Search

The adoption of the shared prosperity goal by the World Bank in 2013 and Sustainable Development Goal 10, on inequality, by the United Nations in 2015 should strengthen the focus of development interventions and cooperation on the income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution. This paper contributes to the incipient literature on within-country allocations of development institutions and assesses the geographic targeting of World Bank projects to the bottom 40 percent. Bivariate correlations between the allocation of project funding approved over 2005–14 and the geographical distribution of the bottom 40 as measured by survey income or consumption data are complemented by regressions with population and other potential factors affecting the within-country allocations as controls. The correlation analysis shows that, of the 58 countries in the sample, 41 exhibit a positive correlation between the shares of the bottom 40 and World Bank funding, and, in almost half of these, the correlation is above 0.5. Slightly more than a quarter of the countries, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa, exhibit a negative correlation. The regression analysis shows that, once one controls for population, the correlation between the bottom 40 and World Bank funding switches sign and becomes significant and negative on average. This is entirely driven by Sub-Saharan Africa and not observed in the other regions. Hence, the significant and positive correlation in the estimations without controlling for population suggests that World Bank project funding is concentrated in administrative areas in which more people live (including the bottom 40) rather than in poorer administrative areas. Furthermore, capital cities receive disproportionally high shares of World Bank funding on average. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is little research-based evidence regarding the similarities and differences in urban plans and urban forms, regarding urban planning and design, between planned capital cities in Africa and Asia. In recognition of the establishment of planned capital cities on these continents, this article limited its case studies to six planned capital cities of the Global South, in the post-independence and post-crisis period. By using bibliometric analysis, snowballing technique, and content analysis approaches, this study determines data sources, including books, journals, city reports, and internet blogs. The results show that these planned capital cities are similar in their urban plans: geographical, socio-cultural and demographic dimensions (location, size, and population densities), historical context of societies, and their goals and aspirations. Meanwhile, urban forms have similarities and differences based on paradigms, organization and spatial formation, spatial arrangement of activities, and architectural artefacts. This study suggests a conceptual and phasal framework, which combines planning history and theory in the first phase, and urban planning and design implementations in the second phase. The results demonstrate how considering our framework can limit similarities in the urban plans and urban forms of planned capital cities. This framework can guide urban planners and designers in academia and professional practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 1997, the Republic of Kazakhstan officially proclaimed that the city of Astana would be its new capital. The decision to transfer the seat of government from the city of Almaty in the south to the more centrally located Astana was connected to the process of nation building in a multi-ethnic society where the titular nation represents little more than half of the population. Efforts to transform the rather remote regional center, Akmola (later renamed Astana) into a modern capital city have been underway since the late 1990s. One important component of this transformation is the idea of building a “metabolic” and sustainable “Eurasian” city. As the symbolic center of the whole country, this new capital would function as a showpiece of Kazakh culture and identity. The city would also become a symbol of economic prosperity and the regime's geopolitical vision. While the government's intensions are expressed rather openly, it remains unclear to what extent these politically verbalized leitmotivs are actually being realized through contemporary architecture and structure. This article offers a critical assessment of what has been achieved to date and argues that the production of the new Kazakhstani capital has often failed to translate rhetoric into reality. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]