London and Shanghai: lass and national wealth differences in urban governance - Essay Example

?London and Shanghai: and National Wealth Differences in Urban Governance [ID Introduction “It takes a village”. This term achievedpopularity after Hillary Clinton's book on the topic, but the idea also applies to an increasingly popular understanding of governance and consensus-building in politics. The increasing importance of non-strictly-governmental institutions that nonetheless craft policy and influence policy-making such as the IMF and World Bank might be contributing to this notion. Consider the forces involved in making a decision even for a small municipality. The decision will need to comply with local, provincial or regional, and national or federal laws; it will likely have political lobbies both for and against it by local groups such as grassroots activism groups, PTAs and churches; it will be impacted by tax moneys based on the property values of the area and by local businesses. Increasingly, then, even making small-scale decisions for a medium-sized urban area requires collaboration between dozens of potential stakeholders. Analyzing London and Shanghai show that, while rich cities obviously have strategies and techniques useful to poorer cities as they develop, expand, grow and acquire wealth, poor cities also have developed methods of urban governance that prove useful to bigger cities. Differences Probably the largest, most obvious difference between the two cities in terms of their urban planning and therefore the difficulties to governance is that, while both cities are historical cities that have been consecutively occupied for millennia, their recent industrial development and the positions of their countries are totally different. Shanghai was always industrial, but China was always viewed as an imperial holding (McGill, 2011; Chomsky, 1996). In the European colonization scheme, the only countries that ended up becoming industrial First World powers were the US and Japan, who extricated themselves from that scheme (Chomsky, 1996). China had always occupied a sort of middle-tier status, exploited to some extent and definitely the victim of the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion, but not the same by any stretch of the imagination as Africa or Latin America, a middle-tier status it carried into the Cold War as a Second World power: Like Russia, not faced with abject poverty like the Third World, but was not quite as industrialized or prosperous as the First World. After the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the Asian tigers, China had an explosive growth rate, maintaining GDP growth rates far above the Americans, and even though their current 8% GDP growth goal is probably slightly unrealistic in the recession, certainly they are still performing better in macro-economic terms than even some First World competitors (McIntyre, 2009). Shanghai bears the scars and signs of that growth. Shanghai has always had industrial areas (McGill, 2011). But certainly, the face of the city is changing rapidly, like most of China, in response to the new wave of growth, economic reform and industrialization. Further, unlike London which is an island city, Shanghai has potential room to expand outwards into the rest of a large country. Meanwhile, London is an established industrial megalopolis (Cody, 2010). London was one of the first industrial cities, and one of the engines of the Industrial Revolution. Many of the premier inventors of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century who were creating the new technologies of the Industrial Revolution would set up shop here. Of course, while there was prosperity in this period, there was also misery: One out of every eight Londoners drank themselves to death, and sharp divides in inequality structured the city into slums and rich neighborhoods (Cody, 2010). While the processes of deindustrialization, outsourcing, and the other changes of the last forty years under new economic conditions have certainly changed the city to some extent, London is still a prosperous, First World city. Poverty does remain an issue: Four in ten children live in poverty, and there are sharp ranges of deep inequality and deprivation (London Child Poverty Commission, 2010; End Child Poverty, 2008; Citizens Advice, 2003; London Coalition against Poverty, 2010). But there are also social services, public transportation, and other factors that make the face of poverty less like the truly poor and squalid in the Third World, China and even America. Virtually no one in London works in sweatshops for fifteen cents an hour or lives on a dollar a day. Thus, London's experiences are with plenty: A powerful national government, formerly the empire of the world but still terribly important and influential on global politics, established industrial resources and the social services enabled by those resources, etc. Meanwhile, China, and Shanghai, is catching up to London. The two cities could not be more different, yet in some ways, London as a city with large ranges of poverty makes it much like Shanghai, and urban planning difficulties and techniques can be learned from both. Cogent Points of Similarity On the poverty front, in London there are numerous advocates, activists, grassroots groups and interest groups pushing against poverty. The London Coalition against Poverty, alongside the makers of A Day's Work, A