin and Liu, 2011. 23 In ten years of reform and development, the total assets of state-owned enterprises increased from 160 billion Yuan to one trillion Yuan, nearly seven-fold increase [Liu and Wang, 2011. 24 UN-Habitat, 2010a. 25 UN-Habitat, 2010c. 26 James et al, 2008. 27 Castells, 1996. 28 James et al, 2008. 29 Soja, 2010. 30 Cohen, 2012. 31 Clos, 2012. 32 Belliapa, 2011. 33 Flyvbjerg, 1996. 34 Viana, 2011. 35 López, 2011. 36 Kothari and Chaudhry , 2009. 37 Buhigas, 2012. 38 Briney, 2009. 39 Clos, 2012; This ‘global standardization process’ is also referred by professionals like David Mangin [Mangin, 2004] 40 Castellanos, 2011. 41 A highest percentage of respondents in all regions found that planning and management is the most important factor, while the majority of respondents in LAC opined that decentralization of policies and appropriate laws and regulation plays a more important role. 42 ONU-HÁBITAT, 2012. 43 Earth Right Institute, 2011. 44 Mendoza, 2011. 45 The “Tragedy of the Commons’ refers to a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was described in an influential article, "The Tragedy of the Commons", by ecologist Garrett Hardin and first published in Science in 1968. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tragedy_of_the_commons) 46 Ostrom, 1990. 47 The notion of fixed social capital, which encompasses all assets of society that are not mobile (or soft) but are solid and owned by the public is equivalent to the ‘public goods’ mentioned in this chapter. 48 UNIDO, 2008. 49 The CLEAR Network, 2006. 50 Kimmelman, 2012. 51 ‘Cities have always been exposed to brutal economic pressures from overseas; the nation state has always, to a greater or smaller extent, tried to cushion these pressures.’ [Pierre, 2011] 52 Sen, 1999. 53 Menski, 2006. 54 ‘It could well be argued that the growing significance of non-elected actors in urban politics in many countries only increases the need for political control and accountability.’ [Pierre, 2011] 55 Pierre, 2011. 56 Fernandes and Copello , 2009. 57 Haworth, 1963. 58 Fernandes, 2007a. 59 Fernandes, 2007b. 60 UN-Habitat database (2012). 61 Reali and Alli, 2010. 62 See, for instance, Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for People, Island Press, Washington DC. 63 Mendoza, 2011. 64 Castellanos, 2011. 65 Talen, 2012. 66 Kremzner, 1998; Chan and Yung, 2004; Waldman, 2012 67 World Bank, 2006. 68 Bateman, 2012; McGuirk, 2012. 69 Karvinen, M. (2005) Innovation and creativity strategies in Helsinki Metropolitan Area – reinvention of regional governance, proceedings of the 41st ISoCaRP Congress 2005, Bilbao, Spain. 70 City of Toronto (n.d) How Toronto Ranks, http://www.toronto.ca/progress/world_ rankings.htm 71 Cooper, 2003. 72 IIED (2009) ‘What Role for Mayors in Good City Governance?’ in Environment & Urbanization Vol 21, No 1, April 2009. Brief. 73 Peirce et al (eds.), 2008. 74 European Commission, 1998; Creedy et al, 2007; Jaffe, 2012; Peirce et al (eds.), 2012. 75 Berman, 1983; Menski, 2006. 76 Bourdieu, 2012. 77 Berman, 1983; Sassen, 2006. 146 Statistical Annex Country City City prosperity Index (CpI) with 5 Dimensions City prosperity Index (CpI) with 4 Dimensions* productivity Index Quality of Life Index Infrastructure Index Enivronment Index Equity Index Austria Vienna 0.925 0.936 0.939 0.882 0.996 0.932 0.883 United States New York 0.825 0.934 0.940 0.866 0.994 0.941 0.502 Canada Toronto 0.890 0.934 0.874 0.907 0.997 0.963 0.733 United Kingdom London 0.904 0.934 0.923 0.898 0.997 0.920 0.793 Sweden Stockholm 0.898 0.934 0.896 0.925 0.995 0.921 0.767 Finland Helsinki 0.924 0.933 0.890 0.905 0.997 0.944 0.890 Ireland Dublin 0.913 0.929 0.901 0.867 0.996 0.958 0.850 Norway Oslo 0.924 0.929 0.870 0.914 0.997 0.939 0.903 France Paris 0.897 0.927 0.895 0.925 0.996 0.895 0.788 Japan Tokyo 0.905 0.925 0.850 0.931 0.989 0.936 0.828 Australia Melbourne 0.903 0.925 0.867 0.875 0.996 0.967 0.820 New Zealand Auckland 0.862 0.922 0.854 0.889 0.994 0.958 0.657 Netherlands Amsterdam 0.895 0.915 0.866 0.872 0.995 0.933 0.818 Switzerland Zurich 0.884 0.914 0.868 0.858 0.997 0.941 0.772 Denmark Copenhagen 0.913 0.911 0.855 0.871 0.997 0.928 0.922 Belgium Brussels 0.883 0.910 0.862 0.864 0.997 0.922 0.783 Spain Barcelona 0.876 0.909 0.829 0.912 0.995 0.908 0.755 Italy Milan 0.870 0.908 0.868 0.895 0.997 0.876 0.733 Poland Warsaw 0.883 0.901 0.846 0.864 0.990 0.911 0.817 Portugal Lisbon 0.853 0.899 0.827 0.867 0.995 0.916 0.692 Hungary Budapest 0.881 0.894 0.808 0.867 0.990 0.921 0.833 Greece Athens 0.862 0.889 0.800 0.885 0.996 0.884 0.762 Czech Republic Prague 0.871 0.882 0.855 0.771 0.992 0.926 0.827 Republic of Korea Seoul 0.861 0.876 0.801 0.903 0.989 0.822 0.807 Russia Moscow 0.793 0.870 0.806 0.813 0.960 0.908 0.550 Mexico Guadalajara 0.801 0.839 0.787 0.759 0.922 0.899 0.667 Brazil São Paulo 0.757 0.836 0.742 0.803 0.918 0.894 0.507 Kazakhstan Almaty 0.830 0.833 0.751 0.822 0.872 0.897 0.818 City prosperity Index and components Table 1 GENERAL DISCLAIMER The designations employed and presentation of the data in the Statistical Annex do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, city or area of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Table 1: City prosperity Index and components Table 2: proportion of urban population living in slums and urban slum population, by country, 1990–2009 Table 3: Urban population, proportion of urban population living in slum area and urban slum population, by region, 1990–2012 Table 4: City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 5: Urban population and urbanization by country, 1990–2030 Statistical Annex 147 Country City City prosperity Index (CpI) with 5 Dimensions City prosperity Index (CpI) with 4 Dimensions* productivity Index Quality of Life Index Infrastructure Index Enivronment Index Equity Index China Shanghai 0.826 0.832 0.671 0.836 0.900 0.950 0.800 Romania Bucharest 0.836 0.821 0.707 0.767 0.968 0.867 0.900 Mexico Mexico City 0.709 0.816 0.743 0.764 0.900 0.866 0.405 Turkey Ankara 0.780 0.806 0.699 0.802 0.842 0.891 0.683 Jordan Amman 0.771 0.796 0.697 0.790 0.887 0.824 0.680 Thailand Bangkok 0.733 0.794 0.719 0.747 0.871 0.850 0.533 Colombia Bogotá 0.699 0.791 0.672 0.767 0.970 0.785 0.427 Colombia Medellín 0.667 0.789 0.600 0.718 0.959 0.812 0.394 Ukraine Kyiv 0.798 0.781 0.579 0.757 0.968 0.874 0.873 Viet Nam Hà Noi 0.756 0.776 0.712 0.761 0.912 0.733 0.683 Armenia Yerevan 0.779 0.769 0.635 0.850 0.870 0.745 0.817 China Beijing 0.799 0.762 0.667 0.836 0.911 0.663 0.967 South Africa Cape Town 0.590 0.758 0.628 0.645 0.933 0.875 0.217 Indonesia Jakarta 0.769 0.743 0.636 0.733 0.741 0.881 0.885 South Africa Johannesburg 0.479 0.742 0.654 0.645 0.880 0.816 0.083 Philippines Manila 0.723 0.737 0.676 0.647 0.775 0.868 0.669 Egypt Cairo 0.722 0.730 0.679 0.743 0.916 0.616 0.692 Morocco Casablanca 0.647 0.700 0.634 0.513 0.827 0.891 0.472 Honduras Tegucigalapa 0.652 0.694 0.541 0.729 0.709 0.829 0.510 Moldova Chisinau 0.698 0.693 0.340 0.850 0.895 0.894 0.717 India Mumbai 0.694 0.688 0.645 0.739 0.745 0.632 0.715 Kenya Nairobi 0.593 0.673 0.481 0.559 0.860 0.889 0.357 Cambodia Phnom Penh 0.677 0.666 0.544 0.613 0.728 0.809 0.722 Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 0.675 0.664 0.493 0.777 0.632 0.804 0.722 Guatemala Guatemala City 0.614 0.646 0.440 0.556 0.823 0.866 0.502 Cameroon Yaoundé 0.618 0.623 0.492 0.555 0.666 0.827 0.600 India New Delhi 0.635 0.617 0.596 0.690 0.786 0.448 0.712 Côte d’Ivoire Abidjan 0.578 0.599 0.452 0.440 0.767 0.842 0.500 Nepal Kathmandu 0.598 0.594 0.385 0.621 0.740 0.704 0.617 Bangladesh Dhaka 0.633 0.593 0.545 0.539 0.673 0.627 0.817 Uganda Kampala 0.581 0.590 0.512 0.486 0.507 0.956 0.550 Nigeria Lagos 0.496 0.582 0.475 0.634 0.576 0.659 0.262 Ghana Accra 0.560 0.576 0.347 0.592 0.737 0.728 0.500 Bolivia La Paz 0.551 0.565 0.363 0.621 0.745 0.606 0.502 Ethiopia Addis Ababa 0.501 0.564 0.503 0.534 0.521 0.724 0.313 Senegal Dakar 0.581 0.552 0.510 0.384 0.794 0.596 0.712 Zimbabwe Harare 0.493 0.542 0.246 0.451 0.899 0.864 0.338 United Republic of Tanzania Dar es Salaam 0.571 0.530 0.427 0.371 0.607 0.822 0.767 Zambia Lusaka 0.434 0.507 0.316 0.463 0.590 0.766 0.233 Niger Niamey 0.482 0.456 0.402 0.426 0.485 0.521 0.602 Mali Bamako 0.491 0.452 0.401 0.416 0.544 0.460 0.683 Madagascar Antananarivo 0.465 0.446 0.171 0.558 0.511 0.812 0.552 Guinea Conakry 0.449 0.416 0.133 0.461 0.607 0.809 0.612 Liberia Monrovia 0.313 0.285 0.048 0.381 0.411 0.886 0.457 * The CPI with 4 dimensions does not include the equity index Source: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2012. City prosperity Index and components Table 1 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 148 Major area, region, country or area proportion of urban population living in slum areaa Urban slum population at mid-year by major area, region and country (thousands) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009 AfricA Angola 86.5 76.2 65.8 7,756 7,466 7,019 Benin 79.3 76.8 74.3 71.8 70.8 69.8 1,311 1,616 1,897 2,260 2,423 2,595 Burkina Faso 78.8 72.4 65.9 59.5 59.5 960 1,109 1,374 1,762 2,029 Burundi 64.3 64.3 452 508 Cameroon 50.8 49.6 48.4 47.4 46.6 46.1 2,532 3,160 3,826 4,585 4,870 5,188 Central African Republic 87.5 89.7 91.9 94.1 95.0 95.9 943 1,113 1,296 1,470 1,551 1,642 Chad 98.9 96.4 93.9 91.3 90.3 89.3 1,257 1,507 1,844 2,312 2,509 2,714 Comoros 65.4 65.4 65.4 68.9 68.9 80 91 101 119 124 Congo 53.4 51.7 49.9 1,098 1,119 1,134 Côte d’Ivoire 53.4 54.3 55.3 56.2 56.6 57.0 2,674 3,366 4,158 5,066 5,496 5,979 Democratic Republic of Congo 76.4 69.1 61.7 14,491 14,375 14,079 Egypt 50.2 39.2 28.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 12,607 10,704 8,447 5,677 5,903 6,143 Equatorial Guinea 66.3 157 Ethiopia 95.5 95.5 88.6 81.8 79.1 76.4 5,819 7,562 8,653 9,729 10,067 10,427 Gabon 38.7 443 Gambia 45.4 34.8 373 313 Ghana 65.5 58.8 52.1 45.4 42.8 40.1 3,571 4,070 4,473 4,755 4,817 4,848 Guinea 80.4 68.8 57.3 45.7 45.7 1,385 1,517 1,490 1,390 1,489 Guinea-Bissau 83.1 362 Kenya 54.9 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.7 2,343 2,859 3,400 4,069 4,396 4,762 Lesotho 35.1 44.4 53.7 163 223 290 Liberia 68.3 1,282 Madagascar 93.0 88.6 84.1 80.6 78.0 76.2 2,470 2,997 3,486 4,046 4,225 4,460 Malawi 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 67.7 68.9 725 893 1,192 1,572 1,786 2,027 Mali 94.2 84.8 75.4 65.9 65.9 65.9 1,902 2,066 2,247 2,496 2,743 3,009 Morocco 37.4 35.2 24.2 13.1 13.1 13.1 4,490 4,904 3,713 2,205 2,308 2,416 Mozambique 75.6 76.9 78.2 79.5 80.0 80.5 2,161 3,216 4,381 5,714 6,311 6,940 Namibia 34.4 34.1 33.9 33.9 33.6 33.5 135 165 200 239 254 272 Niger 83.6 83.1 82.6 82.1 81.9 81.7 1,016 1,219 1,475 1,787 1,944 2,121 Nigeria 77.3 73.5 69.6 65.8 64.2 62.7 26,549 31,538 36,951 42,783 45,195 47,612 Rwanda 96.0 87.9 79.7 71.6 68.3 65.1 372 397 874 1,129 1,165 1,208 Senegal 70.6 59.8 48.9 43.3 41.1 38.8 2,071 2,051 1,955 2,010 2,030 2,048 Sierra Leone 97.0 1,824 Somalia 73.5 73.6 73.6 2,161 2,316 2,486 South Africa 46.2 39.7 33.2 28.7 23.0 23.0 8,834 8,950 8,475 8,179 6,814 7,055 Togo 62.1 1,486 Uganda 75.0 75.0 75.0 66.7 63.4 60.1 1,473 1,833 2,214 2,403 2,487 2,578 United Republic of Tanzania 77.4 73.7 70.1 66.4 65.0 63.5 3,719 4,539 5,335 6,271 6,713 7,200 Zambia 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.2 57.3 57.3 1,778 1,930 2,083 2,350 2,483 2,633 Zimbabwe 4.0 3.7 3.3 17.9 21.0 24.1 121 138 140 801 963 1,141 ASIA China 43.6 40.5 37.3 32.9 31.0 29.1 13,1670 151,437 169,102 183,544 182,934 180,560 Mongolia 68.5 66.7 64.9 57.9 57.9 866 860 882 878 915 Bangladesh 87.3 84.7 77.8 70.8 66.2 61.6 19,999 23,535 25,819 27,831 27,770 27,542 proportion of urban population living in slums and urban slum population, by country, 1990–2009 Table 2 Statistical Annex 149 Major area, region, country or area proportion of urban population living in slum areaa Urban slum population at mid-year by major area, region and country (thousands) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009 India 54.9 48.2 41.5 34.8 32.1 29.4 121,022 122,231 119,698 112,913 109,102 104,679 Nepal 70.6 67.3 64.0 60.7 59.4 58.1 1,194 1,585 2,100 2,630 2,850 3,075 Pakistan 51.0 49.8 48.7 47.5 47.0 46.6 18,054 20,688 23,890 27,158 28,529 29,965 Cambodia 78.9 2,052 Indonesia 50.8 42.6 34.4 26.3 23.0 23.0 27,559 29,017 29,691 24,777 22,456 23,255 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 79.3 1,277 Myanmar 45.6 6,701 Philippines 54.3 50.8 47.2 43.7 42.3 40.9 16,479 17,158 17,613 17,972 18,134 18,302 Thailand 26.0 26.5 27.0 5,539 5,841 6,146 Viet Nam 60.5 54.6 48.8 41.3 38.3 35.2 8,118 8,852 9,395 9,491 9,396 9,224 Iraq 16.9 16.9 16.9 52.8 52.8 52.8 2,131 2,439 2,828 9,974 10,361 10,759 Jordan 15.8 17.7 19.6 689 824 971 Lebanon 53.1 1,877 Saudi Arabia 18.0 3,442 Syrian Arab Republic 10.5 22.5 1,080 2,516 Turkey 23.4 20.7 17.9 15.5 14.1 13.0 7,773 7,859 7,714 7,422 7,022 6,728 Yemen 67.2 76.8 4,088 5,140 LATIn AmERICA AnD THE CARIBBEAn Argentina 30.5 31.7 32.9 26.2 23.5 20.8 8,622 9,772 10,953 9,274 8,521 7,737 Belize 18.7 28 Bolivia 62.2 58.2 54.3 50.4 48.8 47.3 2,305 2,590 2,794 2,972 3,030 3,080 Brazil 36.7 34.1 31.5 29.0 28.0 26.9 40,527 42,789 44,604 45,428 45,309 44,947 Chile 9.0 1,285 Colombia 31.2 26.8 22.3 17.9 16.1 14.3 7,077 6,884 6,404 5,670 5,306 4,899 Costa Rica 10.9 291 Dominican Republic 27.9 24.4 21.0 17.6 16.2 14.8 1,135 1,143 1,145 1,100 1,067 1,024 Ecuador 21.5 1,786 El Salvador 28.9 1,079 French Guiana 10.5 16 Grenada 6.0 2 Guadeloupe 5.4 24 Guatemala 58.6 53.3 48.1 42.9 40.8 38.7 2,146 2,301 2,438 2,572 2,619 2,660 Guyana 33.7 33.5 33.2 73 73 72 Haiti 93.4 93.4 93.4 70.1 70.1 70.1 1,893 2,393 2,876 2,908 3,230 3,557 Honduras 34.9 1,170 Jamaica 60.5 840 Mexico 23.1 21.5 19.9 14.4 14.4 13,760 14,457 14,800 11,574 11,906 Nicaragua 89.1 74.5 60.0 45.5 45.5 1,929 1,860 1,676 1,388 1,437 Panama 23.0 526 Paraguay 17.6 608 Peru 66.4 56.3 46.2 36.1 36.1 9,964 9,566 8,776 7,540 7,801 Saint Lucia 11.9 5 Suriname 3.9 13 Trinidad and Tobago 24.7 40 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 32.0 7,861 Note: (a) Computed from country household data using the four components of slum (improved water, improwed sanitation, durable housing and sufficient living area). Source: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2012. proportion of urban population living in slums and urban slum population, by country, 1990–2009 Table 2 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 150 Urban population at mid-year by major area, region (thousands)a Major region or area 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2010 2012 Developing Regions 1,406,473 1,658,909 1,930,248 2,228,145 2,341,589 2,514,583 2,634,197 Northern Africa 58,552 66,491 73,996 82,209 85,843 91,590 95,602 Sub-Saharan Africa 146,640 181,532 220,535 266,848 287,548 321,300 345,564 Latin America and the Caribbean 311,042 352,267 393,420 432,646 447,430 468,757 482,496 Eastern Asia 352,808 429,924 512,043 619,535 652,715 699,813 731,647 Southern Asia 317,857 369,356 424,294 481,719 506,248 545,479 573,698 South-eastern Asia 138,996 165,445 197,360 220,814 230,851 246,701 257,677 Western Asia 79,005 92,146 106,691 122,294 128,796 138,654 145,126 Oceania 1,572 1,748 1,908 2,080 2,158 2,289 2,387 proportion of urban population (per cent) Major region or area 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2010 2012 Developing Regions 34.5 37.2 39.9 42.7 43.7 45.0 45.9 Northern Africa 48.5 50.0 51.2 52.4 53.0 54.0 54.6 Sub-Saharan Africa 28.3 30.6 32.7 34.9 35.8 37.2 38.2 Latin America and the Caribbean 70.3 73.0 75.5 77.7 78.5 79.6 80.3 Eastern Asia 29.1 33.4 38.0 44.5 46.3 48.7 50.3 Southern Asia 26.5 27.7 29.0 30.2 30.8 31.7 32.4 South-eastern Asia 31.6 34.5 38.2 39.9 40.6 41.8 42.7 Western Asia 60.5 62.1 63.7 65.2 65.7 66.6 67.1 Oceaniac 24.4 24.1 23.5 23.0 22.9 22.8 22.9 Notes: (a) United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division – World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision (b) Population living in household that lack either improved water, improved sanitation, sufficient living area (more than three persons per room), or durable housing (c) Trends data are not available for Oceania. A constant figure does not mean there is no change Source: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2012. Urban population, proportion of urban population living in slum area and urban slum population, by region, 1990–2012 Table 3 Statistical Annex 151 Urban slum population at mid-year by region (thousands)b Major region or area 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2010 2012 Developing Regions 650,444 711,832 759,915 793,723 803,280 819,969 862,569 Northern Africa 20,126 18,798 15,054 10,984 11,463 12,226 12,762 Sub-Saharan Africa 102,641 122,635 143,255 168,005 179,538 198,168 213,134 Latin America and the Caribbean 104,794 110,871 114,993 110,129 110,412 110,194 113,424 Eastern Asia 154,175 174,363 191,563 204,253 202,809 197,529 206,515 Southern Asia 181,667 190,758 194,364 192,842 192,325 190,647 200,510 South-eastern Asia 68,852 74,049 78,246 75,443 73,744 76,540 79,945 Western Asia 17,810 19,936 21,980 31,565 32,470 34,112 35,704 Oceania 379 421 460 501 520 552 575 proportion of urban population living in slum (per cent) Major region or area 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2010 2012 Developing Regions 46.2 42.9 39.4 35.6 34.3 32.6 32.7 Northern Africa 34.4 28.3 20.3 13.4 13.4 13.3 13.3 Sub-Saharan Africa 70.0 67.6 65.0 63.0 62.4 61.7 61.7 Latin America and the Caribbean 33.7 31.5 29.2 25.5 24.7 23.5 23.5 Eastern Asia 43.7 40.6 37.4 33.0 31.1 28.2 28.2 Southern Asia 57.2 51.6 45.8 40.0 38.0 35.0 35.0 South-eastern Asia 49.5 44.8 39.6 34.2 31.9 31.0 31.0 Western Asia 22.5 21.6 20.6 25.8 25.2 24.6 24.6 Oceaniac 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 Notes: (a) United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division – World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision (b) Population living in household that lack either improved water, improved sanitation, sufficient living area (more than three persons per room), or durable housing (c) Trends data are not available for Oceania. A constant figure does not mean there is no change Source: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2012. