Search

With rapid urbanization and migration to cities, particularly in developing nations, the focus and emphasis on city governance, politics, institutional capacity, and sustainability issues have become paramount in critical analyses and policy discussions. This paper examines the functional complexities of two large Municipalities in two port cities located in South Africa and India, specifically eThekwini (the city of Durban in the province of KwaZulu-Natal) and Cochin (in the state of Kerala). Following a brief overview of the characteristics of the two Municipalities, the paper delves into the system of governance, level of autonomy, participatory structures in place, the extent to which they can respond to the service delivery demands of the public in an inclusive manner, and approaches to addressing climate change concerns. The paper is contextualised with reference to the theoretical concept of the Right to the City. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attempts at measuring decentralisation are still in an underdeveloped stage. The reason for this lies in the failure to devise common standards against which measurement is possible and the lack of consensus about the very meaning of decentralisation. An attempt to measure decentralisation was made by Vengroff and Ben Salem in the context of Tunisia nearly a decade ago. An expanded and adapted version of this model is used to measure decentralisation in Kerala using the same judgmental criteria that they used after involving a panel of nine experts. These experts had a fairly good understanding of the practice of decentralisation to score on the basis of the adapted criteria. An ideal form of decentralisation envisaged in this measurement exercise is devolution. It has been found that on a scale ranging between 0 and 5, the state of Kerala obtained a score of 2.00 in spite of the fact that the investment that the state had made in decentralisation has no parallels anywhere in the developing countries. Such a low score, despite the much publicised campaign for decentralisation, was due to the focus on planning rather than on decentralisation issues. Attempts to measure decentralisation will not only enable us to develop more contextually valid measures of decentralisation, but also contribute to the clarification of the concept of decentralisation, particularly by identifying aspects neglected hitherto. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]