Governing cities is a complex matter. A common man cannot know for sure who makes the final decision in city matters. The problem is not unique to India. It is true for many cities and urban spaces around the world. On these issues, Prayagraj and Paris face similar fundamental challenges in urban governance. In most cases, the central or state government has control over subjects that can decide the future course of development of a city.
With the growing population and evolving challenges, the contours and spectrum of urban governance are changing. The concept of locally elected governments running cities in India was firmly established after the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act in 1992. However, even after thirty years of constitutional validity, experimenting and learning, the management of urban affairs is an unsolved labyrinth for the common man.
Cities in different states have several departments dealing with urban matters. Urban Local Bodies have 18 defined functions under the 12th Schedule for ensuring proper management of urban affairs and the socio-economic welfare of their citizens. Urban local governments in India lack uniformity in the governance system or standardization of urban management. As we all know that urban management is a state subject; every state in India has made its own rules for running local governments. Even the tenure of the mayor and the process of his/her election is not common across states. Some cities in India, like Delhi and Chandigarh, have only one-year term for the mayor while some have 2.5-year and some others 5-year term. Some states have provisions for direct election while some cities elect their mayors indirectly. Every state has different rules.
One link that joins almost every local government in India is the dependence of municipal corporations on state and central government for fund allocation as per the recommendations of the State Finance Commission or via special project grants. Cities which are not dependent on state and central government can be counted on one’s fingers. There is a need for cities to be innovative and find new ways for creating multiple streams of revenue, away from traditional methods. This, of course, requires coordination with the state government and other parastatal agencies. Until cities get what they desire in terms of financial and administrative authority, they need to find ways in the existing system to generate more funds for new projects and programs. It is widely known that revenue generation has not kept pace with the expenditure requirements of local governments. The need of the hour is to expand self-generation resources and not just depend on service fees and property taxes alone.
There are other issues which are nation-specific. Several urbanists came together and published a book called “Cities Transformed: Demographic Change and Its Implications in the Developing World (2003).” The book has dedicated one chapter to urban governance. It talked about the challenges on the financial front too. It says, “In many countries, even mandated central government transfers are not reliable. Most municipalities in developing countries cannot borrow, and they cannot run a deficit. In addition, local revenue is highly dependent on both macroeconomic factors (for example, whether national economies are prospering or in distress) and on the level at which municipalities are permitted to borrow through the market.”
Several studies and research reports have indicated that cities in the developing world have serious capacity-related problems when it comes to servicing their populations. It requires advanced skill-building programs for ULB officials working at the local level and exposure workshops for elected representatives so that they can adopt creative approaches to generate funds and also for implementing projects.
Prudent urban governance
Since the world is increasingly becoming urban, the existing cities are becoming bigger in size and population; new cities are being built for accommodating people. At the same time, cities are facing new and complex challenges every now and then. With extreme stress on services and infrastructure, cities are facing a challenge in providing civic services to one and all. Among all this, one thing remains constant. How our cities are being managed. The institutions which manage them are becoming fragile by the day. There are no lessons learnt on this front.
The state governments have several parastatal bodies which are from the pre-74th CAA era. There is hardly any visible change in their functions and authority over ULBs. These institutions are still running with more authority on local matters than ULBs. One example is that of Development Authorities which directly report to State Governments. One of the most important documents for a city is its Master Plan and which is prepared by the Development Authorities and urban local bodies have a limited role in its preparation.
The Guardian newspaper quoted Gerald Frug, Professor of local government law at Harvard University in an article on the structure of urban governance system in global cities. He said, “cities ought to be able to make policies that improve the lives of their citizens. The more basic question for urban dwellers today is: who decides who decides? Who has the power to allocate decision-making authority?”
His statement holds true for many global cities. Research done by the London School of Economics in 2015, suggested that the problem of urban governance exists in many global cities in the regions of America, India and China. If we take the example of our national capital and the management system here, Delhi had five urban local bodies till a month ago (now it has three). The education, health, and transport are managed by the state government. Delhi Metro is governed by the central ministry. Smart City projects come under New Delhi Municipal Council. Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Police come under Central Government. Municipal Corporations here are majorly looking after waste management, garbage collection and disposal, management of parking places, and parks. It is difficult to distinguish who calls the shots in urban affairs of the national capital. Now, the unified corporation of Delhi needs to present a strong local leadership if the city affairs are to be streamlined. There are many models in India and the world that our cities can emulate based on their strengths.
The reforms in urban governance are long due and they must focus on political empowerment of local governments that promote local democratic accountability. Since local governments are closest to people, citizens can hold them responsible only when they know ULBs can take decisions and lay a road for the future development of their city.
The Guardian newspaper quoted Gerald Frug, professor of local government law at Harvard University in an article on the structure of urban governance system in global cities. He said, “cities ought to be able to make policies that improve the lives of their own citizens. The more basic question for urban dwellers today is: who decides who decides? Who has the power to allocate decision-making authority?”