________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** GLOBAL FUTURES BULLETIN #79 ---01 Mar, 1999--- ISSN 1328-5157 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia. E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This bulletin is for the use of IGFR members and GFB subscribers only and is not to be re-posted. ________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** * * INDEX . Cities and 'smart growth' . Distributional Equity and the Gini Coefficient . Equity . World Development Fund . Paint a picture . Toronto Dollar - community currency . Calendar * * CITIES AND 'SMART GROWTH' Peter Newman [1] President Clinton's initiative to manage urban growth and traffic congestion announced in the State of the Union address puts the issue of 'smart growth' firmly on the political agenda. 240 local governments voted on urban sprawl issues last November and when traffic congestion is added, the list of concerned cities and regions covers almost the whole of the US. 'Smart growth' is the set of policy options on how reshaping urban growth relates to transportation priorities. The idea that sprawl is linked to transportation priorities is not new to planners. Sprawl very clearly follows freeways and beltways and then delivers a double measure of traffic growth. On the other hand when good transit is built, more compact development is usually associated, especially in the revitalization of older areas. Most major US cities exhibit both sprawling and compact forms of urban development. What seems new is the sense that sprawl is not inevitable and that alternatives are really needed. Perhaps US cities and regions are changing their priorities. Maybe some of the underlying dynamic for sprawl is shifting so that 'smart growth' may be more than a political slogan. An international context provides some perspective. My research focuses on urban development patterns in a global sample of cities from the US (12 cities), Canada (6 cities), Australia (6 cities), Europe (12 cities), and Asia (8 cities). The most recent data suggests that 'smart growth' is now an international phenomenon. Metropolitan areas everywhere are beginning to reverse their historic trend towards more and more sprawl. Densities are increasing or have stopped decreasing after a century of decline in all but two of the cities in our sample. Mostly this is happening because cities are revitalizing older areas more than building on the urban fringe. Stockholm for example increased its density of population and jobs in its central, inner and outer areas. Australian and New Zealand cities have in some cases doubled their central area populations in a decade; their inner areas are now the wealthiest places to live and work. US cities have begun to slow in their sprawl though it has been slower than elsewhere. Metropolitan area densities are going up but mainly through 'edge cities' increasing the density of outer areas. However signs of central and inner area revitalization are now emerging in many large US cities with extensive redevelopment of old warehouse districts in New York, Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco. This has flowed into much inner area renewal as some of the social causes of suburban 'flight' (like crime) are addressed. The global 'smart growth' phenomenon seems to go beyond these social issues however and perhaps presages a much more extensive reurbanization process underway. Why is 'smart growth' happening in the world's cities? First, 'if you build it they will come', appears to hold true with transportation infrastructure: cities building beltways have sprawled, cities emphasizing transit have not. European cities have mostly abandoned large roads as a political option and have used rail transit to focus development and encourage revitalization. The US TEA-21 legislation is inexorably shifting priorities away from freeways to transit as it favors more local planning solutions. Second, one of the underlying dynamics for sprawl, the need for large expanses of land to create jobs in manufacturing, is no longer there [Ed. in cities in developing countries ?]. Jobs are mostly being created in information-related services (especially the high paying jobs). The information age has more focused needs for urban land. Rather than favoring scattered development, the information-based city needs intensive areas where people can meet to share their expertise, to plan and progress their projects. As Professor Peter Hall says: 'The new world (of information) will largely depend, as the old world did, on creativity; and creativity flourishes where people come together face-to-face.' Electronic communication supplements face-to-face contact, it does not replace it. Thus global cities in the information age are favoring places that historically were built for face-to-face meeting: central and inner areas. The new 'edge cities' can also provide this but are typically designed more for car-based consumption than intensive face-to-face commercial activity. 'Smart growth' needs smart centers for people to meet. Third, the limits of car-based urban sprawl in the US and elsewhere are being reached. Cities do still work largely as independent entities and develop based on a half-hour average journey to work. This has been found in all cities worldwide over several hundred years of urban growth. Motor vehicles and freeways have taken sprawl about as far as it can go in most large auto-based cities without double- decking freeways at enormous cost. This option seems to have reached its political limits as well as its global and local environmental limits. Given half a chance, people want to live within a reasonable distance of where they work. As the 'face-to-face' centers of urban life become more important the value of living in or near such places becomes more important and the option of getting there without a car becomes more prized. This is now the agenda of 'smart growth' in cities everywhere. Fourth, there is an economic dimension to car-based sprawl. Our data show that cities that prioritize freeways and sprawl spend a much higher proportion of their wealth on transportation (12 to 16% of gross regional product); cities which prioritize transit and more compact development spend a much lower proportion of their wealth on transportation (4 to 8% of gross regional product). 