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 152 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 AFgHAnISTAn Kabul 1,282 1,616 1,963 2,994 3,731 4,616 5,665 6,888 4.63 3.90 8.44 4.41 4.26 4.09 3.91 ALgERIA El Djazaïr (Algiers) 1,815 2,023 2,254 2,512 2,800 3,099 3,371 3,595 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.03 1.68 1.29 Wahran (Oran) 647 675 705 736 770 827 902 970 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.90 1.43 1.73 1.47 AngOLA Huambo 326 444 578 775 1,034 1,305 1,551 1,789 6.17 5.25 5.87 5.78 4.64 3.46 2.85 Luanda 1,568 1,953 2,591 3,533 4,772 6,013 7,080 8,077 4.39 5.66 6.20 6.01 4.62 3.27 2.63 ARgEnTInA Buenos Aires 10,513 11,154 11,847 12,551 13,074 13,401 13,606 13,708 1.18 1.21 1.15 0.82 0.49 0.30 0.15 Córdoba 1,200 1,275 1,348 1,423 1,493 1,552 1,601 1,638 1.21 1.11 1.09 0.96 0.78 0.61 0.46 Mendoza 759 802 838 876 917 956 990 1,016 1.11 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.84 0.68 0.53 Rosario 1,084 1,121 1,152 1,186 1,231 1,280 1,322 1,354 0.68 0.55 0.58 0.75 0.78 0.64 0.48 San Miguel de Tucumán 611 666 722 781 831 868 899 924 1.71 1.63 1.58 1.23 0.89 0.70 0.54 ARmEnIA Yerevan 1,175 1,142 1,111 1,104 1,112 1,120 1,132 1,143 -0.55 -0.55 -0.14 0.14 0.15 0.22 0.18 AUSTRALIA Adelaide 1,046 1,074 1,102 1,133 1,168 1,214 1,263 1,307 0.53 0.51 0.55 0.61 0.78 0.79 0.68 Brisbane 1,329 1,471 1,603 1,780 1,970 2,096 2,178 2,245 2.04 1.71 2.10 2.03 1.24 0.76 0.61 Melbourne 3,117 3,257 3,433 3,641 3,853 4,022 4,152 4,261 0.88 1.05 1.17 1.13 0.86 0.64 0.51 Perth 1,160 1,273 1,373 1,484 1,599 1,687 1,753 1,810 1.87 1.51 1.56 1.49 1.07 0.77 0.64 Sydney 3,632 3,839 4,078 4,260 4,429 4,592 4,733 4,852 1.11 1.21 0.87 0.78 0.72 0.61 0.50 AUSTRIA Wien (Vienna) 1,539 1,544 1,549 1,642 1,706 1,753 1,779 1,801 0.06 0.07 1.17 0.76 0.55 0.30 0.25 AzERBAIjAn Baku 1,733 1,766 1,806 1,867 1,972 2,082 2,190 2,291 0.37 0.45 0.67 1.09 1.08 1.01 0.90 BAngLADESH Chittagong 2,023 2,578 3,308 4,180 4,962 5,680 6,447 7,265 4.85 4.99 4.68 3.43 2.70 2.53 2.39 Dhaka 6,621 8,332 10,285 12,555 14,648 16,623 18,721 20,936 4.60 4.21 3.99 3.08 2.53 2.38 2.24 Khulna 985 1,133 1,285 1,464 1,682 1,933 2,211 2,511 2.79 2.53 2.60 2.79 2.78 2.69 2.54 Rajshahi 521 606 678 764 878 1,013 1,164 1,328 3.02 2.27 2.39 2.77 2.86 2.78 2.63 BELARUS Minsk 1,607 1,649 1,700 1,775 1,852 1,905 1,917 1,917 0.52 0.61 0.85 0.86 0.56 0.12 0.01 BELgIUm Antwerpen 893 906 925 945 965 979 984 985 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.28 0.10 0.02 Bruxelles-Brussel 1,680 1,715 1,776 1,840 1,904 1,941 1,948 1,948 0.41 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.39 0.07 0.00 BEnIn Cotonou 504 577 642 720 844 1,016 1,217 1,445 2.73 2.13 2.28 3.19 3.69 3.62 3.44 BOLIvIA La Paz 1,062 1,267 1,390 1,524 1,673 1,840 2,005 2,156 3.53 1.85 1.85 1.87 1.90 1.72 1.45 Santa Cruz 616 833 1,054 1,325 1,649 1,916 2,103 2,261 6.04 4.69 4.59 4.37 3.01 1.86 1.45 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 153 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 BRAzIL Aracaju 453 527 606 691 782 849 883 902 2.99 2.83 2.60 2.49 1.63 0.79 0.42 Baixada Santista 1,184 1,319 1,468 1,638 1,819 1,949 2,014 2,045 2.15 2.14 2.18 2.10 1.39 0.66 0.30 Belém 1,129 1,393 1,748 1,963 2,191 2,351 2,427 2,460 4.20 4.54 2.32 2.19 1.41 0.64 0.27 Belo Horizonte 3,548 4,093 4,659 5,237 5,852 6,260 6,420 6,463 2.86 2.59 2.34 2.22 1.35 0.50 0.13 Brasília 1,863 2,257 2,746 3,292 3,905 4,296 4,433 4,474 3.84 3.92 3.62 3.42 1.91 0.63 0.19 Campinas 1,693 1,975 2,264 2,533 2,818 3,018 3,109 3,146 3.08 2.74 2.24 2.14 1.37 0.60 0.24 Cuiabá 510 606 686 728 772 813 843 861 3.43 2.49 1.18 1.16 1.04 0.72 0.42 Curitiba 1,829 2,138 2,494 2,951 3,462 3,791 3,913 3,953 3.12 3.07 3.37 3.19 1.82 0.63 0.20 Florianópolis 503 609 734 882 1,049 1,162 1,210 1,233 3.85 3.72 3.67 3.48 2.04 0.81 0.37 Fortaleza 2,226 2,554 2,875 3,280 3,719 4,011 4,130 4,170 2.75 2.37 2.63 2.51 1.51 0.58 0.20 Goiânia 1,132 1,366 1,635 1,880 2,146 2,327 2,405 2,439 3.75 3.60 2.80 2.65 1.62 0.66 0.27 Grande São Luís 672 844 1,066 1,173 1,283 1,367 1,415 1,440 4.54 4.68 1.90 1.79 1.28 0.68 0.35 Grande Vitória 1,052 1,221 1,398 1,613 1,848 2,008 2,078 2,109 2.97 2.72 2.85 2.72 1.66 0.69 0.30 João Pessoa 652 741 827 918 1,015 1,089 1,129 1,151 2.54 2.21 2.09 2.01 1.39 0.73 0.38 Londrina 491 554 613 709 814 889 925 944 2.39 2.04 2.89 2.78 1.75 0.80 0.41 Maceió 660 798 952 1,068 1,192 1,282 1,329 1,353 3.77 3.55 2.30 2.19 1.46 0.72 0.36 Manaus 955 1,159 1,392 1,577 1,775 1,913 1,979 2,009 3.87 3.68 2.49 2.36 1.50 0.67 0.30 Natal 692 800 910 1,099 1,316 1,460 1,519 1,545 2.89 2.58 3.79 3.60 2.08 0.78 0.34 Norte/Nordeste Catarinense 603 709 815 936 1,069 1,162 1,207 1,230 3.22 2.78 2.78 2.66 1.67 0.76 0.37 Pôrto Alegre 2,934 3,236 3,505 3,791 4,092 4,316 4,428 4,469 1.96 1.59 1.57 1.53 1.07 0.51 0.18 Recife 2,690 2,958 3,230 3,542 3,871 4,107 4,219 4,259 1.90 1.76 1.84 1.78 1.18 0.54 0.19 Rio de Janeiro 9,595 10,174 10,803 11,368 11,950 12,404 12,617 12,650 1.17 1.20 1.02 1.00 0.75 0.34 0.05 Salvador 2,331 2,644 2,968 3,422 3,918 4,243 4,370 4,411 2.53 2.31 2.84 2.71 1.60 0.59 0.19 São Paulo 14,776 15,948 17,099 18,647 20,262 21,300 21,628 21,651 1.53 1.39 1.73 1.66 1.00 0.31 0.02 Teresina 614 706 789 843 900 950 984 1,004 2.77 2.24 1.32 1.30 1.09 0.70 0.40 BULgARIA Sofia 1,191 1,168 1,128 1,169 1,196 1,211 1,215 1,215 -0.38 -0.70 0.71 0.46 0.25 0.06 0.00 BURkInA FASO Ouagadougou 537 667 921 1,328 1,908 2,643 3,457 4,332 4.32 6.45 7.32 7.25 6.52 5.37 4.51 CAmBODIA Phnum Pénh (Phnom Penh) 615 836 1,160 1,354 1,562 1,803 2,093 2,427 6.14 6.55 3.10 2.87 2.86 2.99 2.96 CAmEROOn Douala 931 1,155 1,432 1,767 2,125 2,478 2,815 3,131 4.30 4.30 4.20 3.69 3.07 2.55 2.13 Yaoundé 754 948 1,192 1,489 1,801 2,103 2,392 2,664 4.59 4.59 4.45 3.80 3.11 2.57 2.15 CAnADA Calgary 738 809 953 1,056 1,182 1,262 1,315 1,364 1.84 3.26 2.06 2.27 1.30 0.82 0.73 Edmonton 831 859 924 1,017 1,113 1,178 1,227 1,274 0.67 1.47 1.92 1.80 1.14 0.81 0.74 Montréal 3,154 3,305 3,471 3,603 3,783 3,925 4,048 4,165 0.94 0.98 0.74 0.98 0.74 0.62 0.57 Ottawa-Gatineau 918 988 1,079 1,119 1,182 1,236 1,285 1,333 1.48 1.74 0.75 1.09 0.89 0.78 0.74 Toronto 3,807 4,197 4,607 5,035 5,449 5,706 5,875 6,029 1.95 1.86 1.78 1.58 0.92 0.59 0.52 Vancouver 1,559 1,789 1,959 2,093 2,220 2,318 2,400 2,479 2.75 1.81 1.33 1.18 0.86 0.70 0.65 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 154 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 CHAD N'Djaména 477 565 647 732 829 960 1,170 1,445 3.38 2.72 2.48 2.48 2.93 3.96 4.23 CHILE Santiago 4,616 4,964 5,275 5,605 5,952 6,237 6,408 6,503 1.46 1.21 1.21 1.20 0.94 0.54 0.29 Valparaíso 733 771 803 837 873 911 946 973 1.02 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.76 0.57 CHInA Anshan, Liaoning 1,234 1,307 1,384 1,515 1,663 1,827 1,990 2,120 1.15 1.15 1.81 1.86 1.89 1.71 1.27 Anyang 410 556 753 1,033 1,130 1,220 1,326 1,417 6.07 6.08 6.32 1.79 1.53 1.67 1.32 Baoding 471 645 884 1,042 1,213 1,385 1,524 1,628 6.28 6.29 3.30 3.03 2.67 1.91 1.32 Baotou 1,044 1,212 1,406 1,826 1,932 2,072 2,243 2,388 2.98 2.98 5.23 1.13 1.41 1.58 1.25 Beijing 6,788 8,138 9,757 11,455 12,385 13,335 14,296 15,018 3.63 3.63 3.21 1.56 1.48 1.39 0.99 Bengbu 447 554 687 794 914 1,037 1,142 1,222 4.29 4.29 2.91 2.80 2.53 1.91 1.36 Benxi 759 807 857 911 969 1,044 1,136 1,215 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.50 1.68 1.35 Changchun 2,192 2,446 2,730 3,143 3,597 4,046 4,409 4,673 2.19 2.19 2.81 2.70 2.35 1.72 1.16 Changde 275 450 735 801 849 913 994 1,064 9.82 9.82 1.73 1.16 1.47 1.69 1.36 Changsha, Hunan 1,089 1,504 2,077 2,197 2,415 2,655 2,885 3,066 6.45 6.46 1.12 1.89 1.89 1.66 1.22 Changzhou, Jiangsu 730 883 1,068 1,876 2,062 2,267 2,466 2,624 3.81 3.81 11.27 1.89 1.90 1.68 1.24 Chengdu 2,955 3,403 3,919 4,467 4,961 5,441 5,886 6,224 2.82 2.82 2.62 2.10 1.85 1.57 1.12 Chifeng 345 483 677 761 842 931 1,020 1,092 6.74 6.74 2.33 2.02 2.03 1.81 1.37 Chongqing 3,123 4,342 6,039 7,266 9,401 9,850 10,514 11,065 6.59 6.60 3.70 5.15 0.93 1.30 1.02 Cixi 207 367 650 725 781 850 928 994 11.44 11.44 2.16 1.50 1.70 1.75 1.38 Dalian 1,884 2,311 2,833 3,060 3,306 3,599 3,896 4,132 4.08 4.08 1.54 1.54 1.70 1.59 1.17 Dandong 543 607 679 736 795 867 947 1,014 2.24 2.24 1.60 1.56 1.73 1.75 1.37 Daqing 757 905 1,082 1,294 1,546 1,797 1,981 2,112 3.58 3.58 3.58 3.56 3.00 1.96 1.28 Datong, Shanxi 917 981 1,049 1,141 1,251 1,375 1,500 1,602 1.34 1.34 1.68 1.84 1.89 1.74 1.31 Dongguan, Guangdong 553 1,416 3,631 4,692 5,347 5,971 6,483 6,852 18.82 18.83 5.13 2.61 2.21 1.64 1.11 Dongying 395 498 628 773 949 1,123 1,246 1,334 4.64 4.64 4.14 4.09 3.37 2.09 1.36 Foshan 429 569 754 4,033 4,969 5,455 5,903 6,242 5.63 5.63 33.53 4.17 1.86 1.58 1.12 Fushun, Liaoning 1,289 1,323 1,358 1,368 1,378 1,434 1,544 1,647 0.52 0.52 0.16 0.15 0.79 1.49 1.29 Fuxin 600 633 667 739 821 912 999 1,070 1.06 1.06 2.05 2.12 2.09 1.83 1.37 Fuyang 142 265 695 804 874 957 1,045 1,119 12.42 19.30 2.91 1.69 1.81 1.76 1.36 Fuzhou, Fujian 875 1,316 1,978 2,368 2,787 3,201 3,509 3,727 8.15 8.15 3.59 3.26 2.77 1.84 1.20 Guangzhou, Guangdong 3,072 4,745 7,330 8,165 8,884 9,669 10,409 10,961 8.69 8.70 2.16 1.69 1.69 1.48 1.03 Guilin 561 652 757 867 991 1,120 1,231 1,317 2.99 2.99 2.71 2.68 2.45 1.89 1.35 Guiyang 1,080 1,417 1,860 2,015 2,154 2,325 2,519 2,679 5.44 5.44 1.60 1.33 1.53 1.60 1.23 Haerbin 2,392 2,860 3,419 3,789 4,251 4,473 4,800 5,080 3.57 3.57 2.06 2.30 1.02 1.41 1.14 Haikou 331 494 738 1,410 1,586 1,772 1,937 2,065 8.02 8.02 12.96 2.35 2.21 1.78 1.28 Handan 525 653 811 1,007 1,249 1,488 1,652 1,764 4.33 4.34 4.33 4.32 3.50 2.09 1.32 Hangzhou 1,476 1,887 2,411 3,516 3,860 4,145 4,470 4,735 4.91 4.91 7.55 1.87 1.42 1.51 1.15 Hefei 1,100 1,298 1,532 2,065 2,404 2,626 2,850 3,029 3.32 3.32 5.97 3.04 1.76 1.64 1.22 Hengyang 504 632 793 936 1,099 1,263 1,393 1,488 4.53 4.53 3.31 3.22 2.79 1.95 1.33 Hohhot 635 798 1,005 1,264 1,589 1,907 2,118 2,258 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.57 3.66 2.09 1.28 Huai'an 330 520 818 914 998 1,095 1,195 1,278 9.06 9.06 2.24 1.76 1.85 1.75 1.34 Huaibei 290 423 617 775 962 1,147 1,275 1,364 7.53 7.53 4.55 4.32 3.52 2.12 1.35 Huainan 724 872 1,049 1,212 1,396 1,583 1,738 1,854 3.71 3.71 2.88 2.82 2.52 1.86 1.30 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 155 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 Huizhou 205 336 551 1,212 1,384 1,562 1,713 1,828 9.90 9.91 15.77 2.66 2.42 1.84 1.30 Huludao 351 431 529 648 795 940 1,045 1,120 4.09 4.09 4.08 4.07 3.36 2.11 1.38 Jiamusi 469 539 619 711 817 927 1,020 1,092 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.77 2.52 1.92 1.37 Jiangmen 190 314 519 977 1,103 1,236 1,355 1,448 10.02 10.02 12.67 2.42 2.28 1.84 1.33 Jiaozuo 395 500 631 755 900 1,045 1,155 1,236 4.68 4.68 3.59 3.50 2.99 2.01 1.36 Jieyang 176 327 608 732 855 980 1,081 1,158 12.36 12.37 3.73 3.10 2.73 1.96 1.37 Jilin 1,090 1,251 1,435 1,647 1,888 2,135 2,338 2,489 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.74 2.46 1.81 1.25 Jinan, Shandong 1,923 2,134 2,592 2,951 3,237 3,522 3,813 4,044 2.08 3.89 2.59 1.85 1.69 1.59 1.18 Jingzhou 301 479 761 899 1,039 1,183 1,302 1,392 9.25 9.26 3.33 2.91 2.59 1.91 1.34 Jining, Shandong 343 542 856 972 1,077 1,193 1,304 1,394 9.15 9.16 2.53 2.06 2.04 1.79 1.33 Jinjiang 98 212 456 636 858 1,080 1,216 1,303 15.38 15.38 6.64 5.99 4.61 2.37 1.37 Jinzhou 592 675 770 814 857 918 998 1,068 2.63 2.63 1.12 1.02 1.38 1.67 1.36 Jixi, Heilongjiang 650 732 823 927 1,042 1,166 1,278 1,366 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.24 1.83 1.34 Kaohsiung 1,372 1,431 1,488 1,548 1,611 1,711 1,850 1,971 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.80 1.20 1.56 1.27 Kunming 1,100 1,679 2,561 2,857 3,116 3,405 3,691 3,915 8.45 8.45 2.19 1.73 1.78 1.61 1.18 Lanzhou 1,290 1,561 1,890 2,085 2,285 2,507 2,724 2,896 3.82 3.82 1.96 1.83 1.85 1.66 1.23 Lianyungang 344 442 567 732 878 1,002 1,105 1,183 4.99 4.99 5.12 3.63 2.65 1.94 1.36 Linyi, Shandong 260 542 1,130 1,297 1,427 1,571 1,713 1,827 14.67 14.67 2.76 1.91 1.93 1.73 1.29 Liuzhou 637 809 1,027 1,183 1,352 1,527 1,675 1,788 4.78 4.78 2.82 2.68 2.43 1.85 1.30 Lufeng 275 391 556 706 889 1,069 1,192 1,276 7.05 7.05 4.78 4.60 3.70 2.17 1.37 Luoyang 725 938 1,213 1,373 1,539 1,716 1,875 1,999 5.14 5.14 2.48 2.29 2.17 1.78 1.28 Luzhou 273 421 649 751 850 955 1,049 1,123 8.67 8.67 2.90 2.49 2.33 1.88 1.37 Maoming 173 327 617 717 803 896 983 1,053 12.69 12.70 2.98 2.28 2.20 1.85 1.37 Mianyang, Sichuan 289 468 758 883 1,006 1,133 1,244 1,331 9.62 9.62 3.07 2.59 2.39 1.87 1.34 Mudanjiang 479 564 665 724 783 855 933 1,000 3.29 3.29 1.69 1.58 1.75 1.76 1.38 Nanchang 912 1,226 1,648 2,380 2,701 2,978 3,236 3,436 5.92 5.92 7.35 2.53 1.95 1.66 1.20 Nanchong 279 411 606 705 808 914 1,006 1,078 7.74 7.74 3.05 2.71 2.48 1.91 1.37 Nanjing, Jiangsu 2,497 2,944 3,472 3,966 4,519 5,076 5,524 5,845 3.30 3.30 2.66 2.61 2.33 1.69 1.13 Nanning 759 1,118 1,445 1,826 2,096 2,306 2,508 2,669 7.74 5.13 4.68 2.76 1.91 1.68 1.24 Nantong 470 534 607 767 1,423 1,586 1,734 1,850 2.55 2.55 4.70 12.36 2.17 1.78 1.29 Nanyang, Henan 228 392 672 774 867 967 1,060 1,135 10.79 10.80 2.83 2.26 2.18 1.84 1.36 Neijiang 415 533 685 781 883 991 1,088 1,165 5.00 5.00 2.63 2.46 2.31 1.87 1.36 Ningbo 634 909 1,303 1,897 2,217 2,536 2,782 2,959 7.20 7.20 7.51 3.12 2.69 1.85 1.23 Panjin 367 467 593 696 813 932 1,028 1,101 4.79 4.79 3.22 3.10 2.73 1.97 1.37 Pingdingshan, Henan 431 606 852 942 1,024 1,120 1,222 1,307 6.81 6.81 2.01 1.68 1.79 1.74 1.34 Puning 76 214 603 763 911 1,060 1,172 1,255 20.76 20.76 4.71 3.55 3.02 2.02 1.36 Putian 311 370 439 1,052 1,085 1,147 1,241 1,327 3.43 3.43 17.48 0.62 1.11 1.58 1.33 Qingdao 1,332 1,882 2,659 3,029 3,323 3,622 3,923 4,159 6.91 6.91 2.61 1.85 1.72 1.59 1.17 Qinhuangdao 358 501 702 800 893 993 1,088 1,165 6.74 6.74 2.61 2.21 2.12 1.82 1.36 Qiqihaer 1,115 1,218 1,331 1,453 1,588 1,740 1,894 2,019 1.77 1.77 1.76 1.77 1.83 1.70 1.28 Quanzhou 174 356 728 898 1,068 1,238 1,367 1,462 14.34 14.34 4.19 3.46 2.95 1.99 1.34 Rizhao 248 390 613 715 816 922 1,014 1,086 9.03 9.03 3.08 2.65 2.44 1.90 1.37 Shanghai 7,823 10,171 13,224 15,184 16,575 17,840 19,094 20,017 5.25 5.25 2.76 1.75 1.47 1.36 0.94 Shantou 724 950 1,247 3,375 3,502 3,704 3,983 4,222 5.43 5.43 19.91 0.74 1.12 1.46 1.16 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 156 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 Shaoguan 237 350 517 766 845 914 995 1,066 7.79 7.80 7.86 1.96 1.56 1.71 1.37 Shaoxing 181 332 608 731 853 977 1,077 1,153 12.09 12.09 3.69 3.08 2.71 1.96 1.37 Shenyang 3,651 4,081 4,562 4,788 5,166 5,650 6,108 6,457 2.23 2.23 0.96 1.52 1.79 1.56 1.11 Shenzhen 875 2,304 6,069 7,931 9,005 9,827 10,585 11,146 19.36 19.37 5.35 2.54 1.75 1.49 1.03 Shijiazhuang 1,372 1,621 1,914 2,192 2,487 2,789 3,044 3,235 3.33 3.33 2.71 2.52 2.30 1.75 1.22 Suzhou, Jiangsu 689 952 1,316 1,992 2,398 2,619 2,842 3,021 6.47 6.47 8.29 3.71 1.76 1.64 1.22 Taian, Shandong 367 577 910 1,073 1,239 1,409 1,548 1,653 9.09 9.09 3.30 2.88 2.57 1.89 1.31 Taichung 765 864 978 1,106 1,251 1,403 1,538 1,642 2.45 2.47 2.47 2.46 2.30 1.83 1.31 Tainan 669 697 723 750 777 825 895 959 0.79 0.76 0.71 0.72 1.19 1.64 1.38 Taipei 2,737 2,698 2,630 2,627 2,633 2,725 2,921 3,102 -0.29 -0.51 -0.02 0.04 0.68 1.39 1.20 Taiyuan, Shanxi 1,637 2,024 2,503 2,819 3,154 3,504 3,812 4,043 4.25 4.25 2.38 2.24 2.11 1.68 1.18 Taizhou, Jiangsu 158 290 535 662 795 928 1,028 1,101 12.23 12.24 4.24 3.66 3.10 2.05 1.38 Taizhou, Zhejiang 912 1,042 1,190 1,259 1,338 1,442 1,566 1,671 2.66 2.66 1.13 1.21 1.49 1.64 1.30 Tangshan, Hebei 996 1,177 1,390 1,614 1,870 2,130 2,335 2,487 3.33 3.33 2.99 2.95 2.59 1.85 1.26 Tianjin 4,558 5,513 6,670 7,278 7,884 8,559 9,216 9,713 3.81 3.81 1.75 1.60 1.64 1.48 1.05 Ürümqi (Wulumqi) 1,149 1,399 1,705 2,025 2,398 2,767 3,040 3,231 3.95 3.95 3.43 3.39 2.86 1.88 1.22 Weifang 634 885 1,235 1,457 1,698 1,941 2,131 2,271 6.67 6.67 3.31 3.06 2.67 1.87 1.27 Wenzhou 1,111 1,318 1,565 2,187 2,659 3,119 3,436 3,650 3.43 3.43 6.69 3.90 3.19 1.94 1.21 Wuhan 3,417 4,763 6,638 7,204 7,681 8,253 8,868 9,347 6.64 6.64 1.64 1.28 1.44 1.44 1.05 Wuhu, Anhui 442 529 634 759 908 1,057 1,169 1,252 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.59 3.04 2.02 1.36 Wuxi, Jiangsu 992 1,182 1,409 2,435 2,682 2,951 3,206 3,405 3.51 3.51 10.94 1.93 1.91 1.66 1.20 Xiamen 639 952 1,416 1,765 2,207 2,641 2,926 3,112 7.95 7.95 4.40 4.47 3.59 2.04 1.24 Xi'an, Shaanxi 2,157 2,821 3,690 4,382 4,747 5,038 5,414 5,726 5.37 5.37 3.43 1.60 1.19 1.44 1.12 Xiangfan, Hubei 554 685 847 1,278 1,399 1,536 1,674 1,786 4.25 4.25 8.21 1.81 1.87 1.72 1.30 Xiangtan, Hunan 456 564 698 806 926 1,050 1,155 1,236 4.25 4.25 2.88 2.78 2.52 1.91 1.36 Xianyang, Shaanxi 317 500 790 908 1,019 1,138 1,247 1,334 9.14 9.14 2.77 2.32 2.21 1.83 1.34 Xining 592 707 844 1,032 1,261 1,488 1,649 1,761 3.55 3.55 4.00 4.02 3.31 2.05 1.31 Xinxiang 450 586 762 884 1,016 1,152 1,267 1,355 5.26 5.26 2.96 2.79 2.52 1.90 1.34 Xuzhou 781 1,033 1,367 1,715 2,142 2,559 2,833 3,015 5.60 5.60 4.54 4.44 3.56 2.04 1.24 Yancheng, Jiangsu 392 513 671 1,071 1,289 1,474 1,622 1,731 5.38 5.38 9.33 3.72 2.68 1.91 1.31 Yangzhou 455 565 702 871 1,080 1,287 1,430 1,529 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.31 3.50 2.10 1.34 Yantai 422 717 1,218 1,383 1,526 1,684 1,836 1,958 10.59 10.59 2.55 1.97 1.97 1.73 1.28 Yichang 492 583 692 879 959 1,039 1,132 1,210 3.40 3.40 4.79 1.74 1.61 1.71 1.35 Yichun, Heilongjiang 855 835 815 796 779 795 856 917 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47 -0.45 0.43 1.47 1.37 Yinchuan 384 468 571 720 911 1,099 1,225 1,312 3.97 3.97 4.66 4.69 3.76 2.18 1.36 Yingkou 458 535 624 728 848 972 1,072 1,148 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.07 2.71 1.96 1.37 Yiyang, Hunan 191 360 678 760 820 892 974 1,043 12.69 12.69 2.26 1.52 1.70 1.74 1.37 Yueyang 305 518 881 997 1,096 1,206 1,317 1,408 10.62 10.62 2.47 1.89 1.93 1.76 1.33 Zaozhuang 303 508 853 1,014 1,175 1,339 1,473 1,574 10.36 10.36 3.45 2.95 2.62 1.90 1.32 Zhangjiakou 558 667 797 913 1,043 1,178 1,294 1,384 3.56 3.56 2.72 2.66 2.43 1.88 1.34 Zhanjiang 486 630 818 908 996 1,097 1,198 1,281 5.21 5.21 2.08 1.86 1.92 1.77 1.34 Zhengzhou 1,134 1,663 2,438 2,715 2,966 3,245 3,519 3,734 7.65 7.65 2.16 1.76 1.80 1.62 1.19 Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 328 472 679 832 1,007 1,181 1,308 1,399 7.27 7.27 4.06 3.82 3.19 2.04 1.35 Zhongshan 393 736 1,376 1,768 2,211 2,643 2,927 3,114 12.51 12.52 5.02 4.47 3.57 2.04 1.24 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 157 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 Zhuhai 220 419 799 1,224 1,252 1,315 1,420 1,516 12.89 12.90 8.55 0.44 0.98 1.54 1.31 Zhuzhou 430 593 819 923 1,025 1,137 1,244 1,330 6.45 6.45 2.39 2.10 2.07 1.80 1.34 Zibo 777 1,207 1,874 2,168 2,456 2,752 3,004 3,192 8.80 8.80 2.92 2.49 2.28 1.75 1.22 Zigong 368 467 592 847 918 982 1,067 1,142 4.75 4.75 7.17 1.62 1.35 1.65 1.35 Zunyi 250 368 541 679 843 1,005 1,118 1,198 7.72 7.72 4.55 4.31 3.52 2.14 1.37 CHInA, HOng kOng SAR Hong Kong 5,677 6,214 6,667 6,883 7,069 7,398 7,701 7,969 1.81 1.41 0.64 0.54 0.91 0.80 0.68 COLOmBIA Barranquilla 1,229 1,363 1,531 1,719 1,867 2,015 2,145 2,255 2.06 2.32 2.32 1.65 1.53 1.25 1.00 Bogotá 4,740 5,494 6,356 7,353 8,500 9,521 10,129 10,537 2.95 2.92 2.91 2.90 2.27 1.24 0.79 Bucaramanga 650 759 855 964 1,092 1,213 1,303 1,375 3.08 2.39 2.39 2.49 2.11 1.43 1.08 Cali 1,552 1,757 1,950 2,164 2,401 2,627 2,800 2,938 2.48 2.08 2.08 2.08 1.80 1.28 0.97 Cartagena 561 645 737 842 962 1,076 1,158 1,223 2.77 2.68 2.67 2.66 2.23 1.47 1.10 Cúcuta 506 571 632 700 774 848 910 963 2.41 2.04 2.03 2.03 1.82 1.41 1.13 Medellín 2,135 2,372 2,724 3,127 3,594 4,019 4,294 4,494 2.11 2.76 2.76 2.78 2.24 1.33 0.91 COngO Brazzaville 704 830 986 1,172 1,323 1,504 1,703 1,878 3.31 3.44 3.46 2.42 2.55 2.49 1.95 COSTA RICA San José 737 867 1,032 1,232 1,461 1,655 1,799 1,923 3.25 3.48 3.54 3.41 2.50 1.67 1.33 CôTE D'IvOIRE Abidjan 2,102 2,535 3,032 3,564 4,125 4,788 5,550 6,321 3.74 3.58 3.24 2.92 2.98 2.95 2.60 Yamoussoukro 136 218 348 556 885 1,273 1,559 1,797 9.36 9.37 9.36 9.32 7.27 4.06 2.83 CUBA La Habana (Havana) 2,108 2,151 2,187 2,187 2,130 2,100 2,095 2,094 0.40 0.33 0.00 -0.53 -0.28 -0.05 -0.00 CzECH REPUBLIC Praha (Prague) 1,212 1,194 1,172 1,164 1,162 1,165 1,168 1,173 -0.29 -0.38 -0.14 -0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 DEm. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF kOREA P’yongyang 2,526 2,749 2,777 2,805 2,833 2,859 2,894 2,941 1.70 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.24 0.33 DEmOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF COngO Kananga 353 451 552 705 878 1,087 1,324 1,583 4.92 4.03 4.89 4.40 4.26 3.95 3.57 Kinshasa 3,564 4,590 5,611 7,106 8,754 10,668 12,788 15,041 5.06 4.02 4.72 4.17 3.96 3.62 3.25 Kisangani 362 450 535 664 812 1,002 1,221 1,461 4.34 3.45 4.32 4.03 4.19 3.96 3.58 Lubumbashi 655 826 995 1,252 1,543 1,899 2,304 2,744 4.62 3.73 4.60 4.17 4.15 3.87 3.49 Mbuji-Mayi 580 749 924 1,190 1,488 1,838 2,232 2,658 5.09 4.20 5.06 4.48 4.22 3.88 3.50 DEnmARk København (Copenhagen) 1,035 1,048 1,077 1,125 1,186 1,228 1,238 1,238 0.25 0.54 0.87 1.05 0.70 0.16 0.01 DOmInICAn REPUBLIC Santo Domingo 1,522 1,661 1,813 1,981 2,180 2,381 2,552 2,691 1.74 1.76 1.77 1.92 1.76 1.39 1.06 ECUADOR Guayaquil 1,572 1,808 2,077 2,386 2,690 2,941 3,153 3,328 2.80 2.78 2.77 2.39 1.79 1.39 1.08 Quito 1,088 1,217 1,357 1,593 1,846 2,035 2,188 2,316 2.25 2.18 3.20 2.95 1.95 1.45 1.13 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 158 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 EgyPT Al-Iskandariyah (Alexandria) 3,063 3,277 3,592 3,973 4,387 4,791 5,201 5,648 1.35 1.83 2.02 1.98 1.76 1.64 1.65 Al-Qahirah (Cairo) 9,061 9,707 10,170 10,565 11,001 11,663 12,540 13,531 1.38 0.93 0.76 0.81 1.17 1.45 1.52 EL SALvADOR San Salvador 970 1,112 1,248 1,401 1,565 1,691 1,789 1,891 2.73 2.32 2.32 2.21 1.55 1.13 1.10 ETHIOPIA Addis Ababa 1,791 2,144 2,376 2,633 2,930 3,365 3,981 4,757 3.60 2.05 2.05 2.13 2.77 3.36 3.56 FInLAnD Helsinki 871 943 1,019 1,067 1,117 1,153 1,170 1,174 1.58 1.56 0.92 0.91 0.65 0.28 0.07 FRAnCE Bordeaux 698 730 763 799 838 875 899 913 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.95 0.86 0.55 0.29 Lille 961 984 1,004 1,015 1,033 1,066 1,092 1,107 0.47 0.41 0.22 0.35 0.62 0.50 0.26 Lyon 1,265 1,313 1,362 1,412 1,468 1,523 1,559 1,575 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.74 0.46 0.21 Marseille-Aix-en-Provence 1,305 1,331 1,363 1,413 1,469 1,524 1,560 1,577 0.39 0.48 0.73 0.77 0.74 0.46 0.21 Nice-Cannes 854 874 899 936 977 1,018 1,045 1,059 0.46 0.56 0.82 0.86 0.81 0.52 0.27 Paris 9,330 9,510 9,739 10,105 10,485 10,777 10,880 10,884 0.38 0.48 0.74 0.74 0.55 0.19 0.01 Toulouse 654 714 778 844 912 962 989 1,003 1.75 1.72 1.63 1.55 1.07 0.55 0.28 gEORgIA Tbilisi 1,224 1,160 1,100 1,093 1,120 1,136 1,138 1,138 -1.07 -1.07 -0.12 0.48 0.28 0.05 0.00 gERmAny Berlin 3,422 3,471 3,384 3,391 3,450 3,489 3,498 3,499 0.29 -0.51 0.04 0.34 0.23 0.05 0.00 Hamburg 1,639 1,707 1,710 1,739 1,786 1,818 1,825 1,825 0.81 0.04 0.34 0.53 0.35 0.08 0.00 Köln (Cologne) 950 965 963 976 1,001 1,015 1,018 1,018 0.31 -0.04 0.28 0.50 0.26 0.06 0.00 München (Munich) 1,218 1,241 1,202 1,254 1,349 1,401 1,412 1,413 0.37 -0.62 0.85 1.46 0.75 0.17 0.01 gHAnA Accra 1,197 1,415 1,674 1,985 2,342 2,722 3,110 3,497 3.35 3.35 3.41 3.30 3.01 2.66 2.35 Kumasi 696 909 1,187 1,519 1,834 2,139 2,448 2,757 5.34 5.34 4.94 3.76 3.08 2.70 2.38 gREECE Athínai (Athens) 3,070 3,122 3,179 3,230 3,257 3,283 3,312 3,346 0.34 0.37 0.31 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.21 Thessaloniki 746 771 797 821 837 853 868 886 0.66 0.67 0.60 0.40 0.36 0.37 0.40 gUATEmALA Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala City) 803 839 908 984 1,104 1,281 1,481 1,690 0.89 1.57 1.62 2.30 2.97 2.90 2.64 gUInEA Conakry 895 1,045 1,219 1,411 1,653 2,004 2,427 2,906 3.11 3.08 2.92 3.17 3.84 3.83 3.61 HAITI Port-au-Prince 1,134 1,427 1,693 2,171 2,143 2,481 2,868 3,246 4.60 3.42 4.96 -0.25 2.93 2.90 2.48 HOnDURAS Tegucigalpa 578 677 793 901 1,028 1,181 1,339 1,493 3.16 3.16 2.57 2.63 2.77 2.51 2.18 HUngARy Budapest 2,005 1,893 1,787 1,698 1,706 1,711 1,711 1,711 -1.15 -1.15 -1.02 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.00 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 159 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 InDIA Agra 933 1,095 1,293 1,511 1,703 1,886 2,089 2,313 3.20 3.32 3.13 2.38 2.04 2.04 2.04 Ahmadabad 3,255 3,790 4,427 5,122 5,717 6,277 6,892 7,567 3.04 3.11 2.92 2.20 1.87 1.87 1.87 Aligarh 468 554 653 763 863 960 1,068 1,189 3.39 3.29 3.11 2.44 2.14 2.14 2.14 Allahabad 830 928 1,035 1,152 1,277 1,415 1,570 1,742 2.23 2.17 2.15 2.06 2.05 2.08 2.08 Amritsar 726 844 990 1,152 1,297 1,439 1,597 1,771 3.00 3.20 3.02 2.37 2.08 2.08 2.08 Asansol 727 891 1,065 1,258 1,423 1,579 1,751 1,941 4.06 3.56 3.33 2.47 2.08 2.07 2.06 Aurangabad 568 708 868 1,049 1,198 1,331 1,478 1,641 4.38 4.09 3.79 2.65 2.12 2.09 2.09 Bangalore 4,036 4,744 5,567 6,465 7,218 7,913 8,674 9,507 3.23 3.20 2.99 2.20 1.84 1.84 1.83 Bareilly 604 664 722 787 868 963 1,072 1,192 1.87 1.67 1.73 1.95 2.09 2.14 2.13 Bhiwandi 362 479 603 745 859 957 1,066 1,186 5.62 4.60 4.23 2.84 2.18 2.14 2.14 Bhopal 1,046 1,228 1,426 1,644 1,843 2,039 2,257 2,497 3.21 3.00 2.85 2.28 2.02 2.03 2.03 Bhubaneswar 395 504 637 790 912 1,017 1,131 1,258 4.90 4.69 4.30 2.86 2.17 2.13 2.13 Chandigarh 564 667 791 928 1,049 1,166 1,296 1,440 3.36 3.40 3.20 2.46 2.11 2.11 2.11 Chennai (Madras) 5,338 5,836 6,353 6,919 7,547 8,253 9,043 9,909 1.78 1.70 1.71 1.74 1.79 1.83 1.83 Coimbatore 1,088 1,239 1,420 1,619 1,807 1,999 2,212 2,449 2.60 2.73 2.62 2.20 2.02 2.03 2.03 Delhi 9,726 12,407 15,730 19,493 22,157 24,160 26,272 28,568 4.87 4.75 4.29 2.56 1.73 1.68 1.68 Dhanbad 805 915 1,046 1,189 1,328 1,472 1,633 1,812 2.56 2.67 2.58 2.21 2.06 2.08 2.07 Durg-Bhilainagar 670 780 905 1,044 1,172 1,301 1,445 1,604 3.03 2.98 2.84 2.32 2.09 2.10 2.09 Guwahati (Gauhati) 564 675 797 932 1,053 1,170 1,300 1,445 3.60 3.32 3.14 2.43 2.11 2.11 2.11 Gwalior 706 779 855 940 1,039 1,152 1,280 1,423 1.97 1.88 1.90 1.99 2.07 2.11 2.11 Hubli-Dharwad 639 705 776 855 946 1,050 1,168 1,299 1.95 1.93 1.95 2.02 2.08 2.13 2.12 Hyderabad 4,193 4,825 5,445 6,117 6,751 7,396 8,110 8,894 2.81 2.42 2.33 1.97 1.83 1.85 1.84 Indore 1,088 1,314 1,597 1,914 2,173 2,405 2,659 2,939 3.77 3.91 3.62 2.54 2.03 2.01 2.00 Jabalpur 879 981 1,100 1,231 1,367 1,514 1,679 1,862 2.19 2.29 2.25 2.09 2.04 2.07 2.07 Jaipur 1,478 1,826 2,259 2,748 3,131 3,458 3,813 4,205 4.23 4.26 3.91 2.61 1.99 1.96 1.95 Jalandhar 502 588 694 811 917 1,020 1,134 1,262 3.16 3.31 3.13 2.44 2.13 2.13 2.13 Jammu 356 458 588 739 857 956 1,064 1,184 5.00 5.01 4.58 2.97 2.19 2.14 2.14 Jamshedpur 817 938 1,081 1,239 1,387 1,537 1,705 1,891 2.75 2.84 2.72 2.26 2.06 2.07 2.07 Jodhpur 654 743 842 951 1,061 1,177 1,308 1,454 2.54 2.51 2.44 2.18 2.09 2.11 2.11 Kanpur 2,001 2,294 2,641 3,020 3,364 3,706 4,084 4,501 2.73 2.82 2.68 2.16 1.93 1.94 1.94 Kochi (Cochin) 1,103 1,229 1,340 1,464 1,610 1,779 1,971 2,184 2.17 1.73 1.76 1.90 2.00 2.05 2.05 Kolkata (Calcutta) 10,890 11,924 13,058 14,284 15,552 16,924 18,449 20,112 1.82 1.82 1.79 1.70 1.69 1.73 1.73 Kota 523 604 692 789 884 982 1,093 1,216 2.89 2.71 2.62 2.26 2.12 2.14 2.13 Kozhikode (Calicut) 781 835 875 924 1,007 1,115 1,240 1,378 1.33 0.94 1.10 1.71 2.05 2.12 2.11 Lucknow 1,614 1,906 2,221 2,567 2,873 3,169 3,497 3,858 3.33 3.06 2.89 2.25 1.96 1.97 1.97 Ludhiana 1,006 1,183 1,368 1,572 1,760 1,947 2,156 2,387 3.24 2.91 2.78 2.26 2.03 2.04 2.03 Madurai 1,073 1,132 1,187 1,255 1,365 1,509 1,674 1,856 1.07 0.95 1.11 1.68 2.00 2.07 2.07 Meerut 824 975 1,143 1,328 1,494 1,656 1,836 2,035 3.36 3.18 3.00 2.35 2.06 2.06 2.06 Moradabad 436 520 626 744 845 941 1,048 1,166 3.53 3.68 3.45 2.56 2.15 2.14 2.14 Mumbai (Bombay) 12,308 14,111 16,086 18,205 20,041 21,797 23,719 25,810 2.73 2.62 2.48 1.92 1.68 1.69 1.69 Mysore 640 708 776 853 942 1,045 1,163 1,293 2.01 1.85 1.88 1.99 2.08 2.13 2.12 Nagpur 1,637 1,849 2,089 2,351 2,607 2,875 3,175 3,505 2.44 2.44 2.36 2.07 1.96 1.98 1.98 Nashik 700 886 1,117 1,381 1,588 1,763 1,954 2,165 4.71 4.63 4.24 2.79 2.09 2.05 2.05 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 160 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 Patna 1,087 1,331 1,658 2,030 2,321 2,569 2,839 3,137 4.05 4.40 4.04 2.68 2.03 2.00 1.99 Pune (Poona) 2,430 2,978 3,655 4,412 5,002 5,505 6,050 6,649 4.07 4.09 3.76 2.51 1.92 1.89 1.89 Raipur 453 553 680 824 943 1,050 1,167 1,298 4.00 4.13 3.83 2.69 2.15 2.13 2.12 Rajkot 638 787 974 1,186 1,357 1,508 1,672 1,855 4.21 4.26 3.93 2.69 2.11 2.07 2.07 Ranchi 607 712 844 990 1,119 1,243 1,380 1,533 3.21 3.39 3.19 2.45 2.11 2.10 2.10 Salem 574 647 736 834 932 1,035 1,152 1,281 2.38 2.58 2.51 2.22 2.11 2.13 2.12 Solapur 613 720 853 1,002 1,133 1,258 1,398 1,552 3.20 3.41 3.21 2.45 2.10 2.10 2.10 Srinagar 730 833 954 1,088 1,216 1,349 1,497 1,662 2.62 2.72 2.62 2.23 2.07 2.09 2.09 Surat 1,468 1,984 2,699 3,558 4,168 4,607 5,071 5,579 6.01 6.16 5.53 3.16 2.01 1.92 1.91 Thiruvananthapuram 801 853 885 927 1,006 1,114 1,239 1,377 1.25 0.73 0.93 1.65 2.04 2.12 2.11 Tiruchirappalli 705 768 837 916 1,010 1,120 1,245 1,383 1.71 1.74 1.79 1.95 2.07 2.12 2.11 Tiruppur 299 392 523 678 795 888 989 1,101 5.43 5.73 5.19 3.19 2.22 2.15 2.15 Vadodara 1,096 1,273 1,465 1,676 1,872 2,071 2,292 2,536 2.99 2.81 2.69 2.22 2.02 2.03 2.03 Varanasi (Benares) 1,013 1,106 1,199 1,303 1,432 1,584 1,756 1,947 1.75 1.62 1.67 1.88 2.02 2.07 2.06 Vijayawada 821 914 999 1,095 1,207 1,337 1,484 1,647 2.14 1.79 1.82 1.95 2.05 2.09 2.09 Visakhapatnam 1,018 1,168 1,309 1,465 1,625 1,798 1,992 2,206 2.73 2.29 2.25 2.07 2.02 2.05 2.05 InDOnESIA Bandar Lampung 454 578 743 790 799 842 903 972 4.84 5.01 1.22 0.23 1.03 1.41 1.47 Bandung 2,035 2,097 2,138 2,280 2,412 2,568 2,739 2,925 0.59 0.39 1.29 1.13 1.25 1.29 1.31 Bogor 596 668 751 880 1,044 1,162 1,251 1,344 2.26 2.36 3.17 3.41 2.14 1.48 1.43 Jakarta 8,175 8,322 8,390 8,795 9,210 9,709 10,256 10,850 0.36 0.16 0.94 0.92 1.05 1.10 1.13 Malang 689 725 757 773 786 830 891 959 1.03 0.88 0.40 0.35 1.08 1.42 1.48 Medan 1,718 1,816 1,912 2,023 2,131 2,266 2,419 2,586 1.11 1.03 1.13 1.04 1.23 1.30 1.33 Palembang 1,130 1,287 1,459 1,331 1,244 1,271 1,356 1,456 2.59 2.51 -1.83 -1.35 0.43 1.30 1.41 Pekan Baru 389 481 588 699 769 834 898 967 4.26 4.02 3.47 1.89 1.63 1.47 1.48 Semarang 1,243 1,333 1,427 1,359 1,296 1,334 1,424 1,528 1.40 1.36 -0.98 -0.94 0.57 1.31 1.41 Surabaya 2,467 2,544 2,611 2,623 2,509 2,576 2,738 2,923 0.62 0.51 0.09 -0.89 0.53 1.22 1.31 Ujung Pandang 816 918 1,031 1,159 1,294 1,409 1,512 1,621 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.21 1.69 1.41 1.40 IRAn (ISLAmIC REPUBLIC OF) Ahvaz 685 784 868 960 1,060 1,160 1,249 1,317 2.69 2.03 2.01 1.99 1.80 1.48 1.07 Esfahan 1,094 1,230 1,382 1,553 1,742 1,914 2,056 2,161 2.33 2.33 2.34 2.29 1.89 1.43 1.00 Karaj 693 903 1,087 1,317 1,584 1,796 1,937 2,038 5.30 3.70 3.84 3.69 2.52 1.52 1.01 Kermanshah 608 675 729 781 837 905 974 1,029 2.11 1.55 1.36 1.40 1.55 1.48 1.10 Mashhad 1,680 1,854 2,073 2,348 2,652 2,919 3,128 3,277 1.97 2.23 2.50 2.43 1.92 1.38 0.94 Qom 622 744 843 938 1,042 1,143 1,232 1,299 3.56 2.49 2.14 2.11 1.85 1.49 1.07 Shiraz 946 1,030 1,115 1,203 1,299 1,406 1,510 1,590 1.70 1.58 1.52 1.54 1.58 1.42 1.04 Tabriz 1,058 1,165 1,264 1,369 1,483 1,606 1,724 1,814 1.91 1.64 1.59 1.60 1.60 1.41 1.02 Tehran 6,365 6,687 6,880 7,044 7,241 7,614 8,059 8,387 0.99 0.57 0.47 0.55 1.00 1.14 0.80 IRAQ Al-Basrah (Basra) 474 631 759 837 923 1,023 1,139 1,267 5.71 3.68 1.96 1.96 2.05 2.15 2.14 Al-Mawsil (Mosul) 736 889 1,056 1,236 1,447 1,676 1,885 2,092 3.78 3.44 3.15 3.15 2.94 2.35 2.08 Baghdad 4,092 4,598 5,200 5,327 5,891 6,614 7,321 8,043 2.34 2.46 0.48 2.01 2.32 2.03 1.88 Irbil (Erbil) 536 644 757 874 1,009 1,158 1,301 1,447 3.65 3.23 2.88 2.88 2.74 2.33 2.13 Sulaimaniya 402 483 580 696 836 988 1,121 1,249 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.34 2.52 2.17 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 161 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 IRELAnD Dublin 916 946 989 1,037 1,099 1,179 1,261 1,337 0.65 0.87 0.96 1.15 1.42 1.34 1.17 ISRAEL Hefa (Haifa) 582 775 888 992 1,036 1,089 1,144 1,195 5.74 2.73 2.22 0.87 0.98 0.99 0.87 Jerusalem 522 610 651 712 782 850 901 944 3.12 1.31 1.76 1.89 1.66 1.17 0.92 Tel Aviv-Yafo (Tel Aviv-Jaffa) 2,026 2,442 2,752 3,012 3,272 3,515 3,689 3,823 3.73 2.39 1.81 1.65 1.44 0.96 0.71 ITALy Milano (Milan) 3,063 3,020 2,985 2,956 2,967 2,980 2,981 2,981 -0.28 -0.23 -0.19 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.00 Napoli (Naples) 2,208 2,218 2,232 2,248 2,276 2,292 2,293 2,293 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.00 Palermo 844 850 855 861 875 887 891 896 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.32 0.27 0.10 0.09 Roma (Rome) 3,450 3,425 3,385 3,352 3,362 3,375 3,376 3,376 -0.14 -0.24 -0.20 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.00 Torino (Turin) 1,775 1,733 1,694 1,662 1,665 1,678 1,679 1,680 -0.48 -0.45 -0.38 0.03 0.15 0.02 0.01 jAPAn Fukuoka-Kitakyushu 2,487 2,619 2,716 2,771 2,816 2,833 2,834 2,834 1.04 0.73 0.40 0.33 0.12 0.01 0.00 Hiroshima 1,986 2,040 2,044 2,063 2,081 2,088 2,088 2,088 0.54 0.04 0.19 0.17 0.06 0.01 0.00 Kyoto 1,760 1,804 1,806 1,805 1,804 1,804 1,804 1,804 0.49 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 — Nagoya 2,947 3,055 3,122 3,199 3,267 3,292 3,295 3,295 0.71 0.44 0.49 0.42 0.15 0.02 0.00 Osaka-Kobe 11,035 11,052 11,165 11,258 11,337 11,365 11,368 11,368 0.03 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.00 Sapporo 2,319 2,476 2,508 2,601 2,687 2,718 2,721 2,721 1.31 0.26 0.73 0.65 0.23 0.02 0.00 Sendai 2,021 2,135 2,184 2,284 2,376 2,410 2,413 2,413 1.09 0.46 0.90 0.79 0.28 0.03 0.00 Tokyo 32,530 33,587 34,450 35,622 36,669 37,049 37,088 37,088 0.64 0.51 0.67 0.58 0.21 0.02 0.00 jORDAn Amman 851 973 1,007 1,042 1,105 1,186 1,272 1,364 2.67 0.68 0.68 1.19 1.41 1.39 1.40 kAzAkHSTAn Almaty 1,080 1,109 1,159 1,267 1,383 1,482 1,554 1,612 0.52 0.90 1.78 1.75 1.38 0.95 0.72 kEnyA Mombasa 476 572 687 830 1,003 1,216 1,479 1,795 3.65 3.67 3.79 3.78 3.86 3.91 3.87 Nairobi 1,380 1,755 2,230 2,814 3,523 4,303 5,192 6,246 4.81 4.79 4.65 4.50 4.00 3.76 3.69 kUWAIT Al Kuwayt (Kuwait City) 1,392 1,190 1,499 1,888 2,305 2,592 2,790 2,956 -3.13 4.62 4.61 3.99 2.35 1.47 1.16 kyRgyzSTAn Bishkek 635 703 770 820 864 912 967 1,034 2.03 1.82 1.27 1.03 1.08 1.17 1.36 LAO PEOPLE’S DEmOCRATIC REPUBLIC Vientiane 451 533 612 702 831 1,035 1,270 1,501 3.32 2.75 2.75 3.39 4.39 4.08 3.35 LEBAnOn Bayrut (Beirut) 1,293 1,268 1,487 1,777 1,937 2,033 2,090 2,135 -0.39 3.19 3.57 1.72 0.97 0.55 0.42 LIBERIA Monrovia 1,042 464 836 1,202 827 728 807 932 -16.18 11.76 7.27 -7.47 -2.56 2.06 2.88 LIByAn ARAB jAmAHIRIyA Tarabulus (Tripoli) 862 984 1,022 1,059 1,108 1,192 1,286 1,364 2.64 0.77 0.71 0.89 1.48 1.51 1.17 mADAgASCAR Antananarivo 948 1,169 1,361 1,590 1,879 2,235 2,658 3,148 4.20 3.04 3.10 3.34 3.47 3.46 3.39 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 162 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 mALAWI Blantyre-Limbe 370 446 538 667 856 1,103 1,407 1,766 3.73 3.74 4.30 4.99 5.06 4.87 4.55 Lilongwe 266 362 493 662 865 1,115 1,422 1,784 6.17 6.17 5.89 5.35 5.08 4.87 4.54 mALAySIA Johore Bharu 417 516 630 797 999 1,175 1,295 1,382 4.28 4.01 4.68 4.53 3.25 1.94 1.31 Klang 345 466 631 849 1,128 1,361 1,503 1,603 6.01 6.07 5.93 5.68 3.75 1.99 1.29 Kuala Lumpur 1,120 1,213 1,306 1,405 1,519 1,670 1,820 1,938 1.58 1.47 1.47 1.56 1.89 1.72 1.26 mALI Bamako 746 910 1,110 1,368 1,699 2,086 2,514 2,971 3.96 3.97 4.19 4.32 4.11 3.73 3.35 mExICO Aguascalientes 552 631 734 829 926 995 1,039 1,073 2.69 3.02 2.42 2.23 1.43 0.86 0.66 Chihuahua 539 625 683 760 840 899 939 971 2.94 1.77 2.15 2.00 1.36 0.87 0.67 Ciudad de México (Mexico City) 15,312 16,811 18,022 18,735 19,460 20,078 20,476 20,713 1.87 1.39 0.78 0.76 0.62 0.39 0.23 Ciudad Juárez 809 997 1,225 1,308 1,394 1,470 1,528 1,575 4.19 4.11 1.32 1.28 1.05 0.77 0.60 Culiacán 606 690 749 791 836 881 918 950 2.60 1.63 1.10 1.11 1.04 0.84 0.68 Guadalajara 3,011 3,431 3,703 4,051 4,402 4,648 4,796 4,902 2.61 1.53 1.80 1.66 1.08 0.63 0.44 Hermosillo 454 552 616 697 781 840 878 909 3.89 2.19 2.48 2.28 1.46 0.89 0.68 León de los Aldamas 961 1,127 1,290 1,429 1,571 1,673 1,739 1,791 3.19 2.70 2.04 1.90 1.26 0.78 0.58 Mérida 664 765 848 931 1,015 1,081 1,127 1,164 2.83 2.06 1.85 1.74 1.25 0.83 0.65 Mexicali 607 690 770 851 934 997 1,040 1,075 2.57 2.21 1.99 1.86 1.30 0.85 0.66 Monterrey 2,594 2,961 3,266 3,579 3,896 4,118 4,253 4,351 2.65 1.96 1.83 1.70 1.11 0.65 0.46 Puebla 1,686 1,692 1,907 2,109 2,315 2,460 2,551 2,620 0.07 2.40 2.02 1.86 1.22 0.72 0.53 Querétaro 561 671 795 911 1,031 1,111 1,160 1,198 3.58 3.39 2.71 2.47 1.51 0.86 0.64 Saltillo 491 577 643 720 801 859 897 928 3.21 2.16 2.28 2.11 1.40 0.88 0.68 San Luis Potosí 665 774 858 952 1,049 1,120 1,168 1,206 3.04 2.06 2.09 1.94 1.32 0.84 0.64 Tampico 563 609 659 709 761 806 842 871 1.54 1.60 1.46 1.41 1.16 0.86 0.69 Tijuana 760 1,017 1,287 1,472 1,664 1,789 1,861 1,915 5.82 4.71 2.69 2.44 1.45 0.79 0.58 Toluca de Lerdo 835 981 1,417 1,498 1,582 1,661 1,725 1,776 3.22 7.35 1.11 1.10 0.98 0.75 0.59 Torreón 882 954 1,014 1,105 1,199 1,273 1,325 1,367 1.55 1.22 1.73 1.63 1.19 0.81 0.62 mOngOLIA Ulaanbaatar 572 661 764 873 966 1,050 1,129 1,202 2.90 2.90 2.67 2.03 1.66 1.47 1.25 mOROCCO Agadir 403 536 609 693 783 869 948 1,020 5.70 2.58 2.57 2.44 2.07 1.75 1.46 Dar-el-Beida (Casablanca) 2,682 2,951 3,043 3,138 3,284 3,537 3,816 4,065 1.91 0.62 0.62 0.91 1.49 1.52 1.26 Fès 685 785 870 963 1,065 1,173 1,277 1,371 2.72 2.04 2.04 2.02 1.92 1.70 1.42 Marrakech 578 681 755 837 928 1,023 1,114 1,198 3.26 2.07 2.07 2.06 1.95 1.72 1.44 Rabat 1,174 1,379 1,507 1,647 1,802 1,973 2,139 2,288 3.22 1.77 1.77 1.80 1.81 1.62 1.35 Tanger 423 510 591 686 788 877 958 1,030 3.73 2.98 2.98 2.75 2.16 1.75 1.46 mOzAmBIQUE Maputo 776 921 1,096 1,341 1,655 1,994 2,350 2,722 3.43 3.47 4.03 4.21 3.73 3.29 2.94 Matola 319 401 504 636 793 961 1,139 1,326 4.55 4.56 4.68 4.41 3.84 3.39 3.04 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 163 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 myAnmAR Mandalay 636 718 810 915 1,034 1,176 1,331 1,484 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.45 2.57 2.48 2.18 Nay Pyi Taw — — — 57 1,024 1,185 1,344 1,499 — — — 57.77 2.92 2.52 2.18 Yangon 2,907 3,213 3,553 3,928 4,350 4,873 5,456 6,022 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.04 2.27 2.26 1.98 nEPAL Kathmandu 398 509 644 817 1,037 1,295 1,589 1,915 4.92 4.70 4.76 4.78 4.44 4.10 3.73 nETHERLAnDS Amsterdam 936 988 1,005 1,023 1,049 1,076 1,097 1,110 1.09 0.34 0.37 0.49 0.50 0.40 0.23 Rotterdam 951 981 991 1,000 1,010 1,026 1,044 1,057 0.62 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.31 0.36 0.24 nEW zEALAnD Auckland 870 976 1,063 1,189 1,404 1,566 1,631 1,671 2.30 1.71 2.24 3.33 2.17 0.82 0.48 nICARAgUA Managua 735 865 887 909 944 1,015 1,103 1,192 3.26 0.50 0.50 0.74 1.46 1.67 1.54 nIgER Niamey 432 542 680 848 1,048 1,302 1,643 2,105 4.54 4.55 4.42 4.22 4.35 4.65 4.96 nIgERIA Aba 484 545 614 691 785 914 1,058 1,203 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.55 3.04 2.93 2.57 Abuja 330 526 832 1,315 1,995 2,563 2,977 3,361 9.31 9.16 9.16 8.33 5.01 3.00 2.43 Benin City 689 845 975 1,124 1,302 1,523 1,758 1,992 4.08 2.85 2.85 2.95 3.13 2.88 2.50 Ibadan 1,739 1,993 2,236 2,509 2,837 3,276 3,760 4,237 2.73 2.30 2.30 2.46 2.88 2.75 2.39 Ilorin 515 580 653 735 835 972 1,125 1,279 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.55 3.03 2.92 2.56 Jos 493 556 627 706 802 934 1,081 1,229 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.56 3.04 2.93 2.57 Kaduna 961 1,083 1,220 1,375 1,561 1,811 2,087 2,362 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.55 2.97 2.84 2.48 Kano 2,095 2,360 2,658 2,993 3,395 3,922 4,495 5,060 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.52 2.89 2.73 2.37 Lagos 4,764 5,966 7,233 8,767 10,578 12,427 14,162 15,810 4.50 3.85 3.85 3.76 3.22 2.61 2.20 Maiduguri 598 673 758 854 970 1,127 1,303 1,480 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.54 3.01 2.90 2.54 Ogbomosho 622 704 798 904 1,032 1,201 1,389 1,576 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.65 3.04 2.90 2.53 Port Harcourt 680 766 863 972 1,104 1,283 1,482 1,681 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.55 3.00 2.88 2.52 Zaria 592 667 752 847 963 1,120 1,295 1,471 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.56 3.02 2.90 2.54 nORWAy Oslo 684 729 774 818 888 946 985 1,019 1.28 1.19 1.12 1.64 1.25 0.82 0.68 PAkISTAn Faisalabad 1,520 1,804 2,140 2,496 2,849 3,252 3,704 4,200 3.43 3.41 3.08 2.64 2.65 2.60 2.51 Gujranwala 848 1,019 1,224 1,441 1,652 1,893 2,165 2,464 3.69 3.67 3.26 2.74 2.72 2.68 2.59 Hyderabad 950 1,077 1,222 1,394 1,590 1,822 2,084 2,373 2.51 2.52 2.64 2.64 2.73 2.68 2.60 Islamabad 343 452 595 737 856 985 1,132 1,295 5.54 5.47 4.28 3.00 2.83 2.77 2.68 Karachi 7,147 8,467 10,021 11,618 13,125 14,818 16,693 18,725 3.39 3.37 2.96 2.44 2.43 2.38 2.30 Lahore 3,970 4,653 5,449 6,294 7,132 8,087 9,150 10,308 3.17 3.16 2.88 2.50 2.51 2.47 2.38 Multan 953 1,097 1,263 1,453 1,659 1,901 2,174 2,474 2.82 2.83 2.80 2.66 2.72 2.68 2.59 Peshawar 769 905 1,066 1,242 1,422 1,632 1,868 2,128 3.27 3.27 3.05 2.72 2.74 2.70 2.61 Quetta 414 504 614 729 841 968 1,113 1,272 3.96 3.93 3.45 2.85 2.82 2.78 2.69 Rawalpindi 1,087 1,286 1,520 1,772 2,026 2,318 2,646 3,008 3.36 3.34 3.07 2.68 2.69 2.65 2.56 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 164 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 PAnAmA Ciudad de Panamá (Panama City) 847 953 1,072 1,216 1,378 1,527 1,652 1,758 2.36 2.36 2.51 2.51 2.04 1.59 1.24 PARAgUAy Asunción 1,091 1,287 1,507 1,762 2,030 2,277 2,505 2,715 3.32 3.15 3.13 2.83 2.30 1.91 1.61 PERU Arequipa 564 628 678 732 789 848 903 953 2.17 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.43 1.25 1.09 Lima 5,837 6,582 7,294 8,081 8,941 9,659 10,145 10,530 2.40 2.05 2.05 2.02 1.55 0.98 0.75 PHILIPPInES Cebu 612 661 721 787 860 945 1,046 1,162 1.53 1.75 1.76 1.77 1.89 2.04 2.09 Davao 854 1,001 1,152 1,325 1,519 1,701 1,881 2,080 3.17 2.81 2.80 2.72 2.27 2.02 2.01 Manila 7,973 9,401 9,958 10,761 11,628 12,587 13,687 14,916 3.30 1.15 1.55 1.55 1.58 1.68 1.72 Zamboanga 444 509 605 721 854 973 1,082 1,201 2.71 3.47 3.50 3.38 2.61 2.13 2.09 POLAnD Kraków (Cracow) 735 748 756 757 756 756 756 756 0.35 0.21 0.04 -0.03 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 Warszawa (Warsaw) 1,628 1,652 1,666 1,693 1,712 1,720 1,722 1,722 0.29 0.17 0.33 0.22 0.09 0.02 0.00 PORTUgAL Lisboa (Lisbon) 2,537 2,600 2,672 2,747 2,824 2,907 2,973 3,009 0.49 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.58 0.45 0.24 Porto 1,164 1,206 1,254 1,303 1,355 1,407 1,448 1,473 0.72 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.57 0.35 PUERTO RICO San Juan 1,539 1,855 2,237 2,601 2,743 2,763 2,763 2,763 3.74 3.74 3.01 1.07 0.14 0.00 — REPUBLIC OF kOREA Bucheon 651 771 763 833 909 948 960 961 3.39 -0.23 