Day's Pay, is protesting against the recent “Flexible New Deal”, wherein people working thirty hours can claim benefits (2010). While this might seem like a good reform in the current climate, the Coalition claims that five hundred million pounds have been given to companies to employ people and yet these newly employed people do not receive adequate hours or benefits and are not paid the same as a union worker for the same work. “Workfare” programs are likely to be viewed as exploitative by workers, a good lesson for Shanghai. Similarly, Citizens Advice argues that “One of the key causes of poverty has to be lack of information about your rights” (2003). The Bureau fielded 612,000 inquiries in one year alone about rights! The Citizens Advice Bureau's claim that people don't know about services they are entitled to or qualify for is deeply troubling. It means that the state is failing to make services clear and accessible. Bureaucracies frequently make getting poverty alleviation a hassle. NGOs can inform people about the benefits that have been assigned to them so that that money doesn't languish and so that policy-makers don't get erroneous ideas about poverty alleviation programs. Shanghai NGOs can follow this pattern to make sure that workers in Shanghai get access to the benefits they need. The London Child Poverty Commission points out that having an NGO specifically focused on research on and battling of child poverty issues per se is valuable because the toxic effects of cyclical poverty on children is noxious and can threaten the entire opportunity structure (2010). Shanghai might consider a similar advocacy group: Their issues with poverty in general and child poverty in particular are quite real (People's Daily, 2009). Not all of the poverty insights are fungible. In Shanghai, a recycling center that recycles old electronics and computers has only been able to get one in seventy of the used and largely broken and dangerous electronics floating around the black market, offered by scavengers and sold to the West or collectors (People's Daily, 2009). In China, the initiative is finding more difficulty than it might have in London. Yet Shanghai might also have something to teach London about how to manage child poverty. A recent comparative educational study found that Shanghai students perform at the top rates in the world (Guttenplan, 2010). The Shanghai results are not “representative of all of China”, so Shanghai must be doing something particularly well to engender such results. These results “[show] that an image of a world divided neatly into rich and well-educated countries and poor and badly educated countries is now out of date” (Guttenplan, 2010). Shanghai students outperformed Shanghai, an educational “superstar”, in mathematics. Shanghai's success story has been credited to a few factors: A lack of conventional social mobility in China leading education to become the primary means to gain status; the one-child policy; inequality and anxiety over public benefits; a focus on standardized testing that has luckily included critical thinking as an increasing part of its battery; good preschools; investment in and focus on education; and local and national leadership in a “first-class city with first-class education” push (Zhou, 2008; Fong and Altbach, 2010; NoDropOuts, 2010). Londoners should not want to replicate limited slots in well-paying bureaucracies as an incentive for success, nor should they want to replicate economic factors that make it so one child must support several dependents, and cultural factors prevent total modeling. But there are lessons from the Shanghai experience. Focus on and value for education directly pays off: “The Shanghai results show that investment in education, by parents, society, and the students themselves yields results on tests and in the acquisition of knowledge. Family support is a key factor” (Fong and Altbach, 2010). Rigidity and test focus are actually under attack now in China, with liberal education and critical thinking skills being emphasized more and more, so this is not a lesson to take. Rather, Zhou identifies that the urban governance of Shanghai led directly to educational success. Shanghai funded first-class preschools that actually taught children math and reading skills among others and were enrichment centers instead of glorified day cares (Zhou, 2008; Fong and Altbach, 2010). They both decentralized and recentralized: Municipal bureaus were unified and reclassified into one all-encompassing educational bureau rather than the chaos of multiple competing bureaus; heavy cooperation from the national government went into making sure Shanghai was a model city; schools each had the ability to create their own style and goals; and NGO groups were specifically brought in (Zhou, 2008). This is particularly enlightening because it is the opposite of what is happening in Britain in many respects. Both Britain and America have focused on increased standardized testing and drills instead of the other salient elements of the Shanghai solution. London should make sure its bureaus are not working at cross-purposes, invite NGOs to the table rather than trying to exclude them in turf wars, and stop focusing on uniform national styles that prevent individual schools from experimenting. Like many Western countries, Shanghai's labor-intensive industries are being moved towards a mixed-sector manufacturing with more automation, and