'Smart growth' is smart economics for cities. Finally, cities justify 'smart growth' for many reasons - reducing greenhouse gases, facilitating the new economy, saving landscapes - but common to all is the desire to rebuild community. Automobile dependent suburbs need more community-oriented centers for local services. Those cities we have studied where 'smart growth' is being implemented have responded to the visions of their civil society for more community. Roberta Brandes Gratz and Norman Mintz have similarly documented dozens of US communities in their book 'Cities Back from the Edge'. 'Smart growth' is a grass roots movement. Urban professionals on the whole are still suspicious of revitalization and transit. Federal programs to enhance local community visions for 'smart growth' are likely to be the most sustainable. * [1] Professor Peter Newman is Director of the Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Australia. http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au * {18. urban development, 20. transport} * * * DISTRIBUTIONAL EQUITY AND THE GINI COEFFICIENT There are two common measures of inequity: 1. Distributional Equity: the ratio of income of the lowest 20% of the population (call A) compared to the highest 20% of the population (call B) ie A/B. The lower the Distributional Equity, the higher the inequity. [Note: it is the opposite for the Gini Coefficient]. 2. Gini Coefficient. The Gini Coefficient measures the deviation from perfect equity. The x-axis measures the cumulative fraction of the population (0-1), and the y-axis measures the cumulative fraction of total income (0-1). A perfectly equitable society would graph as a straight line from x=0, y=0 to x=1, y=1. The greater the inequity, the greater the bend of the curve below the straight line of perfect equity. The Gini Coefficient measures the area between the straight line and the curve (ie the deviation, call C), as a ratio to the whole area bordered by x-axis and the straight line of perfect equity (the whole area is always 0.5, call C+D) ie C/C+D, or C/0.5, or 2C. The higher the Gini Coefficient, the higher the inequity. * {38. equity} * * * EQUITY Equity among nations and within nations is deteriorating. Equity is not merely a charitable addition to an ideological wish list. As the global economy comes face to face with numerous limits to growth (water, fisheries, fertile land, forests, natural habitat, atmosphere as a CO2 sink, oil reserves, etc), the negotiation of limited resources and the question of equity becomes central to sustainable development, that is, to our very survival. The second factor is, as Immanuel Wallerstein has pointed out, that weapons of mass destruction will become increasingly available to smaller states, and impoverished states [1]. The following table compares equity in two scenarios (Business-as- usual and Policy Reform) for 2025 and 2050, which follows on from discussion of the 'Bending the Curve' report (see GBF #78 and GBF #77). Inequity as measured by Distibutional Equity* (lowest 20% / highest 20%) [2] (b/u - business as usual; p/r - policy reform) 1995 2025 2050 b/u p/r b/u p/r Africa 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.14 China +** 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.14 Latin Am 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.12 Middle East 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.12 S + SE Asia 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.15 E. Europe 0.23 0.14 0.18 0.11 0.16 FSU 0.22 0.14 0.17 0.10 0.16 N. America 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.12 Pacific OECD 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.15 W. Europe 0.19 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.15 World # 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.14 * the lower the Distibutional Equity the higher the inequity. ** China + implies China, Mongolia, Nth Korea # (population weighted) National distributional equity in 1995 [3] Denmark 0.14 US 0.08 Brazil 0.04 Note: - Denmark is below the average for Western Europe, (but the highest contributor of ODA to developing countries as % GNP). - inequity is calculated using purchasing power parity (PPP). If it is calculated using market exchange rate the world distributional equity for 1995 would be 0.016 (or factor 61) rather than 0.15 (factor 6.7), which is double what it was in 1965 of 0.033 (factor 30) [4]. - radically worsening inequity under the business-as-usual scenario in all continents except Latin America where current high levels of inequity imply a low baseline. Inequity as measured by the Gini Coefficient* [5] 1995 2025 2050 b/u p/r b/u p/r Africa 0.42 0.46 0.42 0.50 0.39 China + 0.38 0.44 0.38 0.47 0.38 Latin Am 0.50 0.51 0.47 0.52 0.41 Middle East 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.51 0.41 S + SE Asia 0.34 0.41 0.36 0.45 0.37 E. Europe 0.29 0.37 0.33 0.42 0.35 FSU 0.30 0.38 0.34 0.43 0.36 N. America 0.43 0.47 0.43 0.51 0.40 Pacific OECD 0.36 0.43 0.37 0.47 0.37 W. Europe 0.33 0.41 0.36 0.45 0.36 * the higher the Gini Coefficient, the higher the inequity. Rio Declaration (Agenda 21), Principle 5: "All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world." Nitta and Yoda suggest a time-frame for increased equity [6] : Ratio of av per capita income of developing countries to developed countries. 1990 1/26 of the North 2000 1/20 .. .. .. .. 2020 1/10 .. .. .. .. 2050 1/5 .. .. .. .. 