Abstract
The relationship between the public and private sectors is not
uniform in the developing world. In many countries of Sub-Saharan
Africa, the private sector is not yet adequately prepared to grapple
the opportunities which liberalisation policies might provide, while
the state is still largely adhering to Leviathanic concepts which
it is unable to execute.
In developing countries, esp. Sub-Saharan Africa, the state is not
disabled because of liberalisation policies, but rather as a consequence
of inadequate concepts and practices of governance. Local communities
regard the state as an unreliable institution if not a threat to
their interests and not as an institution representing their needs
and interests. The state is by far not able to deliver the services
it is expected to and on which it is claiming to have a monopoly
(e.g. land management or service delivery).
In urban development the state is still striving to control land
management activities according to outdated (neo-colonial) planning
standards and norms beyond its capabilities, neglecting civil society
based institutions as well as self-help potentials of the poor.
The distance between state organs and the citizens is growing daily.
In reality, however, the state is already largely marginalised in
most tasks pertaining to urban development and growth control. Grass-root
institutions, interest-bound groups and profit-seeking individuals
have taken over power in a silent coup d'état. State interventions
are, therefore, predominantly erratic, short lived, excluding the
poor, non-participatory, contradictory and counter-productive.
Ongoing research on urban growth control in the rapidly expanding
municipalities of Arusha and Iringa in Tanzania will be used to
support these propositions. The findings are also presenting proofs
for the creation of new institutions filling the gap left by the
marginalised state and for priorities in re-defining the relations
between the different stakeholders.
In order to create a development-oriented institutional environment,
the state has to be brought back into urban growth regulation, while
civil society-based and private actors should be enabled to take
over their specific tasks. The roles and responsibilities should
be assigned in the most productive manner:
" State authorities should concentrate on critical tasks, e.g.
establishing and executing a reliable institutional framework and
safeguarding public interests.
" They should be equipped with adequate resources (e.g. tax
collection) to be able to execute their proper tasks.
" Civil society institutions should be enabled to take over
those tasks which they can perform better (principle of subsidiarity)
thus compensating public authority deficits.
In most Sub-Saharan countries, neo-liberal approaches to urban development
are, therefore, not replacing the state as the main actor. Rather
they could provide the arena for an appropriate division of responsibilities
between public, civil society based and private stakeholders.
|
