Contested Urban Futures: Cities in the Age of Complex Challenges”－Seminar Series

In a conversation hosted by the SDGs unit and moderated by Dr. Nazia Hussain, Mr. John W. Spencer and Prof. Kiichi Fujiwara discussed challenges confronting cities in an era of climate change, resource scarcity, and increasing urbanization. This was the first of the four-part series on aspects related to violence, challenges of governance, and emergent political instability in an increasingly urban world.

In her overture, Dr. Hussain pointed out that separating the effects of contemporary trends on political stability in cities from pre-existing complexity and confounding processes is not a straightforward affair. In many cities, governance patterns are not emblematic of traditional notions; violence and crime, for instance, may be shaping governance as well as contributing to breakdown of law and order. Contingent on the social, historic, economic, and political context, inequality may persist along identity, class, gender, and ethnicity divides. Lastly, in response to external stressors, it is important to make sense of everyday politics, responses of governments and societies, and flows of capital shaping urban spaces. In place of delimited accounts, multi-disciplinary approaches allowing for multiple perspectives are the need of the hour. In the absence of micro-level understandings of pre-conflict situations, militarized responses are bound to fall short.

In his presentation, Mr. Spencer made the case for developing city-centric perspectives, and the urgency of understanding cities to prepare effective interventions towards humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and political instability.

He made the case for the importance of cities—between 2014-2016 alone, 300 cities produced 67 percent of the world’s GDP. Contemporary trends indicate that much of the urbanization is taking place in underdeveloped countries leading to sea changes. If cities grow rapidly, however, governments may fail to serve social, political, and economic needs, thereby increasing chances of fragility and instability. In addition to global climate change around the world, this trend presents a worrying concern. Some cities or parts of a city may be susceptible to shock, while others may be resilient. In some places, it may lead to increased political violence, a rise in resource scarcity, increased fragility, and challenges for formal governance.

Drawing insights from his military experience, Mr. Spencer highlighted that a key challenge in preparing for these changes lies in extending primacy to a nation-focused perspective. Organizations are structured along a nation/country centric view. For instance, militaries are not built or prepared to fight in urban areas. As a result, militarized responses have grave consequences for civilian populations. Similarly, for diplomatic affairs, experts are trained to gain knowledge of countries, not cities. These gaps in knowledge build into policy responses.

The knowledge gap exists both for those engaged in theory and policy. In addition to multi-disciplinary approaches, serious efforts need to be invested in studying conflict in cities. IR and political theory focus primarily on nation-states, while urban studies predominantly lean towards urban planning.

The costs of not investing in developing knowledge about conflict in cities are steep. It took to destruction of cities like Mosul or Marawi to save them; the effects, however, on civilian populations and cities were lasting. Similarly, when military forces are asked to operate in urban spaces to reduce violence in periods of increased violence in, say, Rio de Janeiro, the results are not optimal. In the coming years, cities may not always experience all out conflict, and yet, militaries may be called in to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. More than ever, it is important to invest in producing deep knowledge of cities.

In his discussion, Prof. Fujiwara advocated for developing an understanding of cities and multiple forms of political instability in cities before the onset of a severe challenge.

He highlighted that our responses are directed at challenges that have manifested already, be it a pandemic, the earthquake in Japan in 2011, or the events of September 11. Those who may caution against emergent risks receive attention only when a crisis becomes reality. This may be one of the reasons why emergent concerns in cities regarding disasters and conflict, although urgent, have failed to receive due attention.

IR studies in general have focused on nation states, national defense, and the safety of people living in nation states. The assumption is that if a challenge to state security were to materialize, it would originate from external elements. The idea of the state exercising complete controls over territory evolved in European societies at the end of the 30 year war. Strangely enough, the end of the medieval order, which led to this evolution in state craft, was not organized along nation states at all. Over time, during the 20th and 21st century, the distinction between rebellion at home and decay of political order became even more important.

Paying attention to conflict in cities, thus, presents an important development in the evolutionary journey of ideas, as it breaks the firewall that defends the disciplines of IR and Comparative Politics. Increased levels of violence in cities, as well as operations by militaries in cities that were traditionally the province of police, challenge disciplinary boundaries. How urban challenges may contribute to warfare and fragility of society could shape important and much-needed research.