Megacity Narratives

By Anjum Altaf

Megacities

The discussion of megacities has drifted into a combination of oh-my-god and pie-in-the-sky narratives displacing potentially sensible and useful analyses.

As an example of the first, consider how often one hears that Karachi had a population of 11 million in 1998 and is twice that now – as if that was enough to clinch the argument that we have a mega-problem on our hands.

My response is: So what? I am not particularly bothered if the population rises to 30 million. What matters, and this is the real question we should be asking, is whether Karachi is well managed and whether its management is improving or deteriorating over time.

Suppose the answer is that Karachi is not well managed. If so, does that have anything to do with its size? As a test, I would ask the proponents of the size-is-the-problem argument to go live in Mirpur Mathelo and confirm if the latter is much better managed because of its much smaller size.

Simple observation should convince people that size is irrelevant to the argument – there are examples around the world of well-managed large cities and poorly-managed small ones. In that sense, Karachi having over 20 million people is nothing more than a statistic.

Another oh-my-god narrative pertains to the dominance of mafias in Karachi. Once again, there is no correlation with size. Trudge around a few villages to see how land and water are controlled in small places. The brutal truth is that scarce resources everywhere in Pakistan are controlled by mafias. Some go as far as to say that the entire country is run by mafias of various sorts and if that is the case why would Karachi be an exception?

Now consider the pie-in-the-sky narrative – the mantra that cities are the engines of growth, the bigger the city, the bigger the engine because of bigger labor markets, etc.

Once again, a little questioning would dent this argument. Suppose, we could double the population of Karachi overnight, would the city become much more productive? Most likely not.

The more sensible question is the following: What it is that makes some cities more productive than others? As an example consider Mumbai and Karachi – they have about the same number of residents but the output per person is roughly three times higher in the former.

Why might that be so? Mumbai is not immune to mafias or political groups adept in the use of violence. Nor is it claimed that Mumbai is managed all that much better than Karachi.

The one stark difference is that Mumbai’s labor market is actually much bigger than Karachi’s, a result of the fact that its suburban railway – reputedly the busiest transit system in the world – transports over 7 million commuters per day while Karachi lacks any public transit worth the name.

Raw numbers tell us very little. In this case, the critical analytical question relates to understanding the labor market. Intuitively, if a worker cannot afford to reach a job within a travel-time of one hour, the job is located in a separate labor market. It is quite obvious that Karachi’s labor market is fragmented because of constrained mobility. In actuality, Karachi is made up of five or six labor markets adjacent to each other – it has all the disadvantages of a large population and very few of the advantages of an integrated labor market.

Given the impact of labor market size on economic productivity, it would make sense to consider ways in which to overcome fragmentation. The most obvious connector is increased worker mobility. An example from China should drive home the point: In 1990, the number of people who could reach Shanghai port within an hour was 4 million; by 2007, it was 12 million, a result of conscious and well-planned efforts to increase mobility within dense parts of the city.

Such an increase in mobility does not come about simply by making traffic flow more smoothly for people who own automobiles in cities like Karachi where the majority does not own private vehicles. The imperative is to increase the mobility of workers without motorized transport living in dense and congested parts of the city. For that, investments need to be directed towards rapid public transit, a focus on facilitating bicycling and walking, and better traffic management in general.

In this perspective, investments in under-passes and fly-overs are not necessarily growth-enhancing; they are convenience-enhancing for automobile owners who move further out into less-dense residential areas and commute to work into more-dense employment zones using a means of transport that is grossly inefficient. The private car transports one or two persons per trip, uses the largest road-space per capita, and consumes valuable city-center land for parking.

Much is required to improve city management and economic productivity but a transition to a sensible discussion requires moving beyond simplistic narratives fixated on size.

Anjum Altaf is the provost at Habib University and was formerly dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at LUMS. This op-ed appeared in Dawn on March 1, 2015 and is reproduced here with the author’s permission.

Back to Main Page

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Megacity Narratives”

  1. sapovadia Says:

    Provost Anjum have nicely articulated the importance of urban management issues. City become growth drives if it is managed appropriately to harvest strength of economies of scale that it inherently carry. The citizens can contribute the economy if the environment is conducive. Fast, cheap, convenient environment friendly transport system is backbone. But basic facilities to support healthy & peaceful life is equally important. Therefore, cleanliness, hygienic water & sewage system, health facilities, banks, education institutes, entertainment parks become source of energetic life of citizens. Law & order situations are pathetic in Asian cities. Wealth is concentrated in few hands, using unfair means. The government/s have to see long term issues to be solved by short, medium & long term strategies.