state ownership is being replaced by a mixed system with NGO and private ownership (Zhang, 2006). Shanghai's similarities to London are thus far more similar than it might seem to the uninformed observer. Shanghai, like London, has substantial local autonomy. Like London, it is relatively rich and prosperous and a center for the region: Shanghai has always been the premier economic and trade engine of China, even during the closed door years of 1949 to 1978. It comprises nearly 12% of the country's trade and about fifteen percent of China's total revenue (Zhang, 2006)! Its growth rate over twenty-five years from 1978 to 2003 was 2,215%! Obviously it is impossible to imagine that London could replicate that degree of new growth, but there are some lessons from the Shanghai experience that might be fungible to London. Shanghai's growth rate was caused by smart economic restructuring. In the early 1990s, Shanghai proposed and got an SEZ, a special economic zone, that let them have special control over taxation and land acquisition in order to encourage investment (Zhang, 2006). National support was funneled into the region, with FDI going into it specifically. In order to deal with economic dislocation and poverty, it might be necessary to direct FDI into the poorer areas and create special economic zones with more substantial local autonomy over resource distribution. Another success of the London experience has been conservative social policies that have managed not to scuttle competing NGOs (Bashevkin, 2003). Both Toronto and London under Conservative governments had eliminated “specific local units” that were connected to women's movement needs. But in Toronto, this led to reduced mobilization under restructuring, while in London “organized feminism” has remained “robust” (Bashevkin, 2003). A healthy civic environment has been a key part of Shanghai's success, and even under an autocratic Communist regime social participation in change and policy is possible. Shanghai should make sure that, when they adopt social or community structure policies, they do not alienate or force out NGO groups of importance. Of course, Shanghai's lesson of NGO involvement is also applicable to London. The Shanghai school and economic system lessons both illustrate that involvement by NGOs need not weaken government, but actually strengthen it. A healthy civil society is commonly recognised as a key part of a functioning political system, particularly in a liberal democracy like London. Yet the Mayor of London, while “strong” in the Greater London Authority due to more diffuse NGO power in that greater area, is actually weak when it comes to actually controlling London because the Mayor's Office has traditionally fought against NGO influence (Sweeting, 2002). The Mayor of London needs to work with NGOs and engage in stakeholder partnership in order to remain relevant in London proper. Most world cities have a balance between economic prosperity caused by embracing globalisation and economic change, and a unique and rich character that lets them retain their individuality and the proceeds of that change caused by resisting globalisation (Tsukamoto and Vogel, 2004)! Globalisation is important, but the unique local character and sociopolitical background are just as important (Tsukamoto and Vogel, 2004). And new localism theory, also discussed and espoused by the authors as part of their multi-theoretical approach, argues that local areas still retain immense vitality as engines of change in a globalised economy. Shanghai and London need to retain their own unique sociopolitical and cultural histories and characters in order to stay relevant in the 21st century. Regrettably, it seems that London has embraced a model that might combine the worst of decentralisation, fragmentation, private sector influence and centralisation, leading to incoherence (Newman and Thornley, 1997). In London, government hasn't so much decentralised but fragmented, with some bodies managing urban policy and planning and other bodies competing for urban expenditures! Boroughs and local leaders focus on their own areas, while private sector influence sets major objectives and controls policy to a great degree with a totally different focus on retaining London's character as a “world city”. In Shangai, there is coherence between the participation of NGOs, local leadership and communities, regional leadership and control, and national participation. In London, the private sector's power crowds out civil society, decentralisation has actually meant a lack of coherence and coordination as well as a lack of funding in order to encourage innovation, and the central government is still able to control the pursestrings and the appointments. Government in London is “contested”, not harmonious. Conclusion A review of these two engines of global economic change indicate that, despite obvious differences, underneath a superficial surface of dissimilarity there is strong concordance between Shanghai and London. Both cities face problems with inequality and poverty, and both have techniques (NGO participation in London and superior educational attainment in Shanghai) that are useful to the other. In the educational system, Shanghai's investment, cohesion in terms of national and local objections, coordination with NGOs and coordination with the national government is a guide to London which has embraced some different and probably pathological objectives and goals; similarly, London and the West's focus on entrepreneurial values and civic-minded individual thinking are deeply useful to the Shanghai experience. The SEZ and distribution of FDI could help London's reform, and the city structure of London both as regards mayoral power and as regards competition among stakeholders could take a page from Shanghai's book. Ultimately, these two cities have a lot to learn from each other. List of Resources Bashevkin, S. (2003). "Facing the Consequences: Women and Urban Governance Reform in Toronto and London" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA Online . 