1.77 1.73 0.85 0.24 0.03 Busan 3,778 3,813 3,673 3,533 3,425 3,407 3,409 3,409 0.18 -0.75 -0.78 -0.62 -0.11 0.01 0.00 Daegu 2,215 2,434 2,478 2,466 2,458 2,474 2,481 2,481 1.88 0.36 -0.10 -0.06 0.12 0.06 0.00 Daejon 1,036 1,256 1,362 1,438 1,509 1,550 1,562 1,562 3.85 1.62 1.09 0.97 0.54 0.15 0.01 Goyang 241 493 744 859 961 1,012 1,025 1,026 14.28 8.25 2.88 2.23 1.03 0.25 0.02 Gwangju 1,122 1,249 1,346 1,413 1,476 1,513 1,524 1,525 2.16 1.49 0.97 0.86 0.50 0.15 0.01 Incheon 1,785 2,271 2,464 2,527 2,583 2,621 2,630 2,631 4.82 1.62 0.51 0.43 0.29 0.07 0.00 Seongnam 534 842 911 934 955 974 983 984 9.10 1.59 0.48 0.45 0.39 0.19 0.02 Seoul 10,544 10,256 9,917 9,825 9,773 9,767 9,767 9,767 -0.55 -0.67 -0.19 -0.11 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 Suweon 628 748 932 1,037 1,132 1,180 1,193 1,194 3.50 4.42 2.13 1.74 0.84 0.21 0.01 Ulsan 673 945 1,011 1,047 1,081 1,106 1,116 1,117 6.80 1.36 0.69 0.65 0.45 0.18 0.02 ROmAnIA Bucuresti (Bucharest) 2,040 2,018 1,949 1,931 1,934 1,947 1,959 1,963 -0.21 -0.69 -0.19 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.05 RUSSIAn FEDERATIOn Chelyabinsk 1,129 1,104 1,082 1,094 1,094 1,095 1,095 1,095 -0.45 -0.40 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Kazan 1,092 1,092 1,096 1,112 1,140 1,159 1,164 1,164 -0.01 0.07 0.29 0.49 0.35 0.08 0.00 Krasnoyarsk 910 911 911 920 961 991 998 999 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.88 0.62 0.14 0.01 Moskva (Moscow) 8,987 9,201 10,005 10,418 10,550 10,641 10,662 10,663 0.47 1.67 0.81 0.25 0.17 0.04 0.00 Nizhniy Novgorod 1,420 1,375 1,331 1,286 1,267 1,256 1,253 1,253 -0.65 -0.65 -0.69 -0.29 -0.19 -0.04 -0.00 Novosibirsk 1,430 1,428 1,426 1,400 1,397 1,397 1,398 1,398 -0.03 -0.03 -0.38 -0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Omsk 1,144 1,140 1,136 1,140 1,124 1,114 1,112 1,112 -0.07 -0.07 0.08 -0.28 -0.18 -0.04 -0.00 Perm 1,076 1,044 1,014 992 982 974 972 972 -0.59 -0.59 -0.43 -0.20 -0.16 -0.04 -0.00 Rostov-na-Donu (Rostov-on-Don) 1,022 1,041 1,061 1,056 1,046 1,040 1,038 1,038 0.38 0.38 -0.10 -0.19 -0.12 -0.03 -0.00 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 165 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 Samara 1,244 1,208 1,173 1,146 1,131 1,121 1,119 1,119 -0.58 -0.58 -0.48 -0.27 -0.16 -0.04 -0.00 Sankt Peterburg (Saint Petersburg) 4,989 4,836 4,719 4,598 4,575 4,561 4,557 4,557 -0.62 -0.49 -0.52 -0.10 -0.06 -0.01 -0.00 Saratov 901 890 878 853 822 802 798 797 -0.25 -0.25 -0.60 -0.74 -0.49 -0.11 -0.01 Ufa 1,078 1,063 1,049 1,032 1,023 1,017 1,016 1,016 -0.27 -0.27 -0.33 -0.18 -0.10 -0.02 -0.00 Volgograd 999 1,005 1,010 994 977 967 965 964 0.11 0.11 -0.32 -0.34 -0.21 -0.05 -0.00 Voronezh 880 867 854 847 842 839 838 838 -0.30 -0.30 -0.17 -0.12 -0.07 -0.02 -0.00 Yekaterinburg 1,350 1,326 1,303 1,307 1,344 1,370 1,376 1,377 -0.35 -0.35 0.06 0.56 0.39 0.09 0.00 RWAnDA Kigali 219 278 497 775 939 1,138 1,392 1,690 4.77 11.63 8.86 3.85 3.84 4.02 3.88 SAUDI ARABIA Ad-Dammam 409 533 639 766 902 1,013 1,109 1,197 5.30 3.63 3.62 3.26 2.33 1.80 1.53 Al-Madinah (Medina) 529 669 795 944 1,104 1,236 1,351 1,456 4.69 3.45 3.45 3.12 2.27 1.77 1.50 Ar-Riyadh (Riyadh) 2,325 3,035 3,567 4,193 4,848 5,373 5,809 6,196 5.33 3.23 3.23 2.90 2.06 1.56 1.29 Jiddah 1,742 2,200 2,509 2,860 3,234 3,569 3,868 4,138 4.66 2.63 2.62 2.46 1.97 1.61 1.35 Makkah (Mecca) 856 1,033 1,168 1,319 1,484 1,642 1,789 1,924 3.76 2.45 2.45 2.35 2.02 1.72 1.46 SEnEgAL Dakar 1,405 1,688 2,029 2,434 2,863 3,308 3,796 4,338 3.67 3.68 3.64 3.25 2.89 2.75 2.67 SERBIA Beograd (Belgrade) 1,130 1,128 1,122 1,116 1,117 1,131 1,149 1,168 -0.03 -0.11 -0.11 0.03 0.25 0.31 0.32 SIERRA LEOnE Freetown 529 603 688 785 901 1,046 1,219 1,420 2.62 2.63 2.62 2.76 2.99 3.06 3.05 SIngAPORE Singapore 3,016 3,480 4,018 4,267 4,837 5,059 5,219 5,362 2.86 2.88 1.20 2.51 0.90 0.63 0.54 SOmALIA Muqdisho (Mogadishu) 1,035 1,147 1,201 1,415 1,500 1,795 2,156 2,588 2.04 0.92 3.28 1.17 3.59 3.67 3.66 SOUTH AFRICA Cape Town 2,155 2,394 2,715 3,091 3,405 3,579 3,701 3,824 2.10 2.52 2.59 1.93 1.00 0.67 0.65 Durban 1,723 2,081 2,370 2,638 2,879 3,026 3,133 3,241 3.77 2.60 2.15 1.75 1.00 0.69 0.68 Ekurhuleni (East Rand) 1,531 1,894 2,326 2,824 3,202 3,380 3,497 3,614 4.26 4.11 3.88 2.51 1.08 0.68 0.66 Johannesburg 1,898 2,265 2,732 3,263 3,670 3,867 3,996 4,127 3.53 3.75 3.55 2.35 1.05 0.66 0.64 Port Elizabeth 828 911 958 1,002 1,068 1,126 1,173 1,222 1.93 1.00 0.90 1.27 1.06 0.83 0.82 Pretoria 911 951 1,084 1,274 1,429 1,514 1,575 1,637 0.85 2.61 3.24 2.29 1.16 0.79 0.77 Vereeniging 743 800 897 1,029 1,143 1,211 1,262 1,313 1.48 2.30 2.75 2.09 1.16 0.82 0.81 SPAIn Barcelona 4,101 4,318 4,560 4,815 5,083 5,315 5,443 5,477 1.03 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.89 0.48 0.12 Madrid 4,414 4,688 5,014 5,409 5,851 6,213 6,379 6,412 1.20 1.35 1.52 1.57 1.20 0.53 0.10 Valencia 776 785 795 804 814 832 857 873 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.44 0.58 0.38 SUDAn Al-Khartum (Khartoum) 2,360 3,242 3,949 4,518 5,172 6,046 7,005 7,953 6.35 3.95 2.69 2.70 3.12 2.95 2.54 SWEDEn Stockholm 1,038 1,138 1,206 1,248 1,285 1,309 1,327 1,345 1.83 1.16 0.69 0.59 0.36 0.28 0.26 SWITzERLAnD Zürich (Zurich) 1,006 1,048 1,078 1,114 1,150 1,177 1,196 1,217 0.83 0.56 0.65 0.64 0.45 0.32 0.35 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 166 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 SyRIAn ARAB REPUBLIC Dimashq (Damascus) 1,691 1,854 2,063 2,294 2,597 2,918 3,213 3,534 1.85 2.13 2.13 2.48 2.33 1.93 1.90 Halab (Aleppo) 1,554 1,864 2,204 2,605 3,087 3,510 3,864 4,244 3.64 3.35 3.35 3.39 2.57 1.92 1.88 Hamah 309 361 495 676 897 1,060 1,180 1,307 3.12 6.27 6.26 5.65 3.34 2.14 2.05 Hims (Homs) 565 684 856 1,072 1,328 1,536 1,702 1,881 3.83 4.49 4.49 4.29 2.91 2.06 1.99 THAILAnD Krung Thep (Bangkok) 5,888 6,106 6,332 6,614 6,976 7,399 7,902 8,470 0.73 0.73 0.87 1.07 1.18 1.31 1.39 TOgO Lomé 619 795 1,020 1,310 1,667 2,036 2,398 2,763 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.82 4.00 3.27 2.84 TUnISIA Tunis 644 682 711 734 767 814 864 911 1.16 0.84 0.63 0.87 1.21 1.19 1.04 TURkEy Adana 907 1,011 1,123 1,245 1,361 1,465 1,556 1,635 2.18 2.10 2.06 1.79 1.46 1.21 0.99 Ankara 2,561 2,842 3,179 3,572 3,906 4,174 4,401 4,591 2.08 2.25 2.33 1.79 1.33 1.06 0.85 Antalya 370 471 595 736 838 909 969 1,022 4.83 4.67 4.26 2.62 1.61 1.28 1.06 Bursa 819 981 1,180 1,413 1,588 1,711 1,816 1,906 3.62 3.69 3.60 2.33 1.50 1.19 0.97 Gaziantep 595 710 844 992 1,109 1,197 1,274 1,341 3.54 3.47 3.22 2.22 1.53 1.24 1.02 Istanbul 6,552 7,665 8,744 9,710 10,525 11,164 11,689 12,108 3.14 2.63 2.10 1.61 1.18 0.92 0.70 Izmir 1,741 1,966 2,216 2,487 2,723 2,917 3,083 3,224 2.43 2.39 2.31 1.81 1.38 1.11 0.90 Konya 508 610 734 871 978 1,057 1,125 1,186 3.66 3.69 3.42 2.31 1.56 1.26 1.04 UgAnDA Kampala 755 912 1,097 1,318 1,598 1,982 2,504 3,189 3.79 3.68 3.68 3.85 4.31 4.67 4.83 UkRAInE Dnipropetrovsk 1,162 1,119 1,077 1,052 1,004 974 967 967 -0.77 -0.77 -0.47 -0.93 -0.61 -0.14 -0.01 Donetsk 1,097 1,061 1,026 997 966 946 941 941 -0.67 -0.67 -0.57 -0.64 -0.41 -0.09 -0.01 Kharkiv 1,586 1,534 1,484 1,464 1,453 1,446 1,444 1,444 -0.66 -0.66 -0.28 -0.15 -0.10 -0.02 -0.00 Kyiv (Kiev) 2,574 2,590 2,606 2,673 2,805 2,894 2,914 2,915 0.13 0.13 0.51 0.96 0.63 0.14 0.01 Odesa 1,092 1,064 1,037 1,007 1,009 1,010 1,011 1,011 -0.52 -0.52 -0.57 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 Zaporizhzhya 873 847 822 797 775 761 758 758 -0.60 -0.60 -0.61 -0.56 -0.36 -0.08 -0.00 UnITED ARAB EmIRATES Dubayy (Dubai) 473 650 906 1,264 1,567 1,772 1,934 2,076 6.36 6.64 6.67 4.30 2.46 1.76 1.42 Sharjah 229 311 444 637 809 926 1,016 1,096 6.11 7.12 7.22 4.78 2.69 1.86 1.51 UnITED kIngDOm Birmingham 2,301 2,291 2,285 2,283 2,302 2,337 2,375 2,415 -0.09 -0.05 -0.02 0.17 0.30 0.32 0.33 Glasgow 1,217 1,186 1,171 1,160 1,170 1,193 1,218 1,245 -0.52 -0.26 -0.19 0.17 0.39 0.42 0.43 Liverpool 831 829 818 811 819 837 857 878 -0.05 -0.26 -0.18 0.21 0.44 0.47 0.48 London 7,654 7,908 8,225 8,506 8,631 8,693 8,753 8,816 0.65 0.79 0.67 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.14 Manchester 2,282 2,264 2,248 2,237 2,253 2,287 2,325 2,364 -0.16 -0.14 -0.10 0.14 0.30 0.33 0.33 Newcastle upon Tyne 877 883 880 880 891 911 932 954 0.14 -0.07 -0.01 0.26 0.43 0.46 0.47 West Yorkshire 1,449 1,468 1,495 1,521 1,547 1,575 1,606 1,637 0.27 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.39 UnITED REPUBLIC OF TAnzAnIA Dar es Salaam 1,316 1,668 2,116 2,680 3,349 4,153 5,103 6,202 4.75 4.75 4.73 4.46 4.30 4.12 3.90 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 167 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 UnITED STATES OF AmERICA Atlanta 2,184 2,781 3,542 4,306 4,691 4,886 5,036 5,153 4.84 4.84 3.90 1.72 0.81 0.60 0.46 Austin 569 720 913 1,107 1,215 1,277 1,329 1,373 4.73 4.73 3.87 1.85 1.00 0.80 0.65 Baltimore 1,849 1,962 2,083 2,206 2,320 2,421 2,508 2,579 1.19 1.19 1.15 1.01 0.85 0.70 0.56 Boston 3,428 3,726 4,049 4,363 4,593 4,773 4,920 5,034 1.66 1.66 1.49 1.03 0.77 0.61 0.46 Bridgeport-Stamford 714 799 894 987 1,055 1,108 1,154 1,193 2.25 2.25 1.99 1.32 0.98 0.82 0.67 Buffalo 955 966 977 1,000 1,045 1,096 1,142 1,181 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.89 0.95 0.82 0.67 Charlotte 461 596 769 946 1,043 1,098 1,144 1,183 5.10 5.10 4.16 1.94 1.03 0.82 0.67 Chicago 7,374 7,839 8,333 8,818 9,204 9,513 9,758 9,936 1.22 1.22 1.13 0.86 0.66 0.51 0.36 Cincinnati 1,335 1,419 1,508 1,600 1,686 1,764 1,831 1,887 1.22 1.22 1.19 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 Cleveland 1,680 1,734 1,789 1,856 1,942 2,029 2,104 2,166 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.90 0.87 0.73 0.58 Columbus, Ohio 950 1,040 1,138 1,236 1,313 1,376 1,432 1,478 1.81 1.81 1.65 1.21 0.95 0.79 0.64 Dallas-Fort Worth 3,219 3,665 4,172 4,657 4,951 5,145 5,301 5,421 2.59 2.59 2.20 1.22 0.77 0.60 0.45 Dayton 616 659 706 754 800 841 878 909 1.37 1.37 1.33 1.17 1.01 0.86 0.71 Denver-Aurora 1,528 1,747 1,998 2,240 2,394 2,501 2,590 2,662 2.68 2.68 2.29 1.33 0.87 0.70 0.55 Detroit 3,703 3,804 3,909 4,036 4,200 4,363 4,500 4,608 0.54 0.54 0.64 0.80 0.76 0.62 0.47 El Paso 573 623 678 732 779 820 856 887 1.67 1.67 1.56 1.23 1.02 0.86 0.71 Hartford 783 818 853 894 942 989 1,031 1,067 0.86 0.86 0.93 1.04 0.98 0.83 0.68 Honolulu 635 676 720 767 812 854 891 923 1.27 1.27 1.25 1.14 1.00 0.85 0.71 Houston 2,922 3,353 3,849 4,322 4,605 4,789 4,937 5,051 2.76 2.76 2.32 1.27 0.78 0.61 0.46 Indianapolis 921 1,063 1,228 1,387 1,490 1,562 1,623 1,674 2.87 2.87 2.45 1.42 0.94 0.77 0.62 Jacksonville, Florida 742 811 886 962 1,022 1,074 1,119 1,157 1.78 1.78 1.63 1.23 0.98 0.82 0.67 Kansas City 1,233 1,297 1,365 1,438 1,513 1,584 1,645 1,697 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.02 0.91 0.77 0.62 Las Vegas 708 973 1,335 1,721 1,916 2,011 2,086 2,147 6.34 6.34 5.08 2.14 0.97 0.73 0.58 Los Angeles- Long Beach-Santa Ana 10,883 11,339 11,814 12,303 12,762 13,156 13,463 13,677 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.73 0.61 0.46 0.32 Louisville 757 810 866 925 979 1,028 1,071 1,108 1.34 1.34 1.30 1.14 0.98 0.83 0.68 McAllen 268 377 532 701 789 833 870 901 6.87 6.87 5.51 2.36 1.10 0.86 0.71 Memphis 829 899 976 1,053 1,117 1,173 1,221 1,262 1.64 1.64 1.52 1.19 0.97 0.81 0.66 Miami 3,969 4,431 4,946 5,436 5,750 5,967 6,142 6,275 2.20 2.20 1.89 1.12 0.74 0.58 0.43 Milwaukee 1,228 1,269 1,311 1,362 1,428 1,495 1,554 1,603 0.65 0.65 0.76 0.94 0.91 0.77 0.63 Minneapolis-St. Paul 2,087 2,236 2,397 2,557 2,693 2,808 2,905 2,984 1.38 1.39 1.30 1.03 0.84 0.68 0.54 Nashville-Davidson 577 660 755 848 911 958 999 1,034 2.69 2.69 2.32 1.44 1.01 0.84 0.69 New Orleans 1,039 1,024 1,009 996 858 921 984 1,044 -0.30 -0.30 -0.26 -2.99 1.43 1.33 1.18 New York-Newark 16,086 16,943 17,846 18,727 19,425 19,968 20,374 20,636 1.04 1.04 0.96 0.73 0.55 0.40 0.26 Oklahoma City 711 729 748 773 812 854 891 923 0.51 0.51 0.67 0.98 0.99 0.85 0.71 Orlando 893 1,020 1,165 1,306 1,400 1,468 1,526 1,575 2.66 2.66 2.29 1.38 0.95 0.78 0.63 Philadelphia 4,725 4,938 5,160 5,395 5,626 5,833 6,004 6,135 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.84 0.72 0.58 0.43 Phoenix-Mesa 2,025 2,437 2,934 3,418 3,684 3,840 3,965 4,063 3.71 3.71 3.05 1.50 0.83 0.64 0.49 Pittsburgh 1,681 1,717 1,755 1,807 1,887 1,971 2,045 2,106 0.43 0.43 0.58 0.87 0.87 0.73 0.59 Portland 1,181 1,372 1,595 1,811 1,944 2,035 2,110 2,173 3.01 3.01 2.54 1.42 0.91 0.73 0.58 Providence 1,047 1,111 1,178 1,249 1,317 1,380 1,435 1,482 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.07 0.93 0.79 0.64 Raleigh 310 413 549 692 769 812 848 879 5.71 5.71 4.63 2.11 1.08 0.86 0.71 Richmond 696 757 822 888 944 991 1,034 1,070 1.66 1.66 1.54 1.21 0.99 0.83 0.68 City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, by country, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 168 Country/City City population of urban agglomerations (’000) City population growth rate of urban agglomerations (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1990– 1995 1995– 2000 2000– 2005 2005– 2010 2010– 2015 2015– 2020 2020– 2025 Riverside-San Bernardino 1,178 1,336 1,516 1,691 1,807 1,891 1,962 2,021 2.53 2.53 2.18 1.32 0.91 0.74 0.59 Rochester 621 658 696 738 780 820 857 888 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.12 1.01 0.86 0.71 Sacramento 1,104 1,244 1,402 1,555 1,660 1,739 1,805 1,861 2.39 2.39 2.08 1.30 0.92 0.75 0.60 Salt Lake City 792 840 890 944 997 1,047 1,091 1,129 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.10 0.97 0.83 0.68 San Antonio 1,134 1,229 1,333 1,436 1,521 1,593 1,655 1,707 1.62 1.62 1.49 1.15 0.92 0.77 0.62 San Diego 2,356 2,514 2,683 2,853 2,999 3,125 3,231 3,316 1.30 1.30 1.23 1.00 0.82 0.67 0.52 San Francisco-Oakland 2,961 3,095 3,236 3,386 3,541 3,683 3,804 3,900 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.79 0.64 0.50 San Jose 1,376 1,457 1,543 1,632 1,718 1,797 1,865 1,922 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.03 0.90 0.75 0.60 Seattle 2,206 2,453 2,727 2,991 3,171 3,305 3,415 3,504 2.12 2.12 1.85 1.17 0.83 0.66 0.51 St. Louis 1,950 2,014 2,081 2,160 2,259 2,357 2,442 2,511 0.65 0.65 0.74 0.89 0.85 0.71 0.56 Tampa-St. Petersburg 1,717 1,886 2,072 2,253 2,387 2,492 2,581 2,653 1.88 1.88 1.68 1.15 0.86 0.70 0.55 Tucson 582 649 724 798 853 898 936 970 2.18 2.18 1.94 1.33 1.01 0.85 0.70 Virginia Beach 1,286 1,341 1,397 1,461 1,534 1,605 1,668 1,720 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.97 0.91 0.76 0.62 Washington, D.C. 3,376 3,651 3,949 4,239 4,460 4,635 4,779 4,891 1.57 1.57 1.42 1.01 0.77 0.61 0.46 URUgUAy Montevideo 1,546 1,584 1,605 1,622 1,635 1,644 1,653 1,657 0.49 0.26 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.04 UzBEkISTAn Tashkent 2,100 2,116 2,135 2,169 2,210 2,279 2,420 2,616 0.15 0.17 0.32 0.37 0.62 1.20 1.55 vEnEzUELA (BOLIvARIAn REPUBLIC OF) Barquisimeto 742 838 946 1,067 1,180 1,273 1,350 1,413 2.42 2.43 2.39 2.02 1.52 1.17 0.92 Caracas 2,767 2,816 2,864 2,929 3,090 3,292 3,467 3,605 0.35 0.34 0.45 1.07 1.27 1.03 0.78 Maracaibo 1,303 1,501 1,724 1,973 2,192 2,357 2,488 2,593 2.82 2.77 2.70 2.10 1.45 1.08 0.83 Maracay 760 831 898 973 1,057 1,138 1,208 1,266 1.77 1.56 1.59 1.67 1.48 1.19 0.93 Valencia 1,053 1,213 1,392 1,592 1,770 1,905 2,014 2,103 2.82 2.76 2.69 2.12 1.48 1.11 0.86 vIET nAm Da Nang - CP 388 470 570 692 838 997 1,146 1,291 3.86 3.86 3.85 3.85 3.47 2.78 2.38 Hà Noi 1,136 1,344 1,631 2,144 2,814 3,516 4,056 4,530 3.35 3.88 5.46 5.44 4.45 2.86 2.21 Hai Phòng 1,474 1,585 1,704 1,831 1,970 2,164 2,432 2,722 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.46 1.88 2.34 2.25 Thành Pho Ho Chí Minh (Ho Chi Minh City) 3,411 3,802 4,336 5,264 6,167 7,140 8,067 8,957 2.17 2.63 3.88 3.17 2.93 2.44 2.09 yEmEn Sana'a' 653 1,034 1,365 1,801 2,342 2,934 3,585 4,296 9.18 5.55 5.54 5.26 4.51 4.01 3.62 zAmBIA Lusaka 757 902 1,073 1,265 1,451 1,666 1,941 2,267 3.49 3.49 3.29 2.74 2.77 3.05 3.10 zImBABWE Harare 1,047 1,255 1,379 1,513 1,632 1,856 2,170 2,467 3.62 1.89 1.85 1.51 2.57 3.13 2.57 Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2010) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision, United Nations, New York. City population and city population growth rate of urban agglomerations with 750,000 Inhabitants or more in 2009, bycountry, 1950–2025 (thousands) Table 4 Statistical Annex 169 Urban population (’000) Level of urbanization (%) Country 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 AFRICA Algeria 13,168 18,246 23,555 29,194 34,097 52.1 59.8 66.5 71.9 76.2 Angola 3,960 6,995 11,112 16,184 21,784 37.1 49.0 58.5 66.0 71.6 Benin 1,654 2,553 3,873 5,751 8,275 34.5 38.3 42.0 47.2 53.7 Botswana 567 917 1,209 1,506 1,769 41.9 53.2 61.1 67.6 72.7 Burkina Faso 1,218 2,083 4,184 7,523 11,958 13.8 17.8 25.7 34.4 42.8 Burundi 356 536 937 1,524 2,362 6.3 8.3 11.0 14.8 19.8 Cameroon 4,981 7,910 11,655 15,941 20,304 40.7 49.9 58.4 65.5 71.0 Cape Verde 156 235 313 394 468 44.1 53.4 61.1 67.4 72.5 Central African Republic 1,078 1,410 1,755 2,268 2,978 36.8 37.6 38.9 42.5 48.4 Chad 1,271 1,964 3,179 5,054 7,843 20.8 23.4 27.6 33.9 41.2 Comoros 122 155 195 259 356 27.9 28.1 28.2 30.8 36.5 Congo 1,329 1,770 2,335 3,118 3,883 54.3 58.3 62.1 66.3 70.9 Côte d'Ivoire 5,011 7,524 10,906 15,574 20,873 39.7 43.5 50.6 57.8 64.1 Democratic Republic of Congo 10,299 15,168 23,887 36,834 53,382 27.8 29.8 35.2 42.0 49.2 Djibouti 424 555 670 798 956 75.7 76.0 76.2 77.6 80.2 Egypt 25,124 30,032 36,664 45,301 56,477 43.5 42.8 43.4 45.9 50.9 Equatorial Guinea 132 205 275 379 527 34.7 38.8 39.7 43.3 49.4 Eritrea 499 650 1,127 1,845 2,780 15.8 17.8 21.6 27.5 34.4 Ethiopia 6,095 9,762 14,158 20,800 31,383 12.6 14.9 16.7 19.3 23.9 Gabon 641 989 1,292 1,579 1,853 69.1 80.1 86.0 88.8 90.6 Gambia 343 639 1,018 1,449 1,943 38.3 49.1 58.1 65.0 71.0 Ghana 5,454 8,584 12,524 17,274 22,565 36.4 44.0 51.5 58.4 64.7 Guinea 1,723 2,603 3,651 5,580 8,219 28.0 31.0 35.4 41.4 48.6 Guinea-Bissau 288 387 494 678 979 28.1 29.7 30.0 32.8 38.6 Kenya 4,271 6,204 9,064 13,826 20,884 18.2 19.7 22.2 26.6 33.0 Lesotho 224 377 560 775 999 14.0 20.0 26.9 34.5 42.4 Liberia 887 1,252 1,961 2,739 3,725 40.9 44.3 47.8 52.1 57.6 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 3,305 4,083 5,098 6,181 7,060 75.7 76.4 77.9 80.3 82.9 Madagascar 2,657 4,143 6,082 8,953 13,048 23.6 27.1 30.2 34.9 41.4 Malawi 1,093 1,796 3,102 5,240 8,395 11.6 15.2 19.8 25.5 32.4 Mali 2,018 2,982 4,777 7,325 10,491 23.3 28.3 35.9 43.7 51.3 Mauritania 789 1,041 1,395 1,859 2,478 39.7 40.0 41.4 45.4 51.7 Mauritius 464 510 542 595 681 43.9 42.7 41.8 43.4 48.0 Mayotte 33 71 100 129 168 36.1 47.7 50.1 51.6 55.7 Morocco 12,005 15,375 18,859 23,158 27,157 48.4 53.3 58.2 64.0 69.2 Mozambique 2,857 5,601 8,996 13,208 18,199 21.1 30.7 38.4 46.3 53.7 Namibia 392 590 840 1,161 1,541 27.7 32.4 38.0 44.4 51.5 Niger 1,215 1,785 2,719 4,417 7,641 15.4 16.2 17.1 19.3 23.5 Nigeria 34,343 53,078 78,818 109,859 144,116 35.3 42.5 49.8 56.8 63.6 Réunion 491 650 787 891 972 81.2 89.9 94.0 95.7 96.3 Rwanda 387 1,096 1,938 2,993 4,550 5.4 13.8 18.9 22.6 28.3 Saint Helena 2 2 2 2 2 41.6 39.7 39.7 41.7 46.4 São Tomé and Príncipe 51 75 103 136 173 43.6 53.4 62.2 69.0 74.0 Senegal 2,932 3,995 5,450 7,524 10,269 38.9 40.3 42.4 46.5 52.5 Seychelles 35 41 47 54 62 49.3 51.0 55.3 61.1 66.6 Sierra Leone 1,345 1,501 2,241 3,134 4,384 32.9 35.5 38.4 42.8 49.0 Urban population and urbanization by country, 1990–2030 Table 5 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 170 Urban population (’000) Level of urbanization (%) Country 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Somalia 1,956 2,458 3,505 5,268 7,851 29.7 33.2 37.4 43.0 49.9 South Africa 19,121 25,528 31,155 35,060 39,032 52.0 56.9 61.7 66.6 71.3 Sudan 7,211 11,661 17,322 24,804 33,267 26.6 33.4 40.1 47.4 54.5 Swaziland 198 244 257 307 400 22.9 22.6 21.4 22.3 26.2 Togo 1,182 1,917 2,945 4,261 5,795 30.1 36.5 43.4 50.5 57.3 Tunisia 4,760 5,996 6,980 8,096 9,115 57.9 63.4 67.3 71.2 75.2 Uganda 1,964 2,952 4,493 7,381 12,503 11.1 12.1 13.3 15.9 20.6 United Republic of Tanzania 4,807 7,614 11,883 18,945 29,190 18.9 22.3 26.4 31.8 38.7 Western Sahara 190 264 434 606 704 86.2 83.9 81.8 83.9 85.9 Zambia 3,117 3,643 4,733 6,584 9,340 39.4 34.8 35.7 38.9 44.7 Zimbabwe 3,033 4,205 4,837 6,839 9,086 29.0 33.8 38.3 43.9 50.7 ASIA Afghanistan 2,277 4,148 6,581 10,450 16,296 18.1 20.2 22.6 26.4 32.2 Armenia 2,390 1,989 1,984 2,087 2,186 67.4 64.7 64.2 65.7 69.0 Azerbaijan 3,876 4,158 4,639 5,332 6,044 53.7 51.2 51.9 54.2 58.6 Bahrain 434 574 715 852 984 88.1 