2100 1/3 .. .. .. .. Hunhammar criticises the Nitta/Yoda scenario(s) because they maintain 'unequal distribution between rich and poor countries.' - ie an unacceptably slow improvement in the wealth gap [7]. But considering world distributional equity is still falling, the first thing we must do is turn it around. A market-oriented worldview might suggest that time-frames are useless because the main impetus must come from each country, to abolish protectionism, introduce appropriate monetary and fiscal policy, and stabilise the democratic process in order to attract foreign investment. If a country expects to be subsidised by the world community, it will not strive toward excellence. It will be an inefficient contributor to world production. On the otherhand, if OECD countries were obliged to help meet higher global equity goals, they would no doubt look for better ways of helping developing countries to improve their economic lot, (eg through greater investment, and technology and skills transfer (TST) to the least developed countries (LLDCs), rather than simple financial handouts which would, indeed, create further dependence). But investment can also create dependence - dependence on a globalised economy, eg by substituting diverse food production (domestic consumption) for monoculture cash crops (export). Greater aid, interest-free loans, low-interest loans, and TST is required for *appropriate* investment - in line with community- based sustainable development, to enhance a country's economic self- reliance (not dropping below a minimum level of economic diversity). OECD countries have vast amounts of private capital available seeking high rates of return from developing countries. Perhaps public pressure must be applied to TNCs to encourage a percentage of that capital to be made available to LLDCs at interest free rates (or low profit rates), and a percentage to less developed countries (LDCs) at low interest rates. Direct corporate aid, while not intended to displace government overseas development assistance (ODA), would avoid the circuitous route of raising corporate taxes to provide greater government revenue to fund ODA. Corporations would have a creative role in the application of the aid, interest free and low interest loans, and could benefit the resultant community-service kudos. This already happens on a small scale - eg mining companies funding local health clinics etc. It could happen on a much larger scale. But the processes need to be transparently documented, and closely scrutinised by development NGOs to ensure the investment is leading to self- reliance, and not dependence, exploitation, or inappropriate development. At the same time, reform must accelerate from within the recipient countries, and funding can be used as a carrot to some extent to encourage those reforms. Democratic reform is perhaps the most important - ensuring transparency, accountability and grassroots participation etc. Respect of human rights, land reform, efficiency in government bureaucracy, reduced military, freedom of expression, of the media, gender equity, intranational equity, environmental protection etc would be other critieria. The current criteria for funding from IMF and the World Bank mainly focus on deregulation of the economy. In the current environment, economic deregulation has come to be seen as a lever for TNCs and financial institutions to further their influence and control in developing countries through dominance of a globalised economy. (The macro-economic regulation-deregulation debate needs new solutions). One could argue that while increased flows of capital investment or foreign direct investment (FDI) is the carrot for social reform, a time- frame should not be placed on social reform since it remains the responsibility of each country, and the optimum pace of social reform may vary according to the unique socio-cultural and historical context of each country. A problem with FDI as a carrot is that it is difficult to reverse if a country regresses (eg succumbs to a military coup). * [1] Wallerstein, Immanuel 'Utopistics: or Historical Choices of the Twenty-first Century' New York 1998 p60 cited in Global Futures Bulletin #74 15 Dec 1998, 'On weapons of mass destruction'. [2] Raskin P, Gallopin G, et al 'Bending the Curve Toward Global Sustainability - Report to the Global Scenario Group' (1998) page A8 http://www.gsg.org [3] Raskin P op cit p47 [4] UNDP 'Human Development Report 1996' (1996) OUP. [5] Raskin P op cit page A8 [6] Nitta Y, Yoda S Technological Forecasting and Social Change 49, 1995 p180 cited in Global Futures Bulletin #30 'Time-Frame for Equity' 15 Feb (1997) [7] Hunhammar S, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53 1996 p215 cited in Global Futures Bulletin #30 'Time-Frame for Equity' 15 Feb (1997). * {38. equity; 1. development issues, theory and paradigms: 23. global parameters, scenarios, new dimensions } * * * WORLD DEVELOPMENT FUND Levels of Official Development Assistance (ODA) have been falling as a percentage of GNP of donor countries for some years, and is now averaging 0.3% of GNP instead of the 0.7% GNP agreed on in the early 1970s and since reaffirmed by all donor countries. ODA includes grants, interest-free loans and low-interest loans. In order to achieve environmental sustainability, we need to achieve economic development in developing countries in a sustainable way. If not, developing countries are likely to pursue development in an unsustainable way just as the OECD countries have done - eg high levels of habitat destruction and per capita CO2 emissions etc. This requires significant increases in ODA, technology transfer, and appropriate foreign direct investment (FDI - particularly Build- Operate-Transfer projects or BOTS). The problem with the current regime of ODA is that OECD countries are competing with each other in pretending to achieve the most with the least amount of ODA, for example by 'tying' ODA, or directing ODA in a way which will enhance donor commercial interests and opportunities in the recipient country. This distorts ODA away from the best interests of the recipient country. Overpricing of imports that stems from tied aid (procurement conditions linked to aid package) costs approximately US$2b/an [1]. A solution to this general problem might be to create a World Development Fund. All countries would contribute 1% of their GNP to this fund. All countries would be donors, though some would be net donors while others would be net recipients. The fact that all countries contribute means that all countries could participate in deciding how the funds will be allocated. Formulae can be established based on poverty levels, resource levels, etc. Conditions would be attached such as democratic reform, transparency, accountability, grassroots participation, human rights, land reform, efficiency in government bureaucracy, reduced military, freedom of expression, of the media, gender equity, intranational equity, environmental protection etc. Funding for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and multilateral institutions might come out of this World Development Fund. Percentages would be set aside for emergency relief and debt relief. There may be times where special considerations would mean deviating from the standard formulae. Voting might be based on one vote per country, or a more complex system giving more weight to the largest donor countries. * [1] 'The Reality of Aid 1996 - An Independent Review of International Aid' Earthscan page x. * {1. development issues, theory and paradigms} * * * PAINT A PICTURE Dennis Nelson, US Army. What is our vision of the sustainable world? Do we anticipate the focus on sustainability helping us also to refocus on our values and mores, our personal and collective redefining of success, achievement and needs versus desires ? - a greater emphasis on love rather than control or dominance ? With that, do we go higher and deeper on the Earth as our population increases ? Do we plan on inhabiting the oceans and/or the stars ? Sustainability for sustainability's sake in our commercial, economic world, is a hard sell. If we can paint a picture of a better world and make real the greater risks of not changing compared to the risks of changing, we would achieve greater support for sustainable development. * * * TORONTO DOLLAR - COMMUNITY CURRENCY In a project which echoes some of the ideas in Shann Turnbull's article on alternative community-based economies, the Mayor of Toronto recently helped launch the Toronto Dollar. Toronto Dollars are purchased at face value at booths in the St Lawrence Market in Toronto. Shoppers can spend the community currency at participating vendors' stalls, which may then be recycled through the market, until someone decides to redeem the Toronto Dollar for 90 cents (Canadian) at one of the official booths. Proceeds from the discount go to the homeless. The Toronto Dollar note has an expiry date (currently 31 Dec 2000), which means souvenir collectors contribute full value to the charitable cause. But notes can also be exchanged for new Toronto Dollars prior to expiry [1]. Community currencies can help create local employment by reducing (somewhat) money flows out of the community, (although the aim of the Toronto Dollar appears primarily to generate revenue for community services). This means that money flowing in to other communities would be reduced. Applied on a broad scale, does this amount to protectionism, and is this desirable ? Although protectionism is in decline, it may still be argued as a valid policy option in some instances (developing economy, micro- economy, experimental economy, traditional economy etc). It could also be argued that another function of a community currency such as the Toronto Dollar is in reducing money flows (money drains?) from small-scale or micro enterprise to big business or macro enterprise, as the latter might have more difficulty utilising a specialised currency and would rely on conversion with its accompanying social tax (in this case anyway). A community currency encourages local sourcing for products and local solutions, which can be good for community development and integration. * [1] Woods, Ian 'Monetary Reform Magazine', http://www.monetary- reform.on.ca cited in Global Brain Digest No. 070 * {29. new economics; 40. community development} * * * CALENDAR 10-16 May 1999 Hague Peace Conference 'Hague Appeal for Peace', The Hague, Holland. Web: www.haguepeace.org; E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5-18 May 1999 17th Session of the UN Commission on Human Settlements Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/ 7-9 May 1999 Global Diversity Forum , 13th Session San Jose, Costa Rica http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/gbf/gbf13.htm 10-18 May 1999 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (COP 7) San Jose, Costa Rica. 14 Mar 1999 "International Day of Action Against Dams and for Rivers, Water and Life" Second annual event. Last year, more than 50 actions took place in 24 countries, including Brazil, India, Thailand, Australia, Russia, Japan, and the US. At least 10,000 people participated in demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, river clean-ups, and canoe trips. This year, over 100,000 people are expected to join in. http://www.irn.org. * * ________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** The Global Futures Bulletin is produced by the Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) twice monthly. Readers are welcome to submit material such as succinct letters, articles and other useful information. Indicate whether you would like your name attached to the submitted material. All communications should be directed to the Editor, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Copyright (c) 1998 Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). All rights reserved. ________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** ******************************************************** ........................PUBLICATIONS OF THE MONTH.......................... ******************************************************* 'Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence' Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy (Nov 1998) 350 pages, tables, figures, photos. Examines the urban aspect of sustainability issues, arguing that cities are a necessary focus for that global agenda. The authors make the case that the essential character of a city's land use results from how it manages its transportation, and that only by reducing our automobile dependence will we be able to successfully accommodate all elements of the sustainability agenda. Begins with chapters that set forth the notion of sustainability and how it applies to cities and automobile dependence. The authors consider the changing urban economy in the information age, and describe the extent of automobile dependence worldwide. They provide an updated survey of global cities that examines a range of sustainability factors and indicators, and, using a series of case studies, demonstrate how cities around the world are overcoming the problem of automobile dependence. They also examine the connections among transportation and other issues - including water use and cycling, waste management, greening the urban landscape, etc - and explain how all elements of sustainability can be managed simultaneously. Peter Newman is associate professor of city policy and director of the Institute for Science and Technology Policy at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia and visiting professor of city and regional planning at the University of Pennsylvania. Jeffrey Kenworthy is senior lecturer in urban environments at Murdoch University and is currently visiting professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. AUD$70 inc post, US$44 inc post, UKPnd 33 inc post. Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK. ******************************************************** 'The Reality of Aid 1998/1999 - An Independent Review of Poverty Reduction & Development Assistance' (1998) 272 pages 'Indispensable... it gives you most of the hard facts you need to know about the major issues' New Internationalist Now in its sixth annual edition, The Reality of Aid has for the first time analysed the 'fair share' of bilateral aid for basic social services - basic education, basic health, reproductive health, nutrition, clean water and sanitation - that should come from each donor; an analysis which shows only two donors meeting their fair share and the G7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US) falling behind by over US$5 billion. This edition of 'The Reality of Aid' focuses on basic education as a right and not a privilege, and its role in development cooperation and poverty elimination. A key feature of The Reality of Aid 1998/1999 is the ten chapters offering analysis of development cooperation from the perspective of southern NGOs. Many of these focus on basic education and raise issues around transparency, gender and civil society. AUD$48 inc post, US$32 inc post, UKPnd 18 inc post. Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK. ******************************************************* "Future Studies Methodology" CD-ROM American Council for the United Nations University (1999) 500+ pages Comprehensive and internationally peer-reviewed handbook on tools and methods for forecasting and analysis of global change. Provides an executive overview of forecasting tools (many written by their inventors) - complete with each method's history, description, primary and alternative usages, strengths and weaknesses, use in combination with other methods, and speculation about future usage. Includes a special bibliography of approaches to futures research prepared by Michael Marien, editor of 'Future Survey'. AUD$79 inc post, US$49 inc post, UKPnd 33 inc post. Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK. ******************************************************** PUBLICATION REQUEST FORM Please fill out the following and return it to e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or fax: 61 7 4033 6881, or post: IGFR, PO Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870, Australia My name is.......................................................................... ............ My organisation (if any) is............................................................... My e-mail address is........................................................................ My mailing address is...................................................................... ............................................................................ ............................ I wish to purchase the publication entitled: ............................................................................ ............................ My credit card is [place an X in a) or b) or c)] a)............Visa, or b)...........Mastercard, or c)..........American Express Name on creditcard is ..................................................................... Date of expiry is.......................................................................... ..... Creditcard number is .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. Amount I am paying is:................................... ****************************************************** Note: If you are paying by personal cheque from outside Australia, please add US$5 to cover bank processing charges. ****************************************************** The IGFR is a not-for-profit organisation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia. E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Futures Bulletin #79
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:20:53 -0500