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62207_index.html. Brenner, N. and N. Theodore. (2002) Space of Neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and West Europe. Malden, MA: Blackwell Chomsky, N. (1996) Old Wine in New Bottles. Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory. June. Citizens Advice (2003). Tackling poverty in London. July 11. Available at: http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/campaigns/social_policy/ consultation_responses/cr_modernisinggovernment/tackling-poverty-in-london Cody, D. (2010). “A Brief History of London”. Victorian Web. Available at: http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist4.html Davis D., Kraus R., Naughton B. and Perry E. (1995) Urban Spaces in Contemporary China: the Potential for Autonomy and Community in Post-Mao China. New York: Cambridge University Press Denters, B. and Mossberger, K. (2006) Building Blocks for a Methodology for Comparative Urban Political Research. Urban Affairs Review, 41, 4: 550-571 End Child Poverty (2010). Child Poverty in London: The Facts. Available at: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/london/child-poverty-in-london-the-facts-4/ Fong, V. and Altbach, P. (2010). Let's Not Worry Too Much about Shanghai. Hindu News. Friedmann J. (2005) China’s Urban Transition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 2005. Guttenplan, DD. (2010). Western Nations React to Poor Education Results. New York Times, December 8. Hu An-gong. (2004) Zhingguo xing fazhang guang (China: New Development Strategy, in Chinese) Zhejiang People’s Press Jin T. (2004) Zhongguo quyu jinji fazhang baogao 2003-2004 (Blue Book of China’s Regional Development 2003-2004) Kong, Y. (2001) Jiedu Shanghai (Understanding Shanghai, in Chinese). Shanghai: People’s Publishing Logan J. and Molotch H. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press MacPherson K. (1999) Rights to the City: Urban Land Reform and Municipal Power in China. Paper presented at the 1999 ACSP Annual Conference, Chicago McIntyre D. (2009) “Is China's 8% GDP growth goal too high?” Daily Finance. March 5, 2009. McGill University (2010). History of Shanghai. Available at: http://www.mcgill.ca/mchg/student/lilong/chapter1/ Naughton B. (1995) Urban Space: Introduction. In Davis, et al (eds) Urban Spaces in Contemporary China: the Potential for Autonomy and Community in Post-Mao 24China. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press Newman, P. and Thornley, A. (1997). Fragmentation and Centralisation in the Governance of London: Influencing the Urban Policy and Planning Agenda, Urban Studies, June, vol. 34 no. 7 967-988. NoDropOuts. (2010). “Shanghai surprises and the American character: Looking inward for success”. Available at: http://www.nodropouts.org/blog/shanghai-surprises-and- american- character- looking-inward-success People's Daily (2009). Shanghai recycles computers as donations for users in poverty. September 18. Available at: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6761807.html Scott, A.J. (ed.) (2001) Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 1, 12. Sweeting, D. (2002). Leadership in Urban Governance: The Mayor of London. Local Government Studies, Volume 28, Issue 1 Spring 2002 , page 3. Sweeting, D.; Hambleton, D.; Huxham, C.; Stewart, D. and Vangen, Siv (2004). Leadership and partnership in urban governance: evidence from London, Bristol and Glasgow. In: Boddy, M. and Parkinson, M. eds. City matters: competitiveness, cohesion and urban governance. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 349–366. Tsukamato, T. and Vogel, R.K. (2004). Globalization and Urban Governance: A Comparative Analysis of Decentralization in World Cities. City Futures Conference, University of Illinois. Vogel et al. (2010). Governing Global City Regions in China and the West. Progress in Planning, 73: 1- 75. Wang Z (2004) 2010 World Expo: Innovation and Development- Shanghai Development Report 2003-2004. Shanghai: Shanghai Finance University Press Wu F. (2002) ‘China’s Changing Urban Governance in the Transition Towards a More Market-oriented Economy’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, No.7, pp. 1071-1093 Yeh A. and Wu F. (1996) ‘The New Land Development Process and Urban Development in Chinese Cities’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 330-354 Yeung, Y.M. and Yun-Wing S. (eds) (1996) Shanghai: Transformation and Modernization under China’s Open Policy. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Zhang, T. (2006). “Innovation in Chinese Urban Governance: the Shanghai Experience”. Governing Cities in a Global Era. Ed. Hambelton and Gross. Pgs. 113-124. Zhou, Y. (2008). Success for all: a comprehensive educational reform for improving at-risk students in an urban school in China Read More