  2. sanpatel90 Says:

    In this regard, is there any study which measures effect of Delhi Metro on economy of Delhi and surrounding regions?

    • sapovadia Says:

      Not any exhaustive report but few reports on effect on pollution, real estate market, poverty reduction, vehicle congestion, management of traffic/parking etc. are studied by various agencies.

    • Anjum Altaf Says:

      sanpatel: The Economic and Political Weekly is a good place to start looking for articles on the impacts of the metro in Delhi. Here are the results of a simple search:

      http://www.epw.in/search/apachesolr_search/delhi%20metro

    • SouthAsian Says:

      sanpatel: This is a link to an analysis of BRT projects in India: http://www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon/newsletter_3/pdf/BRT_PolicySummary.pdf

      • Vikram Says:

        SA, I find some claims made in the report are based on a somewhat narrow point of view.

        First, a personal experience. I lived in Boston for two years, where both the bus and subway system were well developed. However, for trips where reaching on time was important, or which were of a medium or long distance, the subway was definitely preferable.

        The most important factor in favor of the subway was its predictability. A train arriving later than its scheduled arrival was quite rare, although there was overcrowding during the rush hour and one would have to skip a train or two sometimes.

        Even with the latest tracking and apps, buses remained unpredictable. The overcrowding and skipping problem was much more pronounced for buses. For even medium distances, the travel time was painfully long.

        I should also mention that subway stations were much safer to be in late at night than bus stations. If one felt unsafe, one could easily call a cab or family from inside the station and reach home.

        Second, the facts. These indicate that my experience in Boston was not an outlier. 68% of those who take public transport in Boston use the metro and other rail (http://tinyurl.com/nw7ry2q), and I suspect a good chunk of the 32% who use buses do so to connect to rail.

        The data from Mumbai shows a similar trend, 7.6 million commuters daily for rail versus 3.3 million for bus.

        I think the author’s assessment of cost and benefit for urban transport is not broad enough. Speed matters. Reliability matters. Safety matters. And these, if factored in with the construction and maintenance costs, might actually tip the balance in favor of rail.

  3. ramblinginthecity Says:

    Very interesting piece! Couldn’t have highlighted the role of public transport better.
    On Delhi: As a resident of the Delhi National Capital Region, my sense is that the Delhi Metro is an important factor in consolidating labor markets in the region. However, in the recent past Delhi (blame this on its elite culture!) has pushed for investments in infrastructure that favor the private automobile (as Prof Anjum points out flyovers and underpasses) and disfavored non-metro modes of public transport (failure of the BRT, Metro is too expensive for the working poor anyway). As a result, the city-region is still unable to truly leverage the talent pool that lives here. Of course, fragmented and ineffective city management is part of what creates these conditions.

  4. ramblinginthecity Says:

    Reblogged this on ramblinginthecity and commented:
    The role of public transport in integrating labor markets, discussed in the South Asian context

  5. Fiaz Khan Says:

    Interesting article.
    Seen in the overall context of lack of proper planning pertaining to things like sanitation and building codes enforcement, our transportation mess is symptomatic of the lack of proper management of our cities.
    The most useful transportation component of our cities is the rickshaw/Chingqi. The bulk of the population uses them along with personally owned motorcycles for transportation. Both types are expensive and unsafe.
    In the 1960s countries like South Korea and Japan targeted similar commuters in building their Metro networks. Even now 75 % and above of railway passengers in PR and IR are economy class passengers (which is called something else in India).

  6. Fiaz Khan Says:

    Reblogged this on Reform of Pakistan Railways and commented:
    The role of public transport in integrating labor markets, discussed in the South Asian context

  7. Anjum Altaf Says:

    Some useful observations on metro rail systems in India:

    http://www.thehindu.com/sunday-anchor/ticket-to-the-future/article7043738.ece

  8. Anjum Altaf Says:

    Experience of Mexico City with sprawl:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/world/americas/mexico-city-cars-pollution.html?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: