From Government to Governance
Urban Governance in Caracas Politecnico di Torino I FacoltĂ di Architettura Laurea Specialistica Costruzione Student: Ana Victoria Faria Delfino
The socio-spatial configuration of the city is closely linked to the level of general governance. Venezuela in the last decades has gone through a process of political reforms in search of a decentralization that was partial and incomplete because of the crisis suffered during the late 80s. As a result, there has been a decrease in the level of urban and general governance. The Government is not capable of organizing the urban space anymore. There are also the citizens who take its role tending to assume excluding solution. One of the main examples is the city of Caracas.
Introduction As in other Latin American countries, political reform and decentralization in Venezuela have been interpreted as needed processes to make more efficient the administrative system of the government, as a way to increase the political legitimacy through the search of a greater sense of democracy. It was assumed that the greater efficiency and legitimacy would impact positively on the levels of governance. In the presence of a partial and incomplete decentralization, the economic crisis of the late 80’s reduced the general level of governance significantly. It is true that decentralization in a local level has contributed to improve the representation and increase the legitimacy of the local political system, but if there aren’t political and administrative reforms that are required in the central level of government, it could be carried toward an ungovernable system in localurban level. The most significant negative effects of economical and political crisis have been felt in major cities of Venezuela, especially in the capital city: Caracas, where socio-urban costs (product of the preexistent spatial configuration and the urban-development model) have tended to rise. The main causes are the decentralization and the reduction of the government’s controlling role over the urban space, stimulating the “urban 1 neoliberalism” . On the other hand, the deterioration of life’s quality, which affects all social groups, and the scarcity of resources have led to conflicts between different socio-urban actors; between them and the government. Such conflicts are difficult to resolve given the low legitimacy of traditional political actors and the exclusion of many socio-urban actors in the decision-making process. The case of Caracas poses the question of urban governance in situations of acute economic crisis, in which the government ignores its role in search of a social equity, and where orientation, that is privileges in relation to the ordination, planning and management of urban space; is of liberal type. 1
Neoliberalism: Economic policy with macroeconomic and technocratic emphasis that considers counterproductive the excessive intervention of the government in social matters or in economy and defends capitalism free market as the best guarantor of institutional balance and economical growth of a country, unless in the presence of so-called market failures. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalismo
The Government and the Socio-Spatial Development The urban and demographic processes that occurred in the past 35 years in Caracas are closely linked to the model of economic and political development. This model can be defined as capitalism of State characterized for being rentier, highly centralized, populist, patronage and with little involvement of civil society. 2 This model, which resulted from the oil boom, encouraged the location of population and high population growth in the North-Central Coast region of Venezuela, particularly in Caracas. Before the 60’s, the growth of Caracas was the product of strong internal migration from the country site and immigration flows of European origin, mainly from Spain, Portugal and Italy. Since the 70’s, the immigration from Europe was replaced in importance by the flows of population from South America, particularly Colombia, and Central America.3 The rugged topography of Caracas produced the scarcity of developable flat areas influencing on the high exchange value of urban land which, at the same time, helped to set up a residential structure segregated and socially unequal because of the differential endowment of infrastructure services in favor of planning areas and in detriment of marginal areas. These factors, together with the rentier model and the logic of localization of the hegemonic social actors, contributed to the increase of urbanism costs and to intensify the conflicts between the different social-urban actors. At present, the socio-spatial configuration of Caracas seems to respond to the neoliberal logic, rather than social equity. In contrast to other Latin American cities, Caracas shows a strong government intervention during the period 19501990, which is expressed in the construction of road system and infrastructure of educational, recreational and care services; in the generation of massive social housing, outlining the superblocks that marked the visual and spatial structure of Caracas, and finally, in the heavily financing subsidized of modern condo buildings as the expression of a middle emerging class. 2
Travieso, F. Ciudad, región y subdesarrollo. (Translated by the autor) 3
Lander, L., Urdaneta, A. Estudios sobre migraciones en Venezuela. (Translated by the autor)
However, these social-spatial policies that were associated with the strong State capitalism of the last four decades, failed in transform the neoliberal tendencies of the socio-spatial structure of Caracas and in reduce significantly the levels of inequality and poverty. As in other Latin American cities, marginalization and poverty of large sectors of the urban population were increased expressing themselves as the construction of an important part of Caracas in a "spontaneous and marginalized” way.4 While the Venezuelan government had sufficient funds from oil revenues, the existing high level of centralization facilitated the implementation of social-spatial policies aimed to reduce the conflicts of "classes" and the urban-spatial segregation. However, when these resources were exhausted, the government reduced its intervention over the urban space and the conflicts between classes and between the government and different socio-urban actors increased as a result of the strong competition for scarce resources available to the government to satisfy the demands of urban actors. The acute economic crisis that evidenced itself from the 80’s in Venezuela, led the government to substantially reduce their impact on socio-spatial structure of Caracas when the policies for social housing and the provision of free services and / or subsidized were removed, producing the reduction of general and urban governance level.