88.4 88.6 89.4 90.6 Bangladesh 22,908 33,208 46,149 62,886 83,408 19.8 23.6 28.1 33.9 41.0 Bhutan 90 143 246 348 451 16.4 25.4 34.7 42.4 50.0 Brunei Darussalam 169 237 308 379 450 65.8 71.1 75.7 79.3 82.3 Cambodia 1,221 2,157 3,027 4,214 5,870 12.6 16.9 20.1 23.8 29.2 China 301,995 453,029 635,839 786,761 905,449 26.4 35.8 47.0 55.0 61.9 China, Hong Kong SAR 5,677 6,667 7,069 7,701 8,185 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China, Macao SAR 371 441 548 588 611 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Cyprus 454 540 619 705 797 66.8 68.6 70.3 72.7 75.7 Dem. People’s Republic of Korea 11,760 13,581 14,446 15,413 16,633 58.4 59.4 60.2 62.1 65.7 Georgia 3,005 2,498 2,225 2,177 2,218 55.0 52.6 52.7 54.7 58.7 India 220,260 288,430 364,459 463,328 590,091 25.5 27.7 30.0 33.9 39.7 Indonesia 54,252 86,219 102,960 122,257 145,776 30.6 42.0 44.3 48.1 53.7 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 31,958 42,952 53,120 63,596 71,767 56.3 64.2 70.8 75.9 79.8 Iraq 12,602 16,722 20,822 26,772 33,930 69.7 67.8 66.2 66.6 69.4 Israel 4,079 5,563 6,692 7,673 8,583 90.4 91.4 91.9 92.4 93.1 Japan 77,726 82,633 84,875 85,848 85,700 63.1 65.2 66.8 69.4 73.0 Jordan 2,350 3,798 5,083 5,998 7,063 72.2 78.3 78.5 79.8 82.0 Kazakhstan 9,301 8,417 9,217 10,417 11,525 56.3 56.3 58.5 62.3 66.8 Kuwait 2,100 2,188 3,001 3,637 4,218 98.0 98.2 98.4 98.6 98.7 Kyrgyzstan 1,660 1,744 1,918 2,202 2,625 37.8 35.2 34.5 35.7 40.1 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 649 1,187 2,136 3,381 4,699 15.4 22.0 33.2 44.2 53.1 Lebanon 2,472 3,244 3,712 4,065 4,374 83.1 86.0 87.2 88.6 90.0 Malaysia 9,014 14,424 20,146 25,128 28,999 49.8 62.0 72.2 78.5 82.2 Maldives 56 75 126 186 242 25.8 27.7 40.1 51.5 60.1 Mongolia 1,264 1,358 1,675 2,010 2,316 57.0 56.9 62.0 67.0 71.6 Myanmar 10,092 12,956 16,990 22,570 28,545 24.7 27.8 33.6 40.7 48.1 Nepal 1,692 3,281 5,559 8,739 12,902 8.9 13.4 18.6 24.8 31.7 Occupied Palestinian Territory 1,462 2,267 3,269 4,447 5,810 67.9 72.0 74.1 76.6 79.4 Oman 1,218 1,719 2,122 2,645 3,184 66.1 71.6 73.0 75.7 78.7 Pakistan 35,400 49,088 66,318 90,199 121,218 30.6 33.1 35.9 39.9 45.6 Philippines 30,333 37,283 45,781 57,657 72,555 48.6 48.0 48.9 52.6 58.3 Urban population and urbanization by country, 1990–2030 Table 5 Statistical Annex 171 Urban population (’000) Level of urbanization (%) Country 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Qatar 431 586 1,445 1,679 1,891 92.2 94.9 95.8 96.5 96.9 Republic of Korea 31,740 36,967 40,235 42,362 43,086 73.8 79.6 83.0 85.6 87.7 Saudi Arabia 12,451 16,615 21,541 26,617 31,516 76.6 79.8 82.1 84.2 86.2 Singapore 3,016 4,018 4,837 5,219 5,460 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sri Lanka 3,217 2,971 2,921 3,360 4,339 18.6 15.8 14.3 15.5 19.6 Syrian Arab Republic 6,224 8,577 12,545 15,948 19,976 48.9 51.9 55.7 60.2 65.4 Tajikistan 1,679 1,635 1,862 2,364 3,121 31.7 26.5 26.3 28.0 32.5 Thailand 16,675 19,417 23,142 27,800 33,624 29.4 31.1 34.0 38.9 45.8 Timor-Leste 154 198 329 538 848 20.8 24.3 28.1 33.2 39.9 Turkey 33,204 43,027 52,728 62,033 70,247 59.2 64.7 69.6 74.0 77.7 Turkmenistan 1,653 2,062 2,562 3,175 3,793 45.1 45.8 49.5 54.6 60.4 United Arab Emirates 1,476 2,599 3,956 4,915 5,821 79.1 80.3 84.1 86.8 88.8 Uzbekistan 8,241 9,273 10,075 11,789 14,500 40.2 37.4 36.2 37.8 42.7 Viet Nam 13,418 19,263 27,046 36,269 46,585 20.3 24.5 30.4 37.0 44.2 Yemen 2,577 4,776 7,714 12,082 17,844 20.9 26.3 31.8 38.2 45.3 EUROPE Albania 1,198 1,280 1,645 2,027 2,301 36.4 41.7 51.9 60.7 67.4 Andorra 50 61 76 85 96 94.7 92.4 88.0 84.9 85.1 Austria 5,045 5,267 5,666 6,003 6,372 65.8 65.8 67.6 70.3 73.8 Belarus 6,769 7,030 7,162 7,219 7,070 66.0 69.9 74.7 79.2 82.6 Belgium 9,573 9,899 10,421 10,792 11,070 96.4 97.1 97.4 97.7 97.9 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,691 1,597 1,828 2,028 2,170 39.2 43.2 48.6 55.2 61.7 Bulgaria 5,854 5,516 5,357 5,215 5,012 66.4 68.9 71.5 74.3 77.5 Channel Islands 45 45 47 52 59 31.4 30.5 31.4 34.2 39.1 Croatia 2,441 2,504 2,546 2,657 2,781 54.0 55.6 57.7 61.5 66.5 Czech Republic 7,750 7,565 7,656 7,929 8,202 75.2 74.0 73.5 75.0 78.0 Denmark 4,361 4,540 4,761 4,923 5,058 84.8 85.1 86.9 88.6 90.1 Estonia 1,115 951 931 942 955 71.1 69.4 69.5 70.7 73.4 Faeroe Islands 14 17 20 23 26 30.6 36.3 40.3 42.2 46.6 Finland 3,958 4,252 4,549 4,805 4,947 79.4 82.2 85.1 87.4 89.2 France 42,095 45,466 53,398 58,267 61,043 74.1 76.9 85.3 89.7 91.8 Germany 58,080 59,970 60,598 60,827 60,993 73.1 73.1 73.8 75.6 78.3 Gibraltar 28 29 31 32 31 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Greece 5,979 6,537 6,868 7,307 7,785 58.8 59.7 61.4 64.8 69.3 Holy See 1 1 1 1 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Hungary 6,824 6,596 6,791 7,011 7,180 65.8 64.6 68.1 71.8 75.5 Iceland 231 260 308 349 372 90.8 92.4 93.4 94.3 95.0 Ireland 2,000 2,250 2,842 3,370 3,889 56.9 59.1 61.9 65.5 69.8 Isle of Man 36 40 41 41 43 51.7 51.8 50.6 51.2 53.9 Italy 38,032 38,395 41,083 42,840 44,395 66.7 67.2 68.4 70.9 74.6 Latvia 1,844 1,616 1,517 1,471 1,453 69.3 68.1 67.7 68.4 70.9 Liechtenstein 5 5 5 6 7 16.9 15.1 14.3 15.0 18.0 Lithuania 2,499 2,345 2,181 2,096 2,080 67.6 67.0 67.0 68.5 71.5 Luxembourg 309 366 419 480 547 80.9 83.8 85.2 87.4 89.1 Malta 325 359 388 405 413 90.4 92.4 94.7 96.0 96.6 Monaco 29 32 33 34 35 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Montenegro 282 387 384 394 417 48.0 58.5 61.5 62.4 65.7 Urban population and urbanization by country, 1990–2030 Table 5 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 172 Urban population (’000) Level of urbanization (%) Country 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Netherlands 10,270 12,222 13,799 14,824 15,501 68.7 76.8 82.9 86.5 88.6 Norway 3,052 3,411 3,856 4,297 4,700 72.0 76.1 79.4 82.6 85.2 Poland 23,351 23,719 23,187 23,135 23,481 61.3 61.7 61.0 61.7 64.9 Portugal 4,782 5,563 6,515 7,148 7,585 47.9 54.4 60.7 66.4 71.4 Republic of Moldova 2,041 1,828 1,679 1,833 1,938 46.8 44.6 47.0 54.2 60.9 Romania 12,350 11,734 12,177 12,839 13,296 53.2 53.0 57.5 63.0 68.2 Russian Federation 108,670 107,582 102,702 100,892 99,153 73.4 73.4 73.2 74.5 76.9 San Marino 22 25 30 31 32 90.4 93.4 94.1 94.4 94.9 Serbia 4,822 5,369 5,525 5,871 6,252 50.4 53.0 56.1 60.0 64.8 Slovakia 2,969 3,025 2,975 3,031 3,168 56.5 56.2 55.0 55.7 59.2 Slovenia 971 1,008 1,002 1,035 1,110 50.4 50.8 49.5 50.4 54.5 Spain 29,266 30,707 35,073 38,542 40,774 75.4 76.3 77.4 79.4 81.9 Sweden 7,112 7,445 7,870 8,333 8,799 83.1 84.0 84.7 85.8 87.3 Switzerland 4,914 5,268 5,591 5,922 6,336 73.2 73.3 73.6 75.2 77.8 TFYR Macedonia 1,103 1,194 1,212 1,260 1,331 57.8 59.4 59.3 61.6 66.0 Ukraine 34,435 32,814 31,252 30,860 30,243 66.8 67.1 68.8 71.9 75.3 United Kingdom 44,726 46,331 49,295 53,001 56,901 78.1 78.7 79.6 81.4 83.7 LATIn AmERICA AnD THE CARIBBEAn Anguilla 8 11 15 18 19 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Antigua and Barbuda 22 25 27 32 40 35.4 32.1 30.3 32.5 38.4 Argentina 28,268 33,291 37,572 41,554 44,726 87.0 90.1 92.4 93.8 94.6 Aruba 32 42 50 54 59 50.3 46.7 46.9 48.8 52.5 Bahamas 204 250 291 331 367 79.8 82.0 84.1 86.1 87.9 Barbados 85 97 114 134 151 32.7 38.3 44.5 51.1 57.9 Belize 90 120 164 213 268 47.5 47.8 52.2 56.9 62.3 Bolivia 3,707 5,143 6,675 8,265 9,799 55.6 61.8 66.5 71.0 75.2 Brazil 110,565 141,416 169,098 187,104 197,874 73.9 81.2 86.5 89.5 91.1 British Virgin Islands 6 8 10 11 14 37.8 39.4 41.0 45.2 51.6 Cayman Islands 26 40 57 61 65 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chile 10,984 13,252 15,251 16,958 18,247 83.3 85.9 89.0 91.0 92.3 Colombia 22,670 28,666 34,758 40,800 46,357 68.3 72.1 75.1 78.0 81.0 Costa Rica 1,560 2,321 2,989 3,643 4,259 50.7 59.0 64.4 69.4 73.9 Cuba 7,767 8,382 8,429 8,462 8,550 73.4 75.6 75.2 75.6 77.6 Dominica 47 46 45 47 50 67.7 67.2 67.2 69.4 73.1 Dominican Republic 4,072 5,452 7,074 8,560 9,793 55.2 61.7 69.2 74.8 78.8 Ecuador 5,662 7,423 9,222 11,152 12,813 55.1 60.3 66.9 72.5 76.8 El Salvador 2,624 3,503 3,983 4,583 5,287 49.2 58.9 64.3 69.3 73.7 Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 2 2 2 2 3 74.2 67.6 73.6 78.2 81.6 French Guiana 87 124 177 229 288 74.5 75.1 76.4 78.6 81.4 Grenada 32 37 41 48 55 33.4 35.9 39.3 44.5 51.2 Guadeloupe 381 422 460 476 485 98.6 98.4 98.4 98.5 98.6 Guatemala 3,664 5,068 7,111 9,893 13,153 41.1 45.1 49.5 54.7 60.6 Guyana 222 217 218 233 265 29.6 28.7 28.6 31.3 37.2 Haiti 2,026 3,079 5,307 7,546 9,450 28.5 35.6 52.1 64.4 71.6 Honduras 1,983 2,832 3,930 5,263 6,656 40.5 45.5 51.6 57.6 63.4 Jamaica 1,169 1,330 1,420 1,521 1,660 49.4 51.8 52.0 53.7 57.8 Martinique 310 345 362 370 376 86.3 89.7 89.0 89.1 90.0 Mexico 59,566 74,372 86,113 96,558 105,300 71.4 74.7 77.8 80.7 83.3 Urban population and urbanization by country, 1990–2030 Table 5 Statistical Annex 173 Urban population (’000) Level of urbanization (%) Country 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Montserrat 1 1 1 1 1 12.5 11.0 14.3 16.9 21.6 Netherlands Antilles 163 163 187 199 200 85.6 90.2 93.2 94.7 95.5 Nicaragua 2,166 2,792 3,337 4,077 4,860 52.3 54.7 57.3 61.0 65.8 Panama 1,300 1,941 2,624 3,233 3,751 53.9 65.8 74.8 80.3 83.6 Paraguay 2,069 2,960 3,972 5,051 6,102 48.7 55.3 61.5 67.1 71.9 Peru 15,004 18,994 22,688 26,389 29,902 68.9 73.0 76.9 80.3 83.0 Puerto Rico 2,546 3,614 3,949 4,112 4,178 72.2 94.6 98.8 99.5 99.6 Saint Kitts and Nevis 14 15 17 21 26 34.6 32.8 32.4 35.4 41.6 Saint Lucia 41 44 49 58 74 29.3 28.0 28.0 30.6 36.1 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 44 49 54 60 68 41.4 45.2 49.3 54.6 60.7 Suriname 244 303 364 418 466 60.0 64.9 69.4 73.5 77.3 Trinidad and Tobago 104 140 186 250 328 8.5 10.8 13.9 18.1 23.7 Turks and Caicos Islands 9 16 31 35 38 74.3 84.6 93.3 96.5 97.4 United States Virgin Islands 91 101 104 102 96 87.7 92.6 95.3 96.5 97.0 Uruguay 2,767 3,033 3,119 3,264 3,382 89.0 91.3 92.5 93.4 94.3 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 16,638 21,940 27,113 31,755 35,588 84.3 89.9 93.4 95.0 95.8 nORTHERn AmERICA Bermuda 60 63 65 66 66 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Canada 21,214 24,389 27,309 30,426 33,680 76.6 79.5 80.6 82.0 84.0 Greenland 44 46 48 49 49 79.7 81.6 84.2 86.5 88.4 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 6 6 5 6 6 88.9 89.1 90.6 91.8 92.8 United States of America 191,914 227,651 261,375 293,732 321,698 75.3 79.1 82.3 84.9 87.0 OCEAnIA American Samoa 38 51 64 76 87 80.9 88.8 93.0 94.8 95.6 Australia 14,596 16,710 19,169 21,459 23,566 85.4 87.2 89.1 90.6 91.9 Cook Islands 10 11 15 17 19 57.7 65.2 75.3 81.4 84.9 Fiji 301 384 443 501 566 41.6 47.9 51.9 56.4 61.7 French Polynesia 109 124 140 160 186 55.9 52.4 51.4 52.7 56.6 Guam 122 144 168 188 208 90.8 93.1 93.2 93.5 94.2 Kiribati 25 36 44 54 67 35.0 43.0 43.9 46.5 51.7 Marshall Islands 31 36 45 56 65 65.1 68.4 71.8 75.3 78.8 Micronesia (Fed. States of) 25 24 25 29 38 25.8 22.3 22.7 25.1 30.3 Nauru 9 10 10 11 11 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 New Caledonia 102 127 146 169 200 59.5 59.2 57.4 58.5 62.7 New Zealand 2,869 3,314 3,710 4,058 4,382 84.7 85.7 86.2 86.9 88.1 Niue 1 1 1 1 1 30.9 33.1 37.5 43.0 49.4 Northern Mariana Islands 39 62 81 96 111 89.7 90.2 91.3 92.4 93.3 Palau 10 13 17 20 23 69.6 70.0 83.4 89.6 92.0 Papua New Guinea 619 711 863 1,194 1,828 15.0 13.2 12.5 14.1 18.2 Pitcairn — — — — — — — — — — Samoa 34 39 36 38 46 21.2 22.0 20.2 20.5 24.0 Solomon Islands 43 65 99 152 230 13.7 15.7 18.6 23.0 29.2 Tokelau — — — — — — — — — — Tonga 21 23 24 28 35 22.7 23.0 23.4 25.6 30.4 Tuvalu 4 4 5 6 7 40.7 46.0 50.4 55.6 61.5 Vanuatu 28 41 63 95 140 18.7 21.7 25.6 31.0 38.0 Wallis and Futuna Islands — — — — — — — — — — Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2010) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision, United Nations, New York. Urban population and urbanization by country, 1990–2030 Table 5 174 A ActiveUKChina (2012) Business and economic distributions and clusters, http://www.activeukchina.com/business- environment/business-and-economic- distributions-and-clusters/ Adebowale, B. A. (2011) Industrial Clusters and Prosperity of Cities, background paper for this Report. Admassie, Y. (2011) City Report on Addis Ababa, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Africa Economic Outlook (2012) Macroeconomic Prospects, http://www. africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/outlook/ forecast/ African Economic Outlook (2011) Mauritius, http://www. africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/countries/ southern-africa/mauritius/ African Economic Outlook (2012) Progress in Infrastructure Developments, http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/ en/outlook/trade_policies/progress-in- infrastructure-developments/ Aker, J. C. and I. M. Mbiti (2010) ‘Mobile telephones and economic development in Africa’, Journal of EconUN-Habitatomic Perspectives, Vol. 24(3), pp. 207-232. Al-Bassam, D. and J. Mouris (2011) City Report on Dubai, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Al- Kubaisy, F. (2011) City Report on Al-Muharrak, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Al-Rawashdeh, A. (2011) ‘New Bus System Aims to Reduce Amman’s traffic congestion’, Al-Shorfa.com, January 26, http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/ features/main/2011/01/26/feature-02 Andrulis, D.P., H.M. Reid, L. M. Duchon (2004), Quality of Life in the Nation’s 100 Largest Cities and Their Suburbs: New and Continuing Challenges for Improving Health and Well-Being, The Social and Health Landscape of Urban and Suburban America Report Series, USA. Annez, P.C. and R. Buckley (2008) ‘Urbanization and growth: Setting the context’, in Spence M., P.C. Annez., and R. Buckley (eds.) Urbanization and Growth, Commission on Growth and Development, World Bank, Washington DC. Arimah, B. C. (2005) ‘What Drives Infrastructure Spending in Cities of Developing Countries?’, Urban Studies, Vol 42 (8), pp. 1345–1368. Article 13 (2005) ‘EcoCity: Johannesburg, South Africa’, CSR Best Practice, http:// www.article13.com/A13_ContentList.asp? Assaad, R. and F. Roudi-Fahimi (2007) Youth in the Middle East and North Africa: Demographic opportunity or challenge? Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC. Astroman (2011) City Government and IBM Close Partnership to Make Rio de Janeiro a Smarter City, January 3, http://www.astroman.com.pl/index. php?mod=magazine&a=read&id=871 Avelino, G., Brown, D. and Hunter, W. (2005) “The Effects of Capital Mobility, Trade Openness and Democracy on Social Spending In Latin America, 1980-1999,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49 (3), pp. 625-641. Awuor-Hayanga, R. (2011) City Report on Johannesburg. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Ayad, H. M. (2011) City Report on Alexandria. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. B Banco De España (2012) ‘Indicadores del mercado de la vivienda’, Síntesis de Indicadores, http://www.bde.es/webbde/ es/estadis/infoest/si_1_6 Barboza, D. (2010) ‘Chinese City Has Many Buildings, but Few People’, New York Times, October 19, http://www. nytimes.com/2010/10/20/business/ global/20ghost.html?adxnnl=1&page wanted=all&adxnnlx=1322738684- BC+hgnWy4oSrvl8Fhggx3A Bateman, M. (2012) ‘Medellín Emerges as a Latin American Trailblazer for Local Economic Growth’, The Guardian, April 3, http://www.guardian.co.uk/global- development/poverty-matters/2012/ apr/03/medellin-trailblazer-local- economic-growth BBVA (2011) Situación inmobiliaria México. Análisis económico. Julio 2011. Servicio de estudios económicos del BBVA, BBVA Research,http://www. bbvaresearch.com/KETD/fbin/mult/1107_ SituacionInmobiliariaMexico_20_tcm346- 262669 ?ts=29112011 Beijing Traffic Management Bureau (2010), Statistical Analysis on China’s Vehicles and Drivers in the First Half of 2009, http://www.bjjtgl.gov.cn/publish/ portal1/tab165/info12857.htm Belliapa, S.G. (2011) City Report on Bangalore. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Beltran, I. and E. Velasquez (2012) ‘Cohesion Social, Confianza y Seguridad en America Latina: Un estudio exploratorio’, in Violencia y Cohesion Social en America Latina, Diaz, F. and P. Meller (ed.). CIEPLAN, Santiago de Chile. Berman, H. J. (1983) Law and Revolution: The formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bloom, D. E. and T. Khanna (2007) ‘The Urban Revolution’, Finance & Development, Vol. 44 (3). Bloom, D. E., D. Canning, and G. Fink (2008) ‘Urbanization and the Wealth of Nations’, Science, Vol. 319, pp. 772–775. Bourdieu, P. (ed.) (1993) La Misère du monde, Seuil, Paris. Bourdieu, P. (2012) Sur l’Etat – Cours au Collège de France 1989–1992, Raisons d’Agir/Seuil, Paris. Briney, A. (2009) New Urbanism is Taking Planning to a New Level, http://geography.about.com/od/ urbaneconomicgeography/a/ newurbanism.htm British Broadcasting Corporation (2010) ‘Audit shows 33,000 “ghost” houses in the Republic’, BBC NEWS, October 21, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- europe-11596357 British Broadcasting Corporation (2011) ‘South Africa Gautrain opens Johannesburg-Pretoria route’, BBC News, August 2, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ world-africa-14371113 Britto, T (2008) ‘Brazil’s Bolsa Família: Understanding its Origins and Challenges’, Poverty in Focus, Number 15, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Brasilia, pp. 6–7. Buckley, R. and A. Kallergis (2011) The Wealth of Cities and Equitable Growth, background paper for this Report. Buhigas, M. (2012), Efficient Urban Planning and Management, background paper for this Report. Buyle-Bodin, Z., and C. Hermant-De Callataÿ (2011) Urban Prosperity and Quality of Life in European cities – Beyond GDP, Background paper prepared for this Report. C Calafati, A. (2011) The Economic Prosperity of European Cities, Brussels, background paper produced for this Report. Calderón, C. (2008) ‘Infrastructure and growth in Africa’, Policy Research Working Paper 4914, World Bank, Washington, DC. Calderón, C. and L. Servén (2003) ‘The Output Cost of Latin America’s Infrastructure Gap.’ in W. Easterly and L. Servén, Eds., The Limits of Stabilization: Infrastructure, Public Deficits and Growth in Latin America. pp. 95–118. Stanford University Press: Palo Alto and the World Bank: Washington D.C. Canassa, H. (2008) ‘São Paulo Traffic Jams Mean Lost Business, Stress, Helicopters’, Bloomberg, July 14, http:// www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=ne wsarchive&sid=aAwzOeXmIxgk Castellanos, G. (2011) City Report on Santo Domingo, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Castells, M. (1996) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture – Volume 1 – The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, Oxford. Centre for Livable Cities (2011) City Report on Singapore, Unpublished UN- Habitat background study for this Report. Chan, E.H.W and E. H.K. Yung (2004) ‘Is The Development Control Legal Framework Conducive to a Sustainable Dense Urban Development In Hong Kong?’, Habitat International: 28. pp. 409–426. Choguill, C. (1996) ‘Ten steps to sustainable infrastructure’, Habitat International, Vol. 20(3), pp. 389–4044. Cities Alliance (2003) 2003 Annual Report, Cities Alliance, Washington DC, http://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/ citiesalliance.org/files/Anual_Reports/03- annual-report Cities Alliance (2006) Guide to City Development Strategies: Improving Urban Performance, Cities Alliance, Washington, D.C., http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/ sites/citiesalliance.org/files/CA_Docs/ resources/cds/cds-guidelines/role_of_ cities Cities Alliance, ICLEI and UNEP (2007) Liveable Cities: The Benefits of Urban Environmental Planning. A Cities Alliance Study on Good Practices and Useful Tools, Cities Alliance, Washington DC. Bibliography Bibliography 175 City of Cape Town (2011) Community Satisfaction Survey 2010/11, http:// www.capetown.gov.za/en/Pages/ CommunitySatisfactionSurvey201011. aspx City of Dublin (2009) Economic Development Action Plan for the Dublin Region, http://www.dublincity. ie/YourCouncil/CouncilPublications/ Documents/Dublin_Region_Economic_ Action_Plan_-_Lo_Res City of Toronto (n.d) How Toronto Ranks, http://www.toronto.ca/progress/world_ rankings.htm Clos, J. (2012) Urbanization Challenges of the 21st Century, Unpublished document, UN-Habitat, Nairobi. Cohen, M. (2012) Reinventing the Future: Designing Urban 3.0, Unpublished proposal for UN-Habitat Habitat 3 Summit. Commins, S. (2011) ‘Urban fragility and security in Africa’ In Africa Security Brief, Nr 12. Africa Center for Strategic Studies, Washington D.C. Cooper, M. (2010) ‘Cities face tough choices as US slashes block grants program’, New York Times, http://www. nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/cities- struggle-as-us-slashes-block-grants- program.html Cooper, P. J. (2003) ‘Why Dubai? Anatomy of a Business Success Story’, AMEInfo. com, September 10, http://www.ameinfo. com/28046.html Costas, S. (2011) Urban Tourism and Urban Change: Cities in a Global Economy, New York, Routledge. Coyula, M. (2011) City Report on Havana, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Creedy, A., C. Zuidema, G. Porter, G. de Roo (2007) Towards Cities and Towns. Guidance for Sustainable Urban Management, EUROCITIES. D Davis, D. (2007) ‘Urban Violence, Quality of Life, and the Future of Latin American Cities,’ in Garland, A.M., M. Massoumi and B. A. Ruble (eds.) Global Urban Poverty: Setting the Agenda. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Comparative Urban Studies Project, Washington D.C, pp. 57-87. de la Torre, A., P. Fajnzylbe, and J. Nash (2009) Low Carbon, High Growth: Latin American Responses to Climate Change: An Overview, World Bank, Washington, DC. Dickinson, E. (2011) ‘GDP: A Brief History’, Foreign Policy, January/February 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ articles/2011/01/02/gdp_a_brief_history. Dong, B, and B. Torgler (2010) The Consequences of Corruption: Evidence from China, Center for Economics, Management and the Arts Working Paper No. 2010-06, http://www.crema- research.ch/papers/2010-06 Duranton, G. and D. Puga (2004) ‘Micro- foundations of urban agglomeration economies’, in Henderson, V. and Thisse, J. (eds) Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics, vol. 4, North Holland, Amsterdam. Dzung, D. D. (2011) City Report on Ho Chi Minh City, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. E Earth Right Institute (2011), Land Rights and Land Value Capture, http:// www.earthrights.net/docs/long_ form_brochure_lrlvc.html;UN-Habitat (2008), Municipal financing and urban development, UN-Habitat, Nairobi. Easterlin, R. A. (1973) ‘Does Money Buy Happiness?’ The Public Interest 30 (Winter): 3-10. Easterlin, R. A. (1974) ‘Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence’, In David, P. A. and M. W. Reder (eds.) Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramowitz, Academic Press, New York, pp. 89-125. Escribano, A., J.L. Guasch, and J. Pena (2008) Impact of Infrastructure Constraints on Firm Productivity in Africa, Africa Infrastructure Diagnostic Study Working Paper 9, World Bank, Washington, DC. ESCWA (2009) Transport for Sustainable Development in the Arab Region: Measures, Progress Achieved, Challenges and Policy Framework, United Nations, New York, http://www.uncclearn.org/sites/ www.uncclearn.org/files/unescwa14 European Commission (1998) Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Framework for Action, Communication from the Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/ pdf/framework_en European Commission (2009) Promoting Sustainable Urban Development in Europe: Achievements and Opportunities. European Commission, Brussels. European Environment Agency (2009) Ensuring quality of life in Europe’s cities and towns: Tackling the environmental challenges driven by European and global change, EEA Report 5/2009,Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Eurostat (2008) ‘Ageing Characterizes the Demographic Perspectives of the European societies’, Eurostat - Statistics in focus, 72/2008, Author: Konstantinos Giannakouris. European Commission, Brussels. F Fawaz, M. and N. Baghdadi (2011) City Report on Beirut, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Fay, M. and M. Morrison (2005) Infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Developments and Key Challenges, World Bank, Washington, DC. Fernandes, E. (2007a) ‘Implementing the Urban Reform Agenda in Brazil’, Environment & Urbanization, Vol 19(1), pp. 177–189. Fernandes, E. (2007b) ‘Constructing the `Right to the City’ in Brazil’, Social & Legal Studies, Vol. 16(2), pp. 201–219. Fernandes, E. and M.M.M. Copello (2009) ‘Law and Land Policy in Latin America: Shifting Paradigms and Possibilities for Action’, Land Lines, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. Fernandez, C. (2011) City Report on Cape Verde, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Fernandez, F.L. (2011) City Report on Cebu, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2010) ‘Household access to mobile telephony in Latin America’, in Sevensson, J. and G. Wicander (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on M4D, Mobile Communication Technology for Development, 10-11 November, Kampala, Uganda. Finaccess (2009) Finaccess 2009 Survey Results, http://www.fsdkenya.org/ finaccess/documents/09-06-10%20 FinAccess%20FA09%20Report%20 Contents Flores, A. R. (2011) City Report on Ciudad Del Este. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Flyvbjerg, B. (1996) ‘The Dark Side of Planning: Rationality and Realrationalität,’ in Seymour, M., Mazza, L., and R. Burchell (eds.) Explorations in Planning Theory, Center for Urban Policy Research Press, New Brunswick, NJ. pp. 383–394. Foster, V., and C. Briceno-Garmendia (2010) Africa’s Infrastructure: A Time for Transformation, World Bank, Washington DC. g Gabara, N. (2008) ‘South Africa Increases R&D spend’, SouthAfrica.info, September 18, http://www.southafrica. info/about/science/rnd-180908. htm#ixzz1wdPBQMvx. Galiani, S., P. Gertler and E. Schargrodsky (2005) “Water for life: The Impact of the Privatization of Water Services on Child Mortality”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 113 (1), pp. 83–120. Galimberti, L. D. (2011) City Report on Lima, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for People, Island Press, Washington DC. General Electric Power and Water (2010) Africa’s Largest Seawater Desalination Plant Eases Water Scarcity for City of Algiers, Algeria, http://www.gewater.com/ pdf/Case%20Studies_Cust/Americas/ English/CS1338EN Gewirth, A. (1996) The Community of Rights, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. GHK (2010) Estimating green jobs in Bangladesh: A GHK report for the ILO, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/ documents/publication/wcms_159433. pdf Gidwani, V. and A. Baviskar (2011) ‘Urban Commons,’ Economic and Political Weekly, 46 (50), pp. 42–43. Glaeser, E. and C. Berry (2005) The Divergence of Human Capital Levels across Cities. Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Discussion Paper Number 2091, http://post.economics. harvard.edu/hier/2005papers/2005list. html Global Environmental Facility (2012) What is GEF, http://www.thegef.org/gef/ whatisgef Gomes, L . (2012) ‘Brazil’s Labyrinth of Bureaucracy’, BBC News, May 16, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ business-18020623 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 176 Gonzales, V. M. (2011) City Report on Valparaiso. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Goodman, J., M. Laube, and J. Schwenk (2006) “Curitiba’s bus System is model for rapid transit”, Race, Poverty and Environment, Winter 2005/2006, pp. 75–76. Government of Karnataka (2008) Advantage Karnataka: The Gateway of Innovative Ideas, http://www. indianhcabuja.com/docs/events/Jun-07- 08-2012/Advantage_Karnataka Government of Karnataka (2011) Economic Survey of Karnataka 2010-11, http://www.planning.kar.nic.in/sites/ planning.kar.nic.in/files/ES_Final_ Printing_English_13-3-11_5.30 Government of Karnataka (n.d) Bangalore Urban: the Silicon Valley of India, http:// advantagekarnataka.com/images/district- profiles/Bangalore-Urban-District-Profile. pdf Government of Singapore (2010) Singapore Budget 2010 - Towards an Advanced Economy: Superior Skills, Quality Jobs, Higher Incomes, http://www. mof.gov.sg/budget_2010/speech_toc/ pd.html. Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation ( n.d) Bengaluru City Profile, http://bbmp. gov.in/ GSM Association (2011a) Africa Mobile Observatory 2011, GSMA, London. GSM Association (2011b) Asia Pacific Mobile Observatory 2011, GSMA, London. GSM Association (2011c) Latin American Mobile Observatory 2011, GSMA, London. Gulf Talent (2007) Dubai overtakes Cairo in traffic congestion, June 2007, http:// www.gulftalent.com/home/Dubai- Overtakes-Cairo-in-Traffic-Congestion- Article-23.html Gulyani, S. and E. M. Bassett (2007) ‘Retrieving the baby from the bathwater: Slum upgrading in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Environment and Planning C, 25, pp. 486–515. H Habib, M. and L. Zurawicki, (2002) ‘Corruption and foreign direct investment’ Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 291–307. Hailu, D. and F. V. Soares (2008) ‘Cash transfers in Africa and Latin America: An overview’, Poverty in Focus, Number 15, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Brasilia, pp. 3–5. Hamermesh, D. S. (1998) Crime and the Timing of Work, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 6613, NBER, Boston. Hampwaye, G. and W. Nchito (2011) City Report on Lusaka, Unpublished UN- Habitat background study for this Report. Harris, C. (2008) “India Leads Developing Nations in Private Sector Investment”, Gridlines, No.3, March 2008, http://www. pppinindia.com/pdf/gridlines Haworth, L.L. (1963) The Good City, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Heller, P., K. N. Harilal and S. Chaudhuri (2007) ‘Building local democracy: Evaluating the impact of decentralization in Kerala, India’, World Development, Vol 35(4), pp. 626–648. Hess, D. and L. Winner (2006) Enhancing Justice and Sustainability at Local Level: Affordable Policies for Urban Governments, http://www.davidjhess.org/ PolicyPaper Hidalgo, D. (2008) ‘Why is TransMilenio still so special?’, The City Fix, August 5, http://thecityfix.com/blog/why-is- transmilenio-still-so-special/ Holcombe, R. G. (2012) ‘Democracy and Prosperity’, in Young, B. C. (ed.) Institutional Economics and National Competitiveness, Routledge, London. HPEC (2011) Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services, National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi. I IIED (2009) ‘What Role for Mayors in Good City Governance?’ in Environment & Urbanization, Vol 21 (1), April 2009 Brief. IIHS (2011) Urban India 2011: Evidence, Brief for the India Urban Conference 2011: Evidence and Experience, Indian Institute for Human Settlements, New Delhi. ILO (2007) Green jobs initiative in Burkina Faso: From waste to wages, http://www. ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/press-and- media-centre/insight/WCMS_084547/ lang--en/index.htm IMF (2011) Regional Economic Outlook. Sub-Saharan Africa October 2011, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC. INFONAVIT (2011a) Síntesis INFONAVIT Nacional, 7 de Julio, http://portal. infonavit.org.mx/pdfs/110707 INFONAVIT (2011b) Síntesis INFONAVIT Nacional, 8 de Agosto. http://portal. infonavit.org.mx/pdfs/110808 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estadistica (2010) Censo 2010: população do Brasil é de 190.732.694 pessoas, http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/ presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza. php?id_noticia=1766 International Labor Organization (2003) Key Indicators of Labour Market, Third Edition, International Labor Office, Genève. International Telecommunication Union (2010) World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database, http://www.itu.int/ ITU-D/ict/statistics/ Inurrieta Beruete, I. (2007) Mercado de vivienda en alquiler en España: más vivienda social y más Mercado profesional, documento de trabajo 113/2007, Laboratorio de alternativas (Fundación Alternativas). ISMU Foundation – Projects and Studies on Multiethnicity (2010), The 16th Italian Report on Migrations 2010, ISTAT, www. istat.it http://demo.istat.it/index_e.html j Jackson T. (2009 Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, Earthscan, London and New York. Jacobs, J. (1969) The Economy of Cities, Jonathan Cape, London. Jacobs, J. (1984) Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Random House, New York. Jaffe, E. (2012) ‘Are Cities Losing it to States’, in The Atlantic Cities, May 30, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/ politics/2012/05/are-us-cities-losing- power-states/2138 James, P.A., K. Deiglmeier and D. T. Miller (2008) ‘Rediscovering Social Innovations’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/ rediscovering_social_innovation/ Jeddah Municipality (2009) Jeddah Strategic Plan: Building our future, preserving our heritage and values, http:// www.jeddah.gov.sa/Strategy/English/JSP/ index.php Jin, L. and Y. Liu (2011) City Report on Shenzhen, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. k Kalabamu, F. T. (2011) City Report on Gaborone. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Karim, S. S.A. (2011) City Report on Basra. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Karvinen, M. (2005) Innovation and creativity strategies in Helsinki Metropolitan Area – reinvention of regional governance, proceedings of the 41st ISoCaRP Congress 2005, Bilbao, Spain. Khattab, O. (2011) City Report on Kuwait City, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Kimmelman, M. (2012), ‘A City Rises, Along With Its Hopes’, New York Times, May 18, http://www.nytimes. com/2012/05/20/arts/design/fighting- crime-with-architecture-in-medellin- colombia.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all. Kitchin, R., J. Gleeson, K. Keaveney, and C. O’Callaghan (2010) A Haunted Landscape: Housing and Ghost Estates in Post-Celtic Tiger Ireland, National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis (NIRSA) Working Paper 59, http://www.nuim. ie/nirsa/research/documents/WP59-A- Haunted-Landscape Kollock, P. (2010) ‘Still Sitting in Beirut Traffic’, NOW Lebanon, May 5 http://www. nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails. aspx?ID=166121 Kothari, M. and S. Chaudhry (2009) Taking the right to the city forward: Obstacles and promise, background paper for this Report. Kratke, S. (2011) The Creative Capital of Cities: Interactive Knowledge Creation and The Urbanization Economies of Innovation, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Kremzner. M. T. (1998) ‘Managing Urban Land in China: The Emerging Legal Framework and its Role in Development’, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 7 (3) pp. 611–655. Kumar, A. (2011) Understanding the Emerging Role Of Motorcycles in African Cities: A Political Economy Perspective, Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program Discussion Paper No. 13, World Bank, Washington, DC. Kumar, A., and F. Barrett (2008) Stuck in Traffic: Urban Transport in Africa, World Bank, Washington, DC. Kurtul, P. F. (2011) City Report on Gaziantep. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. L Lafferty, W.M and K. Eckerberg, (1998) From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21: Working Towards Sustainable Development, Earthscan, London. Bibliography 177 Lagos Metropolitan Transport Authority (n.d) Bus Rapid Transit, http://www. lamata-ng.com/brt.htm Lall, R., R. Anand and A. Rastogi (2010) ‘Developing Physical Infrastructure: A Comparative Perspective on the Experience Of China And India’, in Gerhaeusser K., Iwasaki, Y. and V. B. Tulasidhar, (eds.) Resurging Asian Giants, Asian Development Bank, Manila, pp.57–114. Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City, Earthscan, London. Latin American Herald Tribune (2011) ‘Cuban Capital Faces Worst Water Shortage in 50 Years’, Latin American Herald Tribune, http://laht.com/article.asp ?ArticleId=391553&CategoryId=14510 Lennert, M. (2011) Cities in Networks, Unpublished background study for this Report. Leung, K. L. (2009) ‘Reducing CO2 Emissions Through the Development of a Sustainable Urban Transportation System: The Trinidad Case Study’, paper presented at the 45th ISOCARP Congress 2009. Lima Como Vamos (2010) Lima Según sus Ciudadanos, Observatorio Ciudadano, Informe de Percepción sobre la Calidad de Vida, Lima. Liu, Y. and Y. Wang (2011) City Report on Chongqing, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. López, M. (2011) Water Distribution as an Indicator of Social Inequality: The Case of Medellín, Colombia, http://www. centrodametropole.org.br/static/uploads/ marcela_l López Moreno, E. (2010) Addressing New Forms of Poverty and Exclusion, World and European Sustainable Cities: Insights from EU Research, European Commission, Brussels. López, E. M. (2011), New Urban Planning: Going Back to Basics, Unpublished document, UN-Habitat, Nairobi. Lorentzen, J., T. Mugadza and S. Robinson (2010) Innovation in South African City Regions: Can We Explain It?, Georgia Institute of Technology,http:// smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/ handle/1853/35257/1238509150_ JL ?sequence=1 Luoma, J., M. Sivak and S. Zielinski (2010) The Future of Personal Transportation in Megacities of the World, Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Lupala, A. (2011) City Report on Dar es Salaam. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. M Maddison, A. (2001) The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, Paris, OECD. Maia, J., T. Giordano,N. Kelder, G. Bardien, M. Bodibe, P. Du Plooy, X. Jafta, D. Jarvis, E. Kruger-Cloete, G. Kuhn, R. Lepelle, L. Makaulule. K. Mosoma, S. Neoh, N. Netshitomboni, T. Ngozo, and J. Swanepoel, (2011) Green Jobs: An Estimate Of The Direct Employment Potential Of A Greening South African Economy. IDC/DBSA, Trade and Industrial Policy strategies. Mangin, D. (2004) La Ville franchisée: Formes et structures de la ville contemporaine, Editions de la Villette, Paris. Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of Economics (8th edition), Macmillan, London. Martinot, E. , A. Chaurey , D. Lew, J. R. Moreira, and N. Wamukonya (2002) ‘Renewable Energy Markets in Developing Countries’, Annual Review of Energy and Environment, vol. 27, pp. 309–348. Mazembe, A. (2011) City Report on Beira. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. McGuirk, J. ( 2012) Colombia‘s Architectural Tale of Two Cities, in The Guardian, April 11, http://www.guardian. co.uk/artanddesign/2012/apr/11/ colombia-architecture-bogota-medellin McKinsey Global Institute (2009) Preparing for China’s Urban Billion, McKinsey and Company. Mena, A. (2011) City Report on Doha, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Mendoza, I. R. (2011) City Report on Panama City, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Menski, W. (2006) Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mitlin, D., and S. Satterthwaite (1996) ‘Sustainable Development and Cities’, In Pugh, C. (ed.) Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanisation, Earthscan, London. Mohan, R. (2006) Asia’s Urban Century: Emerging Trends, Key note address delivered at the Conference of Land and Policies and Urban Development, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 5, http://www.bis. org/review/r060705e Morawczynski, O and Pickens, M (2009) Poor People Using Mobile Financial Services: Observations on Customer Usage and Impact from M-PESA. CGAP Brief, http://www.cgap.org/gm/document 1.9.36723/BR_Poor_People_Using_ Mobile_Financial_Services Moser, C. O. N. and J. Holland (1997) ‘Confronting Crisis in Chawama, Lusaka Zambia’, Household Responses to Poverty and Vulnerability, Vol 4, Urban Programme Management Policy Paper 24, World Bank, Washington, DC. Mungai, C. (2012) ‘East Africa Region’s Economy Expands Amid Deepening Levels of Poverty and Malnutrition’ in The East African, April 7 , http://www. theeastafrican.co.ke/ N Ndegwa, S. N. (2002) ‘Decentralization in Africa: A stocktaking survey’, Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 40, World Bank: Washington, DC. Ni, P. (2011) Driving factors of Prosperity: An Empirical Analysis Global Cities, background paper for this Report. o OECD (2001) OECD Manual: Measuring Productivity: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-Level Productivity Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2006) OECD Territorial Reviews Competitive Cities in the Global Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2011) Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, OECD Publishing, Paris. Olokesusi, F. (2011) City Report on Accra. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Omenya, A. (2011) City Report on Nairobi, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. ONU-HÁBITAT (2012) El estado de las ciudades de América Latina y el Caribe 2012, ONU-HÁBITAT ,Rio de Janeiro. ONU-HABITAT and SEDESOL (2011), El Estado de las Ciudades de México, ONU- HABITAT (Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe), Rio de Janeiro. OSEC and Rainbow Unlimited GMBH (2010) Opportunities in Infrastructure. A review of South and Southern Africa, http://www.osec.ch/en/filefield-private/ files/6543/field_blog_public_files/7952 Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK). Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. and P.G. Sampath (2010) Latecomer Development: Innovation and Knowledge for Economic Growth, Routledge, London and New York. Oyeyinka, B. O. (2012) ‘Institutional capacity and policy for latecomer technology development’, International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 5, (1/2), pp. 85–110. p Pacific Institute (2011) The World’s Water Volume 7: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Table 21, http:// www.worldwater.org/data.html Pacione, M. (2003) ‘Urban Environmental Quality and Human Wellbeing; A Social Geographical Perspective’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol.65, pp.19–30. Peacock, L. (2011) ‘Future of jobs: Green Industry to Create Thousands of Roles’, The Telegraph, September 15, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ jobs/8765695/Future-of-jobs-Green- industry-to-create-thousands-of-roles. html Peirce, N., and C. Johnson with F. Peters (2012) America’s Metro Regions Take Center Stage: 8 Reasons Why, Citistates Group- Community Growth Education Foundation, Alexandria, Va. Peirce, N.R., and C.W. Johnson with F. M. Peters (eds) (2008) Century of the City: No Time to Lose, The Rockefeller Foundation, New York. Perez, F. (2011) City Report on Guadajara. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Philip, J. T. (2009) ‘Average Urban Teledensity Crosses 100% Mark’, The Economic Times, December 12, http:// articles.economictimes.indiatimes. com/2009-12-12/news/28416388_1_ cent-mark-mobile-connections- teledensity Pierre, J. (2011) The Politics of Urban Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. PNUD (2010) Abrir espacios a la seguridad ciudadana y al desarrollo humano Informe de Desarrollo Humano para America Central, IDHAC 2009-2010, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/regional/ latinamericathecaribbean/Central_ America_RHDR_2009-10_ES State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 178 Porter, M. (1998) ‘Clusters and the new economics of competitiveness’, Harvard Business Review, December. Portney, K. E. and J.M. Berry (2011) Civil Society and Sustainable Cities, Paper prepared for the Princeton Conference on Environmental Politics: Research Frontiers in Comparative and International Environmental Politics, Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance, Princeton University, December 2–3, 2011. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009) ‘Global city GDP rankings 2008-2025’ PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Economic Outlook, November 2009, London. http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/ Media-Library/Global-city-GDP-rankings- 2008-2025-61a.aspx PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010) Cities of opportunities, PricewaterhouseCoopers/ The Partnership for New York City Inc., http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of- opportunity/2011/pdfdownload.jhtml Pucher, J., N. Korattyswaropam, N. Mittal, and N. Ittyerah (2005) “Urban Transport Crisis in India”, Transport Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 185–198. Pucher, J., Z. Peng, N. Mittal, Y. Zhu, and N. Korattyswaroopam (2007) ‘Urban Transport Trends and Policies in China and India: Impacts of Rapid Economic Growth’, Transport Reviews, Vol. 27 (4), pp. 379–410. Q Quantisoft (2012) Municipal Opinion Surveys/Municipal Satisfaction Survey, http://www.quantisoft.com/Industries/ Municipal.htm Quartly, J. (2010) ‘Ordos rises from the grassland’, China Daily, September 16, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/2010- 09/16/content_11313108.htm R Railway-technology.com (n.d) Gautrain rapid rail link, South Africa, http:// www.railway-technology.com/projects/ gautrain/ Raouf, M. A. (2009) ‘Towards Sustainable Transportation’, Gulf News, September 18, http://gulfnews.com/opinions/ columnists/towards-sustainable- transportation-1.539872 Reali, M. and S. Alli (2010) The City of Diadema and the City Statute, http://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/ citiesalliance.org/files/CA_Images/ CityStatuteofBrazil_English_Ch3 Redclift, M. (1996) Wasted: Counting the Costs of Global Consumption, Earthscan, London. Regional Plan Association and America 2050 (2012) Landscapes: Improving Conservation Practice in the Northeast Megaregion, http://www.rpa.org/ northeastlandscapes/ Roberts, B.H.(2011) City Clusters and Prosperity, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Roudi-Fahimi, F., L. Creel and R. M. De Souza (2002) Finding the Balance: Population and Water Scarcity in the Middle East and North Africa, MENA Policy Brief, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC. Rwanda Development Board (2012) Doing Business 2012 report: Rwanda 3rd Easiest Place to Do Business in Africa and 2nd Five Year Top Global Reformer, http://gov.rw/Doing-Business-2012- report-Rwanda-3rd-easiest-place-to-do- business-in-Africa-and-2nd-five-year- top-global-reformer S Safar Zitoun, M. and A. Tabti-Talamali (2009) La Mobilité Urbaine dans l’Agglomération d’Alger: Evolutions et Perspectives, Plan Bleu, Algiers. Safaricom (2010 ) Annual Report & Group Accounts 2010, http://www.safaricom. com/ Safaricom (2011) Half- Year Results Presentation, 9th November, http://www. safaricom.co.ke/ Sassen, S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Schifferes, S. (2007) ‘Multinationals lead India’s IT Revolution’, BBC News, January 24, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ business/6288247.stm Schrank, D., T. Lomax, and B. Eisele (2011) 2011 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, http://mobility. tamu.edu/ums/report/ Scipes, K. (2006) ‘Venezuela and South Africa: Redistributive Policies vs. Neo- Liberal Economic Policies’, Third World Traveler, http://www.thirdworldtraveler. com/Venezuela_page/Venez_SAfrica_ EconPolicies.html SEDESOL (2007) Guia de Diseno del Espacio Publico Seguro, Incluente y Sustentable. Secretaria de Desarrollo Social, México. Sen, A.(1979) 'Issues in the Measurement of Poverty,' Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(2), pp. 285-307. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sen, A. K.(1999) ‘Democracy as a Universal Value’, Journal of Democracy, vol 10 (3), pp. 3–17. SEPA and NBS (2006) China Green National Accounting Study Report 2004. SET-DEV (2011) Technological Responsibility:Guidelines For A Shared Governance Of The Processes of Socialisation of Scientific Research and Innovation, Within an Interconnected World, http://www.set-dev.eu/images/pdf/ setdev-pg2110728?e6227e3a1ee01ab67 932453dd186b586=fe92758461b42841 8da8873e8a9fc566 Shabou, A., N. Soboh, K. Jalouka, and D. A. Thaib (2011) City Report on Amman. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Shariff, O. (2007) ‘Dubai Traffic Woes Inflict Losses of Dh4.6b a Year’, Gulf News, December 13, http://gulfnews. com/business/shipping/dubai-traffic- woes-inflict-losses-of-dh4-6b-a- year-1.75892 Sharma, S. (2005) ‘Democracy, Good Governance, and Economic Development’, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 29–62. Shehayeb, D. (2008) ‘Safety and Security in Public Space’ in International Report on Crime Prevention and Community Safety: Trends and Perspectives, ICPC, Montreal, pp. 107–112 Shlomo, A, J.Parent, D. L. Civco, and A. M. Blei (2010) The Persistent Decline in Urban Densities: Global and Historical Evidence of ‘Sprawl’ (Working Paper), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge (USA). Shukla, A. (2012) ‘India to create 100 million green jobs’, One World South Asia, February 13, http://southasia.oneworld. net/todaysheadlines/india-to-create-100- million-green-jobs/?searchterm=100%20 million%20green%20jobs Simon, D., M. Fragkias, R.Leichenko , R. Sánchez-Rodríguez, K. Seto and B.Solecki (2011) The Green Economy and the Prosperity of Cities, background paper for this Report Smarzynska, B.K. and S.J. Wei (2000) Corruption and the Composition of Foreign Direct Investment: Firm-Level Evidence, World Bank Discussion Paper no. 2360, World Bank, Washington, DC. Soares, F. V., S. Soares, M .Medeiros, , and R. G. Osório, (2006) Cash transfer programmes in Brazil: Impacts on inequality and poverty, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth working Paper No. 21, International Poverty Centre Brasilia Society for International Development (SID) ( 2012) The State of East Africa Report 2012: Deepening Integration, Intensifying Challenges, http://www.sidint. net/docs/SoEAR2012_final Soja, E. W. (2010), Seeking Spatial Justice, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Spector, J. (2011) ‘New York struggles to bridge $80 billion chasm for infrastructure needs’, lohud.com, September 25, http:// www.lohud.com/article/20110925/ NEWS05/109250332/New-York- struggles-bridge-80-billion-chasm- infrastructure-needs Spence, M., P. C. Annez, and R. Buckley (eds) (2008) Urbanisation and Growth, Commission on Growth and Development, World Bank, Washington DC. Spirou, C. (2011) Urban Tourism and Urban Change: Cities in a Global Economy, New York, Routledge. Stasavage, D. (2005) “Democracy and Education Spending in Africa,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49 (2), pp. 343–358. Statistics Canada (2001) 2001 Census Analysis Series - A profile of the Canadian population: Where we Live, http:// prod.library.utoronto.ca:8090/datalib/ codebooks/c/cc01/doc/article Statistics Canada (2005), The Rural and Small Town Canada, Analysis Bulletin, Vol. 6, no. 3, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ daily-quotidien/050531/dq050531b-eng. htm Stiglitz, J.E., A. Sen, and J. P. Fitoussi (2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, The Commission, Paris. T Takechi, A. (2010) Basrah Water Supply from viewpoint of Its Water Sources, http://www.waterforum.jp/jpn/iraq/doc/ expert_meeting/session/4_2 Talen, E. (2012) City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form, Island Press, Washington DC. Telecommunications and Regulatory Authority (2011) UAE Telecommunications Sector Developments and Indicators, 2007 –2010, http://www.tra.gov.ae Bibliography 179 Teriman, S., T. Yigitcanlar, and S. Mayere (2010) ‘Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Development in South East Asia: Evidence from Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore’ in Yigitcanlar, T. (ed.) Sustainable Urban and Regional Infrastructure Development: Technologies, Applications and Management, IGI Global, Hershey, Pennsylvania. The CLEAR Network (2006) Urban Planning and Smart Growth, http://www. clear.london.ca/Urban_Planning.html The Economist (2004 ) The World In 2005: Quality of Life Index, http://www. economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_ LIFE The Economist (2012) ‘Business in Rwanda: Africa’s Singapore?’ The Economist, February 25, http://www. economist.com/node/21548263 The Economist (2012) ‘Jamaica at 50: On your marks, get set…oh’, The Economist, July 21, http://www.economist.com/ node/21559348 Tierney, J. (2009) ‘The Richer-Is-Greener Curve’ The New York Times, April 20, http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes. com/2009/04/20/the-richer-is-greener- curve/ Toteng, E. (2008) ‘The effects of water management frameworks and the role of domestic consumers on urban water consumption in Botswana’, Water International, Vol. 33(4), pp. 475–487. Turok, I (2006) ‘The Connection between Social Cohesion and City Competitiveness’, in OECD Territorial Reviews Competitive Cities in the Global Economy, OECD publishing, Paris. Turok, I. (2011) Urban Employment and the Prosperity of Cities. Background paper prepared for this Report. U Uddin, A. (2009) Traffic Congestion in Indian Cities: Challenges of a Rising Power, paper presented at the conference: Kyoto of the Cities, Naples, March 26-28, 2009. UNCED (1992) Capacity Building: Agenda 21’s definition (Chapter 37), United Nations, New York. UNDP (2002) Arab Human Development Report: Creating opportunities for Future Generations, UNDP, New York. UNDP (2009) Arab Human Development Report: Challenges to Human Security in the Arab Countries, UNDP , New York. UNDP (2010) The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. New York, UNDP. UNEP (1996) Taking Action: Environmental Guide for You and Your Community, UNEP, Nairobi. UNEP (2008) UNEP Background Paper on Green Jobs, UNEP, Nairobi. UNEP (2009) Global Green New Deal, UNEP Policy Brief, http://www.unep.org/ pdf/A_Global_Green_New_Deal_Policy_ Brief UNEP (2011a) Renewable Energy: Investing in Energy and Resource efficiency, http://www.unep.org/ greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ ger/GER_6_RenewableEnergy UNEP, (2011b) Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication: A synthesis for Policy Makers, http://www.unep/ greeneconomy UNEP, ILO, IOE and ITUC (2008) Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World, UNEP, Nairobi. UN-Habitat (2003) The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2004) State of the World’s Cities 2004/05: Globalization and Urban Culture, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2006) State of the World’s Cities 2006/2007: The Millennium Development Goals and Urban Sustainability, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2007) Enhancing Urban Safety and Security: Global Report on Human Settlements 2007, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2008) State of the World’s Cities Report 2008/09: Harmonious Cities, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2010a) State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2010b) The State of African Cities 2010: Governance Inequality and Urban Land Markets, UN-Habitat, Nairobi. UN-Habitat (2010c) ‘Scaling New Heights: New Ideas in Urban Planning’, Urban World, Vol. 1, Issue, 4, October. Nairobi. UN-Habitat (2011a) Cities and Climate Change: Policy Directions, Abridged edition, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2011b) Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements 2011, Earthscan, London. UN-Habitat (2011c) ‘Cairo: A City in Transition’, Cities and Citizens Series- Bridging the Urban Divide, The American University in Cairo / UN-Habitat, Nairobi. UN-Habitat (2012) Decentralization in Iraq: Challenges and Solutions for Federal and Local Governments, UN-Habitat, Nairobi. UN-Habitat (2012) The State of Arab Cities 2012: Challenges of Urban Transition, UN-Habitat, Nairobi. UN-Habitat and UNESCAP (2009) Urban Safety and Poverty in Asia and the Pacific: Key findings from sub-regional studies on South Asia, South-East Asia and the Pacific, UNON, Nairobi. UN-Habitat and ESCAP (2010) The State of Asian Cities 2010/11, Fukuoka, Japan. UNICEF (2010) Understanding Urban Inequalities in Bangladesh: A Prerequisite for Achieving Vision 2021, UNICEF Bangladesh, Dhaka. UNIDO (2008) Public Goods for Economic Development, UNIDO, Vienna, United Nations (1992) Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York. United Nations (1999) The World at Six Billion, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York. United Nations (2010a) World Economic and Social Survey 2010: Retooling Global Development, United Nation (DESA),New York. United Nations (2010b) World Population Policies 2009, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York. United Nations General Assembly (2011) Accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals: options for sustained and inclusive growth and issues for advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015, Annual report of the Secretary-General (A/66/126), July 2011. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2012). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision, CD-ROM Edition. UNODC (2004) The Global Programme against Corruption: UN Anti-Corruption Toolkit, 3rd edition, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna. UNODC (2005) Crime and Development in Africa, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/ African_report Urán, H. B. (2011) City Report on Medellín, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Urban Age (2009) Cities and Social Equity: Inequality, Territory and Urban Form, Summary report, http://downloads0. cloud.lsecities.net/downloads/2009/09/ SouthAmericaReport/CSE_Summary_ Report U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts, http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html U.S. Department of Commerce (2011) ‘Residential Vacancies and Homeownership in the Third Quarter 2011’, U.S. Census Bureau News, http:// www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ hvs/qtr311/files/q311press v Vassalli, C. P. and M. Y. Sánchez (2009) ‘Producción Masiva De Vivienda En Ciudad De México: Dos Políticas En Debate’, Centro-h, Revista de la Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Centros Históricos, No. 3, pp. 15–26. Vaughan, P. (2010) The growth of Mobile Money Transfer Service: The Case of M-PESA, http://aitec.usp.net/ Vejella, S. (2011) City Report on Hyderabad, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Venables, A. J. (2010) ‘Economic geography and African development’, Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 89(3). Veolia Environnement (2010) Villes à Vivre 2010, Observatoire Veolia des Modes de Vie Urbains, Paris. Viana, I. (2011) City Report on Montevideo, Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Vicentini, V. L. (2010) ‘Lessons from urban transport in Latin America and the Caribbean’, Presentation at the 2010 ADB Transport Forum, May 25-27, Manila. Vienna City Administration (n.d) Vienna Charter. Shaping the Future Together, http://www.wien.gv.at/english/living- working/vienna-charter.html W Waldman, S. R. (2012) ‘Zoning Laws and Property Rights’, in The Berkeley Daily Planet, March 27, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet. com/issue/2012-03-27/ article/39504?headline=Zoning-Laws- and-Property-Rights--By-Steve-Randy- Waldman State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 180 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wei, S.J. (2000) ‘How Taxing is Corruption on International Investors’ Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 82, pp. 1–11 World Bank (2002) Cities on the Move: A World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (2005) World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development, Oxford University Press, New York. World Bank (2006) Where is the Wealth of Nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st Century, World Bank, Washington DC. World Bank (2009a) World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (2009b) Getting People and Traffic Moving Again in Lagos, http:// www.worldbank.org/ World Bank (2010) Kenya Economic Update: Kenya at the Tipping Point? with a special focus on the ICT Revolution and Mobile Money, December 2010 Edition No.3,http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ KENYAEXTN/Resources/KEU-Dec_2010_ with_cover_e-version World Bank (2011) World Development Indicators, World Bank: Washington, DC. World Bank (2012) Doing Business 2012: Doing Business in a More Transparent, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (2012) World Bank Data: World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance, Online database last updated July 9 2012, http://data. worldbank.org World Bank and International Finance Corporation (2011) Doing Business 2012: Doing Business in a More Transparent World, World Bank, Washington DC. World Values Survey (2011) Values That Change the World, http://www. worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/ folder_published/article_base_110/files/ WVSbrochure6-2008_11 y Yerro, A. P. (2011) City Report on Fort- De-France. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. Yu, S. (2011) ’Why Roubini May be Wrong on China’s Property Doom’ Financial Times. May 12, http://blogs.ft.com/ beyond-brics/2011/05/12/why-roubini- may-be-wrong-on-china%E2%80%99s- property-doom/#axzz1mXDFChfj z Zaidi, S.S.H. (2011) City Report on Lahore. Unpublished UN-Habitat background study for this Report. 181 Note: Page numbers in italics refer to maps, figures, tables, boxes and illustrations. Those followed by ‘n’ refer to notes. A Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire) 22, 74 Accra (Ghana) City Prosperity Index 22 environmental sustainability 94, 95 Human Development Index 17 water supply 58 Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) City Prosperity Index 22 equity policies 92 water supply 58 Africa business costs 121 City Prosperity Index 20 environmental sustainability 94–5, 95 equity barriers 88 equity policies 91 infrastructure 57–8, 119 quality of life 75 roads 60–2, 61 telecommunications 65, 66, 66 urban configurations 35 urbanization 29–30, 29, 33 water supply 58 agglomeration economies 47–8 Alexandria (Egypt) environmental sustainability 95 equity policies 92 inequality 52 quality of life 77 Algeria, urban growth 32 Algiers (Algeria) 38–9, 94 Almaty (Kazakhstan) 19 Al-Muharrak (Bahrain) 80 Alto (Bolivia) 68 Amman (Jordan) City Prosperity Index 20 public spaces 80 spatial inequality 86 transport 65 water supply 60 Amsterdam (Netherlands) 18 Ankara (Turkey) 19 Antananarivo (Madagascar) 23 Aqaba (Jordan) 98, 108–9 Arab Spring 7, 87 Arab States environmental sustainability 97–8, 97 equity barriers 88 equity policies 91 ICTs 67 quality of life 75 transport 64–5 urban configurations 35 water supply 60 Asia environmental sustainability 96–7, 96 equity barriers 88 equity policies 91 infrastructure 57–8 public spaces 80 quality of life 75 roads 62 telecommunications 66 urban configurations 35 urbanization 30 water supply 59 Athens (Greece) 19 Auckland (New Zealand) 18 B Bamako (Mali) 23 Bangalore (India) environmental sustainability 96 ICTs 66, 125 inequality 52 innovation 51, 124, 125 institutional transformation 143 quality of life 77 regional configuration 34 spatial inequality 86 urbanization 30 water supply 59 Bangkok (Thailand) 20 Bangladesh, recycling 100, 101 banking, cellphones 66 Barcelona (Spain) 18, 142 basic amenities, access 117 Basra (Iraq) 60, 97, 98 Beijing (China) City Prosperity Index 20 infrastructure 36 population growth 30 traffic congestion 8 transport 62 Beira (Mozambique) 94–5 Beirut (Lebanon) environmental sustainability 97, 98 equity policies 92 quality of life 77, 78 bicycles 102 Blue Banana 35 Bogotá (Colombia) 116 public goods 133 social innovation 127 transport 64, 68, 117 Bouazisi, Mohamed 7 brain drain 51, 79–80 Brazil business costs 121 City Statute 139 equal opportunities 114 productivity 44, 45 brownfield development 134, 134 Brussels (Belgium) 18, 43, 54n4 Bucharest (Romania) 19 Budapest (Hungary) 19 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) 101, 105n67 buildings, environmental sustainability 101–2 business conducive environment 115–17 costs 121 Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) 61, 64, 65, 68–9, 117, 131 C Cairo (Egypt) City Prosperity Index 20, 24 Human Development Index 17 performance indicators 38–9 regional configuration 34 Canada, population growth 26 capacity-building, environmental sustainability 104 Cape Town (South Africa) City Prosperity Index 20 customer satisfaction survey 16 performance indicators 38–9 public spaces 128, 131 Casablanca (Morocco) 20, 38–9 Cebu City (Philippines) public spaces 80 quality of life 76–7, 79 social innovation 127 urbanization 30 water supply 59 cellphones 65, 66, 66 China bicycles 102 green GDP index 13, 24n infrastructure 57 productivity 44, 45, 45, 46–7 solar power 94 transport 53, 56, 62 vacant housing 6 Chisinau (Moldova) 21 Chongqing (China) equity policies 92 inequality 52 innovation 124–6, 145n15 public spaces 80 quality of life 77 social innovation 127 training 51 water supply 59 Cities Against Social Exclusion (CASE) programme 89 City Human Development Index (CHDI) 17 City Prosperity Index (CPI) 10, 16–24, 146–7 city-regions 34–5, 36 Ciudad del Este (Paraguay) 59, 98 civil society, participation 115 climate change 5 collective interests 137 Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress 15 Index State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 182 commons 24n23, 132–3, 139–40, 145n45 Conakry (Guinea) 23 Concepción (Chile), prosperity strategies 109 construction industry 101–2 Copenhagen (Denmark) 18, 74, 100, 131 corruption 50, 88, 118–19 creativity, and innovation 123–4, 124 crime 78–80, 87, 122 crises, and urban prosperity 4–9, 5, 8, 9 Cuba, public spaces 81 Curitiba (Brazil) 63, 64, 68–9 D Dakar (Senegal) 17, 22, 74 Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) City Prosperity Index 22, 74 environmental sustainability 94–5 inequality 52 social inclusion 89 water supply 58 Davao (Philippines) 59, 77 Debre Zeit (Ethiopia) 13 decentralization 113–14, 114 democracy crisis 5 local 115 developed countries, urban change 26–8 developing countries, urban change 29–39 development policies, equity 89–92 Dhaka (Bangladesh) City Prosperity Index 22 population growth 30 productivity 51–2 recycling 101 Doha (Qatar) cultural identity 51 environmental sustainability 97–8 prosperity strategies 109 quality of life 77, 78 Douala (Cameroon) 61 doughnut effect 26 Dubai (UAE) environmental sustainability 98 inequality 52 institutional transformation 142–3 prosperity strategies 108 quality of life 77 spatial inequality 86 training 51 transport 64, 65, 142 Dublin (Ireland) 18 E Easterlin paradox 14 Ecological City Index 17, 24n36 economic growth and environmental sustainability 93–9, 95, 96, 97, 99 and inequality reduction 87 and infrastructure 68 education 69, 121 Egypt, vacant housing 6 El Alto (Bolivia) 23, 110 employment, and environmental sustainability 99 energy, renewable 100 entrepreneurship 116 environmental crisis 5 environmental quality, and infrastructure 69 environmental sustainability City Prosperity Index 18 drivers and capacity-building 102–4 and economic growth 93–9, 95, 96, 97, 99 large urban configurations 37 perceptions 100, 103, 104 and urban planning 135 and urban prosperity 11, 93–104 equal opportunities 114 equity and social inclusion barriers to 88 City Prosperity Index 18 large urban configurations 36–7 multiplier effects 84–5 spatial divisions 86 and urban planning 135 and urban prosperity 11, 83–92 Europe income inequalities 83 international networks 29 population growth 26, 28, 28 public spaces 81 quality of life 72 urban configurations 35 F financial crisis (2008) 5, 9 Fort-de-France (Martinique) 59, 77, 98 funding, urban planning 131 g Gaborone (Botswana) 58, 95 Gautrain 61–2, 117 Gaziantep (Turkey) cultural heritage 51 environmental sustainability 96 equity policies 92 innovation 126 water supply 59 Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) 15 Global City Index (GCI) 15 global crises, and urban prosperity 4–9, 5, 8, 9 Global Environment Facility (GEF) 103–4 Global Standard Urbanization Model of the 20th Century (GS20C) 130, 133 governance 117 Green City Index 17, 24n36 green GDP index 13, 24n25 gross domestic product (GDP) as prosperity measure 13–14 and urbanization 43–5 Gross National Happiness (GNH) 13 Guadalajara (Mexico) 55 environmental sustainability 98 infrastructure development 48 public spaces 81 transport 63 water supply 59 Guangzhou (China) 36, 38–9 Guarenas (Venezuela) 59, 77, 98 Guatemala City (Guatemala) 21 H Hà Noi (Viet Nam) 20 happiness paradox 14 Harare (Zimbabwe) 22 Havana (Cuba) environmental sustainability 98 quality of life 77 transport 63 water supply 59, 60 healthcare 69 Helsinki (Finland) 18, 141–2 Ho Chi Minh City (Viet Nam) environmental sustainability 96 equity policies 91–2, 92 inequality 52 quality of life 76, 77 Hong Kong (China) 38–9, 141 housing, vacant 6 human capital, poorly developed 121 Human Development Index (HDI) 15, 17 Hyderabad (India) innovation 124 quality of life 77 water supply 59 I Ibadan (Nigeria) 58, 94 income inequalities 83–4, 84 India infrastructure 57 participation 115 transport 62 urban growth 32 individual interests 137 inequalities income inequalities 83–4, 84 reduction 86–7 see also equity and social inclusion information and communication technologies (ICTs) internet access 81 regional variations 65–7 infrastructure City Prosperity Index 18 inadequate 119 large urban configurations 36 perceived deficiencies 60 and productivity 48 and quality of life 69, 74 regional variations 57–67, 57, 58 and urban planning 135 and urban prosperity 11, 55–69, 67 innovation measuring 124 and productivity 51 and prosperity 123–9 social and institutional 126–7 transformative power 127–9 institutions innovations 126–7, 141–3 weak 117 internet access 81 Index 183 Ireland 6, 28 Istanbul (Turkey) 38–9, 121 Italy, immigration 28 j Jakarta (Indonesia) 20 Jamaica 121, 122 Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) 32 Johannesburg (South Africa) City Prosperity Index 20, 24 environmental sustainability 95 equity policies 92, 92 innovation 126 performance indicators 38–9 k Kampala (Uganda) 22, 60, 74 Kathmandu (Nepal) 14, 22, 112 Kenya, productivity 44, 45 Kigali (Rwanda) 89, 117 Kingston (Jamaica) 69, 78 Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo) 17, 60 Kuwait City (Kuwait) 97, 103 Kyiv (Ukraine) 20 L Lagos (Nigeria) City Prosperity Index 22 environmental sustainability 94 performance indicators 38–9 transport 61, 69, 70n23, 117 water supply 58 Lahore (Pakistan) environmental sustainability 96 equity policies 92 urbanization 30 water supply 59 La Paz (Bolivia) City Prosperity Index 22 prosperity strategies 109 urbanization 31 water supply 59 Latin America and the Caribbean environmental sustainability 98–9, 99 equity barriers 88 equity policies 91 infrastructure 57–8 quality of life 75 telecommunications 67 transport 62–4, 64 urban configurations 35 urbanization 30–2 water supply 59–60 laws and institutions 136–43 leadership 54 Legatum Prosperity Index 15 Lima (Peru) environmental sustainability 98 quality of life 78 urban planning 131 water supply 59 Lisbon (Portugal) 19 Livable City Index 17, 24n36 Local Agenda 21 93 local officials 115 London (United Kingdom) 18, 134 Los Angeles (United States) 38–9 Luanda (Angola) 58, 94 Lujiazui City (China) 56 Lusaka (Zambia) City Prosperity Index 22 crime 122 environmental sustainability 94 spatial inequality 86 water supply 58 M Manila (Philippines) 20, 38–9 Measuring Sustainable Development 15 Medellín (Colombia) environmental sustainability 98 institutional transformation 141 public goods 133 social inclusion 89, 90 water supply 59, 60 mega-cities 30 mega-regions 34–5, 36 Melbourne (Australia) City Prosperity Index 18 performance indicators 38–9 prosperity strategies 108 streets 131 meta-cities 30 Mexico public spaces 81 urban growth 32 vacant housing 6 Mexico City (Mexico) City Prosperity Index 19, 24 education 121 Human Development Index 17 insecurity 79–80 performance indicators 38–9 regional configuration 34, 34 migration, developed countries 28 Milan (Italy) 18 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 87, 117, 119 mobile phones see cellphones mobility, and infrastructure 68–9, 134 Monrovia (Liberia) 17, 23 Montevideo (Uruguay) 59 Montreal (Canada) 121 Morocco, internet access 81 Moscow (Russia) 19 M-PESA 66 Muharrak (Bahrain) 97 Mumbai (India) City Prosperity Index 21 Human Development Index 17 infrastructure 48 performance indicators 38–9 population growth 30 slums 120 Munich (Germany) 121 N Nairobi (Kenya) banking 66 City Prosperity Index 21, 24 environmental sustainability 94 inequality 52, 85 infrastructure 48 insecurity 78 institutional innovation 126, 127 productivity 45 prosperity strategies 109 quality of life 78 water supply 58 National Well-Being Accounts Index 15 New Delhi (India) 17, 21, 30 New Urbanism Movement 130 New York (United States) City Prosperity Index 18 performance indicators 38–9 productivity 45, 46 Niamey (Niger) 17, 23 non-market goods 10 North America, urban configurations 35 o Occupy Wall Street movement 5 Oslo (Norway) 18 Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) 60, 100–1 p Panama City (Panama) 59, 80, 140 Paris (France) 18 participatory planning 115 Pearl River Delta (China) 34, 36 perception surveys 16 Philippines, transport 102 Phnom Penh (Cambodia) 21 planning see urban planning population growth 26–32, 133–4, 152–68, 169–73 Port of Spain (Trinidad and Tobago) 63 poverty reduction 86–7 Prague (Czech Republic) 19 Praia (Cape Verde) 81, 94 productivity barriers to 50 challenges 51–2 city-level factors 47–51 City Prosperity Index 18 external factors 46–7 improving 52–4 large urban configurations 36 and urbanization 43–5 and urban planning 135 and urban prosperity 11, 42–54 prosperity see urban prosperity Prosperity Index 15 protest movements 4, 5, 89 public goods 132–3, 145n47 public interest 143 public realm 139–40 public spaces 80–1, 131, 136, 140 State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 184 Q quality of life as by-product 74–7 City Prosperity Index 18 and infrastructure 69 large urban configurations 37 local responses 77–81 measuring 71 perceptions 72–3, 75 and productivity 51 and urban planning 135 and urban prosperity 11, 71–81 R recycling 22, 100–1, 101 Redefining Prosperity 15 regional configurations 34–5, 36 renewable energy 100 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) financial centre 138 Operations Centre 50 performance indicators 38–9 prosperity strategies 108 Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) 59 roads, regional variations 60–5 Rosario (Argentina) 77, 126, 127 Ruili (China) 27 Rwanda, business environment 117 S Saida (Lebanon) 60, 98 San Francisco (United States) 51 Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) environmental sustainability 98 inequality 52 institutional innovation 126 public spaces 140 urban planning 130 Santos (Brazil) 78 São Paulo (Brazil) City Prosperity Index 19 crime 87 performance indicators 38–9 productivity 45 spatial inequality 86 transport 63 urban planning 139 security, and quality of life 78–80 Seoul (Republic of Korea) City Prosperity Index 19 Human Development Index 17 performance indicators 38–9 social innovation 127 Shanghai (China) City Prosperity Index 19 docks 49 infrastructure 36 population growth 30 transport 62 Shenzhen (China) environmental sustainability 96 innovation 124 productivity 42, 52 prosperity strategies 109 public spaces 80, 144 quality of life 77 social innovation 127 water supply 59 Shiraz (Iran) 97 Silicon Valley 51 Singapore business environment 116 environmental sustainability 96, 96–7 equity policies 92 innovation 124 performance indicators 38–9 public spaces 80 quality of life 51, 77, 78 social innovation 127 urban planning 113 water supply 59 slums 69, 112, 119–21, 120, 148–9, 150–1 social disparities, reducing 69 social diversity 134 social inclusion 88–9 see also equity and social inclusion social innovations 126–7 South Africa innovation 126 transport 61–2, 117 Spain, vacant housing 6 spatial divisions 86 spatial expansion, and infrastructure 69 state, and public interest 143 Stockholm (Sweden) 18, 51, 89 streets, as public spaces 131, 136 subprime loans 6 Sustainable Development Index 15 Sydney (Australia) 38–9 T talent, retention 51 Tanzania, quality of life 77 Tegucigalapa (Honduras) 21 Tehrhan (Iran), Urban Heart Programme 77, 126–7 Tel Aviv (Israel) 38–9 telecommunications, regional variations 65–7 telephones, Africa 65, 66, 66 Tijuana (Mexico) 59 Tirupur (India) 37 Tokyo (Japan) 18, 38–9 Toronto (Canada) City Prosperity Index 18 Human Development Index 17 institutional transformation 142 quality of life 51 transport environmental sustainability 102, 134 regional variations 60–5 and urban prosperity 68–9, 117 Tunisia 7, 112 U Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia) 21 unemployment, youth 7 United States infrastructure 55–6 mega-region 35 population growth 26 productivity 44, 45, 45 urban change developed countries 26–8 developing countries 29–39 urban configurations novel types 34–6 prosperity dimensions 36–7 risks 38–9 urban corridors 34–5, 36 urbanization growth patterns 32–3, 169–73 and infrastructure 56–7, 56 management of 111–13 and productivity 43–5 trends 25 urbanization economies 124, 145n9 urban planning people-centred 132 and prosperity 111–13, 129–36 public goods 132–3, 135 sustainability 133–6, 135 and wheel of prosperity 130–1 urban prosperity concept 10–11 constraints 117–22 and crises 4–9, 5, 8, 9 definition 11 drivers 110–17 and environmental sustainability 11, 93–104 equity and social inclusion 11, 83–92 and infrastructure 11, 55–69 laws and institutions 136–43 measuring 13–14, 15 perceptions 9–10, 16, 52, 111 planning 111–13, 129–36 and productivity 11, 42–54 and quality of life 11, 77–81 wheel of urban prosperity 11–13, 12, 109, 130–1, 136–7 v Valparaiso (Chile) 59, 98 Venezuela, equal opportunities 114 Vienna (Austria) 18, 24, 89 W Warsaw (Poland) 17, 18 ‘Washington Consensus’ 87–8 waste management 100–1 water supply, regional variations 58–60 wheel of urban prosperity 11–13, 12, 109, 130–1, 136–7 y Yaoundé (Cameroon) 21 Yerevan (Armenia) 20 z Zurich (Switzerland) 18 STATE OF THE WORLD’S CITIES 2012/2013 Prosperity of Cities The city is the home of prosperity. It is the place where human beings find satisfaction of basic needs and access to essential public goods. The city is also where ambitions, aspirations and other material and immaterial aspects of life are realized, providing contentment and happiness. It is a locus at which the prospects of prosperity and individual and collective well-being can be increased. However, when prosperity is restricted to some groups, when it is used to pursue specific interests, or when it is a justification for financial gains for the few to the detriment of the majority, the city becomes the arena where the right to shared prosperity is claimed and fought for. As people in the latter part of 2011 gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol, in front of London’s St Paul’s cathedral, or in New York’s Zuccotti Park, they were not only demanding more equality and inclusion; they were also expressing the need for prosperity to be shared across all segments of society. What this new edition of State of the World’s Cities shows is that prosperity for all has been compromised by a narrow focus on economic growth. UN-Habitat suggests a fresh approach to prosperity beyond the solely economic emphasis, including other vital dimensions such as quality of life, adequate infrastructures, equity and environmental sustainability. The Report proposes a new tool – the City Prosperity Index – together with a conceptual matrix, the Wheel of Urban Prosperity, both of which are meant to assist decision makers to design clear policy interventions. The Report advocates the need for cities to enhance the public realm, expand public goods and consolidate rights to the ‘commons’ for all as a way to expand prosperity. This comes in response to the observed trend of enclosing or restricting these goods and commons in enclaves of prosperity, or depleting them through unsustainable use. The Report maps out major policy steps to promote a new type of city – the city of the 21st century – that is a ‘good’, people-centred city. One that is capable of integrating the tangible and more intangible aspects of prosperity, and in the process shedding off the inefficient, unsustainable forms and functionalities of the city of the previous century. By doing this, UN-Habitat plays a pivotal role in ensuring that urban planning, legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks become instruments of prosperity and well-being. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 7621 234 Fax: +254 20 7624 266/7 Front cover pictures: Equity and Social Inclusion © Meunierd/ Shutterstock.com, Quality of Life © 2012 Peter Herbert/ fotoLIBRA.com, Infrastructure © Paul Smith/Panos Pictures, Productivity © Atul Loke/Panos Pictures, Environmental Sustainability © Anne-Britt Svinnset/Shutterstock.com Back cover picture: © Claudio Zaccherini/Shutterstock.com www.routledge.com Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats SWC 2012_Final SWC 2012_cover_REV2_to print SWC 2012_Report 275x216_lr Back page

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ paper about prosperity ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now