Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

30Understanding Urban Safety and SecurityNational incomeand national developmentof countriesare strongpredictors ofvulnerabilityIt is important toalso understand howmacro-economicpolicies concerningexpenditures oninfrastructure, socialservices, police andemergency servicesplay critical rolesper capita income. Each of these indicators reflects both theresources available in the societies to provide neededservices and the institutional capacity to formulate andimplement effective public policies. They also correlate(negatively) with levels of absolute poverty, as well as (inmany cases) levels of inequality and exclusion.The following question, therefore, arises: whennational per capita income is held constant, how can differencesin performance in reducing vulnerability to urbansafety and security threats between two countries beexplained? This issue is addressed in Chapter 3. This type ofquestion, well answered in the context of the housingsector, suggests the importance of comparative analysis indeveloping theories of performance on these issues. 25 In thecase of housing, local policy variables such as building codes,zoning and the processes to obtain construction permits allhave specific impacts on the performance of the housingsector in individual cities. This is well illustrated by thecomparison between Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, where thefirst city is considerably poorer than the second, but hasnevertheless produced a greater quantity of housing atreasonable quality and cost, all due to the differences in theregulatory framework for housing. 26This suggests that while levels of national income andnational development of countries are strong predictors ofvulnerability, they are necessary, but not sufficient, conditionsto explain local performance in managing challenges tourban safety and security. As the list of ‘conventionalwisdom’ in Chapter 1 (see Box 1.4) suggests, thesechallenges are profoundly linked to their urban contexts –whether in relation to environmental, institutional,economic or social dimensions. The level of penetration of‘national’ factors into urban performance depends upon thesector (e.g. criminal justice or infrastructure management),as well as the country and the historical development of itsinstitutions. Former French colonies in West Africa such asCôte d’Ivoire or Senegal continue to be institutionallycentralized, where the policies and approaches of ministriesof interior will determine the responses of local institutions.The weight of central institutions is likely to be less incountries with more decentralized traditions such as Ghana,Nigeria or Tanzania.■ Influence of national macro-economicfactorsFor the purpose of this Global Report, within the nationallevel, the role of the macro-economy also deserves furtherspecificity with regard to the impacts of certain policiesdirectly affecting urban safety and security. While the previousdiscussion linked urban security to levels of nationalincome and development in a general sense, it is importantto also understand how macro-economic policies concerningexpenditures on infrastructure, social services, police andemergency services play critical roles in this arena. As notedearlier, urban security can also be understood as a ‘publicgood’ generated by explicit public policies, investments andcurrent expenditures.Countries and localities without such expendituresfor these public goods will be more vulnerable to threats tosafety and security addressed by this report. For example,recent research in Africa shows that 29 per cent ofbusinesses surveyed reported that, in the absence of effectivepolicing, crime was a significant business constraint – 50per cent more than the global average. 27 Similar studies havebeen carried out in Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, as wellas in cities in parts of the US and the UK. 28Such public goods, however, are not so easily created.Indeed, in cities experiencing rapid demographic and spatialgrowth, it is frequently difficult to convince governmentauthorities that public goods – whether environmentalquality or green space – are priorities for public expenditures.These can be reinforced when supported by thebroader frameworks of human security and human rights.The ability to provide public goods, however, depends notonly upon juridical frameworks, but is also a direct result ofthe macro-economic patterns of savings and expenditures.The issues of crime and disaster preparedness arevery interesting in this regard. When crime becomes anational issue, or is perceived as a macro-economic problemin terms of its inhibiting impact on tourism and direct financiallosses, as in the Mexico City case described in Chapter1, there is a greater likelihood that the Ministry of Financewill allocate funds to public institutions responsible for fightingcrime. Similarly, when countries in the path of recurrenthurricanes in the Caribbean or monsoon rains in South Asiarealize that these events have major macro-economicimpacts, they will invest in preparedness to reduce theseimpacts, as the effectiveness of Cuban preparedness forhurricanes and subsequent relief measures demonstrate. 29Examples also exist in the field of land tenure, for examplewith respect to stabilization of the location of urban slums.Rather than evict large numbers of people with the attendanteconomic, financial, social and political costs, national andlocal authorities can work with communities, privatelandowners and public authorities to find solutions. Whilethe international community may have a useful role to playin these issues in some circumstances, ultimately the allocationof resources for these purposes is a nationalmacro-economic responsibility.These examples raise the question of what would bereasonable levels of expenditure to address these challenges.How much, for example, can a developing country afford tomaintain urban safety and security? Given the high financialand economic costs of disasters as estimated by the WorldBank (presented in Chapter 1), as well as the costs of evictinglarge urban communities, it would seem thatgovernments should consider allocating considerable investmentsto strengthening preparedness and urban planning.The economic rates of return of such investments should bevery high. One study of costs and benefits of preparednessfor disasters concluded that losses could have been reducedby US$20 billion if only US$40 million had been invested inmitigation and preparedness. 30The issue of who finances such investments, however,also needs to be examined. What is the balance betweeninternational, national and urban responsibility for maintenanceof urban safety and security? In conditions of disastersthere is generally the expectation that national governments