extremely expensive from urbanism point of view because it tends to increase the costs of investment in social services, network and power infrastructure.5 On the other hand, the political model of decision making, which is characterized for being highly centralized, produces high levels of inefficiency in urban management that contribute, at the same time, to the raise of urban economic costs significantly. Among the costs produced by the lack of social equity that can be seen in the sociospatial configuration of Caracas, is the lack of accessibility to housing by a large proportion of the urban population living in poverty because of the high market prices, and in areas of geological instability and accelerated densification. The actual pattern of densification tends to exacerbate the physical instability of housing and therefore the geological ground instability, increasing the risk and social costs. Another social cost of the political model is the inadequate provision of basic infrastructure and social services. Most negative effects of the development model and the economic crisis become more visible in the slums but they start to extend beyond these groups and affect also to the middle class of Caracas.
Socio-Spatial Setting and Social Cost
Since the formal establishment of democracy in Venezuela in 1958, the clienteles party system became the main mechanism of coordination between the government (paternalistic and benefactor) and a not so organizationally complex society whose governance was secured through 6 agreements between the main social forces. The new urban social organizations since the late 70’s that began to demand a greater participation in urban management processes were not part of these democracy agreements. Within these organizations are other groups that express themselves in local areas and are called for reconstruction of a human-scale political network in which the citizen can have access to basic services of the city through an effective
The socio-spatial configuration and processes of urban expansion in Caracas, produced by the physical limitations of Caracas’ Valley and the development of socio-economical and political model, associated with high socio-economic and socio-urban cost because they don’t give or answer to the criteria of economic rationality, social equity and urban functionality. Caracas road infrastructure that has been adapted to the topographical limitations of the valley, together with the upper-class preferences for locations in areas of low density, high environmental quality and accessible to the main road network by car; contributed to a pattern of two kind of urban expansion: linear or horizontal. This pattern is 4
Césaris, M. and col. Políticas del Estado y marginalidad en Venezuela(Translated by the autor)
Urban Local Governance Decentralization
5
and
Cartaya, V. Pobreza en Venezuela: Realidad y Políticas. (Translated by the autor) 6 Gómez Calcaño, L. La Reforma del Estado en Venezuela. (Translated by the autor)
participation in the design, management, implementation and evaluation of the policies that affect them. In the mid 80’s, socio-political pacts were weakened as a result of the scarcity of resources of the government to ensure clienteles. The structural adjustment measures taken in the year 1989 to counter the economic crisis worsened the social-political conflicts because of the high social costs that they produced, and the poorest people the most affected. At the same time, it increased the prevailing corruption among political parties and groups that were part of the clienteles’ network and reduced the management ability of the government. The consequence of these factors was the greatest exclusion of broad sectors of the population in the decision-making process; this led to some of the socio-urban actors to question government actions and to demand greater participation to ensure more equitability in the distribution of economic and social costs generated by the crisis. At the same time, the economic system gradually decreased its ability to "legitimize" the political system and the governance’s level was reduced because the government was not able to satisfy the demands of the population. These governance problems are manifested most strongly in Caracas, where the collapse of basic and social infrastructure services move not only to the marginal groups, who traditionally had been mobilized in support of these claims, but also middle class. Thus, the issue of urban services has become a major political problem of urban governance. With the "Caracazo" (the stronger social explosion against structural adjustment measures taken by the government of Carlos Andres Perez in 1989) opens a way of protests through which the citizen demand the rights of "citizenship", i.e. claimed access to goods and benefits offer by the city… Since the crisis of the rentier, clientelar and populist model affected the pacts instituted between traditional socio-political actors without incorporating into the decision process the actors most affected by economic adjustment measures, this form of protest also involved the demand for excluded actors, to redefine the mechanisms of coordination between government and society. 7 Another factor that contributed to the inability of government to govern urban sectors is the 7
Naím, M.: Piñango, R. El caso Venezuela: una ilusión de armonía. (Translated by the autor)
government’s inability to assume the role of "facilitator and regulator" of urban conflict and ensure the security of citizens. Until the late 80’s, the role of mediator and regulator of sociopolitical conflicts that the Venezuelan government did through social policies was favored by its position as the main "producer" of the economy and as the main “reproducer” of jobs. However, with the growing social insecurity in the big cities, the government was incompetent to ensure the protection of citizens and delegated to private organizations, its own work. As a result, in Caracas "privatization" of public space and "urban neoliberalism" which contribute to the lack of urban governability, has occurred. This has taken place by emphasizing the exclusion of low-income groups in public spaces more environmentally advantaged where groups of middle and upper income are located. An answer to the crisis of development model and the demands of civil society for a greater participation in decision-making processes is the Political Reform initiated in the mid-80’s by the “Comisión de Reforma del Estado” (COPRE). One of its most important expression was the adoption of the new “Ley Orgánica del Régimen Municipal” in 1989 (LORM) which gives to municipalities a greater political autonomy. The munizipalization process apparently helped to increase the political legitimacy of local institutions and contributed to a bigger representatively of local political system to bring the leaders more close to the society by the direct election of the figures of the mayor and council members. This fact contributes to make representatives more attentive to the demands of urban voters to that political party. However, the incomplete process of decentralization in a global level has affected governance in negative way in those municipalities that cannot satisfy the demands of the people because of the antagonism between the demands of different actors and the lack of resources. Meanwhile the lack of governability grows, the Venezuelan government instead of intervening to stop the deterioration process of life quality and in this way improve the governance, has been shifting gradually and selectively to the private sector the most rentable functions and staying with less profitable. This has increased the fiscal deficit and the government's inability to satisfy the demands of an increasingly impoverished population. Decentralization has been implemented in an incomplete and partial way. The government
reduced its interventionist role in managing the city when has moved many of these functions to the municipalities, but this didn’t implicate the transfer of economic resources for such role, all because the acute economical crisis. In the case of Caracas, the five municipalities are very different between them in population size, the socioeconomical level of the people and its economic capacity to satisfy the demands for basic services and social infrastructure of the population. The fact that the municipalities with larger populations and lower socioeconomical status are those who have less economic capacity, produce higher levels of conflict and ingovernability. The decentralization process neither has combined national laws and regulations creating overlaps with local competition and many conflicts that contribute once again with the lack of governability. These contradictions affect in a negative way the adoption of urban plans because they complicate the negotiations between the different actors whose interests should be reflected in those plans. The process of decentralization dismantled some of the coordination institutions at city level, for example, the “Oficina Metropolitana de Planeamiento Urbano de Caracas� (OMPU) without the creation of an organization capable of fulfilling such functions. Nowadays there is no institution in Caracas that is responsible of regulating and harmonizing the planning and management process of the different municipalities. With the elimination of OMPU, there is no institution that integrates the fragmented interests of the municipalities, which creates conflict and inefficiencies in decisions about services that have an urban scale, such as roads and transport. Local decentralization neither meant the deepening of the needed political reforms to achieve public participation in municipal management. It was only assigned as an advisory participation in local governance. So the neighborhood associations take a more individualistic attitude defending the quality of life of a condominium or neighborhood and leaving back the interrelationships of these local areas with the municipality or the city. For Caracas, this trend extends to local government municipalities, which have a lack of a metropolitan target image or a citizenship vision, allowing them to reconcile the local plans that will be develop.
Conclusions
References
Caracas is a city characterized by the urban lack of governability. According to Jordi Borja 8, within the possible options that have a community to solve their problems there are some options that integrate and some others that exclude. The crisis and the lack of involvement of urban management model tend to accentuate the exclusion option over the integration one, and therefore, tends to increase social conflict. Since the socio-spatial configuration of Caracas is the expression of the different social actors that interact in, it is possible to predict changes in these settings that reflect the re-structure of the socio-economical agents produced by the crisis. The growing urban segregation observed in major cities of Venezuela is the expression of larger socio-political processes because the decisions about which option should be adopted to solve urban problems corresponds to the government, with the consultation and participation of citizens and can’t be left to free market forces. The case of Caracas has shown that when the government doesn’t do the duties incumbent concerning the regulation of urban processes, the citizens themselves are the ones who assume the role and tend to prioritize individual or excluded solutions. The consequences are greater corporatism, urban segregation and social conflicts that complicate urban governance. To transform the trends and existing socio-spatial processes it is requires a wide approach of "city" which has as objectives the integration, through the participation of different actors. The construction of integrative solutions requires that professional and social movements work together within a framework of democratic negotiation involving all actors, i.e. the government, the market and the social movements. Other proposals to increase democracy citizens are on the decentralization of the political system as a condition of participative democracy, the integration and legitimacy of the different demands and interests of all actors involved in urban issues, the legitimacy of the conflict and negotiation approach by all actors, including the government itself and, finally, adding the criteria of social equity as a principal guideline in the negotiation of the different actors’ demands.
BOLÍVAR, Teolinda and col. Densificación y vivienda en los barrios caraqueños. Facultad de Arquitectura. UCV. Caracas, 1996. BORJA, Jordi. Ciudadanía, poder local y calidad de vida. Foro Nacional e Internacional sobre Reforma Urbana y Medio Ambiente. Brasil, 1992. DE LA CRUZ, Rafael. "La Estrategia de la descentralización en Venezuela". Descentralización, gobernabilidad, democracia. Rafael de la Cruz (Coord.), Nueva Sociedad Editorial. Caracas, 1992. CARTAYA, Vanessa; D'ELIA, Yolanda. Pobreza en Venezuela: Realidad y Políticas. CESAP-CISOR. Caracas, 1991. CÉSARIS, María Nuria and col. Políticas del Estado y marginalidad en Venezuela. World Congress of Landscape Arquitecture. Brazil, 1979. GARCÍA-GUADILLA, María Pilar. Democracia, Gobernabilidad, Ciudadanía y Gestión Urbana y Local. Decanato de Investigaciones, Universidad Simón Bolívar. Caracas, 1996. GARCÍA-GUADILLA, María Pilar. Configuración espacial y movimientos ciudadanos: Caracas en cuatro tiempos. Decanato de Investigaciones, Universidad Simón Bolívar. Caracas, 1994. GÓMEZ CALCAÑO, Luis; LÓPEZ MAYA, Margarita. La Reforma del Estado en Venezuela. CENDES Editorial. Caracas, 1990. LANDER, Luis; URDANETA, Alberto. Estudios sobre migraciones en Venezuela. Ramiro Cardona (ed.), Corporación Centro Regional de Población. Bogotá, 1975. NAÍM, Moisés y PIÑANGO, Ramón. El caso Venezuela: una ilusión de armonía. IESA. Caracas, 1992. REY, Juan Carlos. (1987). "El futuro de la democracia en Venezuela" en Varios Autores Venezuela hacia el 2000: desafíos y opciones. Nueva Sociedad Editorial. Caracas, 1987. TRAVIESO, Fernando. Ciudad, región y subdesarrollo. Fondo Editorial Común. Caracas, 1973.
8
Borja, J. Ciudadanía, poder local y calidad de vida.