Many observers argue that the penetration of capital into the rural economy of the less developed world during the second half of the 20th century contributed to the dismantling of subsistence agriculture.  At the same time, expanding industrialization and a growing gap between rural and urban wages led to increased opportunity in the cities. Consequently, many marginalized individuals saw relocation from the countryside to the city as their only rational alternative.

Swelling rural-urban migration soon contributed to an oversupply of urban labor.  In many areas of the Third World, the developing gap between the level of urbanization and rates of industrialization led to a severe shortage of employment opportunities.

As rapidly expanding cities filled with the ranks of the unemployed, a reserve army of low productivity workers found relief in informal income opportunities, both legal and illegal. The many migrants placed a disproportionate strain on the whole range of urban resources as they found themselves mired in inescapable poverty, lacking access to such basic services as housing, sanitation, and education. Despite these problems, however, the wide gap between rural and urban wages (and a perception of urban consumer-oriented affluence) encouraged continued in-migration.

Motivated largely by economics, most migrants were convinced that they faced better life prospects in their country’s most densely populated areas. Many cities grew into what urbanists called  “giant cities.”  According to E. Mingione, while conditions were often deplorable

no matter how poor and difficult appear the working and living conditions of Third world masses in large cities in the slums, barrios, favelas. and squatter areas, they remain comparatively better than those in the countryside.

As Farhad Kazemi notes in the case of Iran

the largest single group (43%) of cityward migrants in 1972 consisted of migrants without any education . . . [most of whom had] migrated either to seek work or a better job.

This group believed that — even if forced to become part of the marginalized or informal labor force — urban earnings would be superior to their rural counterpart. They perceived that (even though an individual might suffer unemployment in the short run) lifetime income was generally higher for urban workers than for rural workers fully employed through a working life. This understanding explains the satisfaction of most migrants and is also consistent with the interpretation of the city as an ‘engine of growth’ where even the informal economy provides access to production opportunities not available in the rural environment. In actual fact, the Third World city became a “theater for accumulation,” providing opportunities for large numbers of entrepreneurs to succeed.

Rural-urban migration was, of course, a primary factor in the growth and expansion of cities in client states, just as it was in the rest of the less developed world. However, at times, client cities were also impacted by additional population movements and changes in ethnic composition, some influenced by Cold War militarism. Taipei absorbed large numbers of migrants from mainland China as a consequence of the communist takeover there; Isfahan dealt with a large influx of foreigners affiliated with various defense manufacturers as well as with large numbers of emigrants in the wake of the 1979 revolution; and Havana lost human capital in three waves of emigration while accommodating an influx of Soviet managers and technicians.

Photograph by Cathy Arkle.

Socialist or Capitalist: Rapid Population Growth

For the first half of the Cold War period, many Third World governments considered problems associated with rapid urban expansion — migration trends and patterns of population distribution — to be among their most serious concerns. Certainly the impact of population growth was lasting.

By 1990, 171 cities in the less developed world had a population of one million or more, contrasting with 31 in 1950. Two-thirds of the estimated 1990 population in cities of 5 million or more lived in Third World regions.

The Fast Growth of Cities Raises Alarm

Both superpowers viewed rapidly growing cities with alarm. The Soviets were particularly critical, arguing that the large metropolis was an undesirable consequence of capitalist penetration. This was linked to widespread peasant dislocation. The following factors — all related to capitalist penetration — were cited as causal:

• the introduction of individual land ownership
• the development of cash crops for export
• increased modernization of the countryside
• technological change.

Nevertheless, as we have seen in earlier posts, clients of the USSR — Cuba, Syria, and North Korea, for example — were as prone to “over urbanization” as were clients of the United States. The Soviets contended that their urban model discouraged in-migration because it focused on decentralizing industry and encouraged development in small towns located in more peripheral areas of the country. In theory, this type of development reduced the size of large cities, balanced the urban system, and supplied each part of the country with urban services. It did this by:

• upgrading existing industrial sites into local service and/or administrative centers
• constructing whole new towns — usually in connection with industrial plants.

These new industrial towns gave planners the opportunity to build ideal socialist cities which differ from their capitalist counterparts in not allowing private ownership of land. In contrast, countries influenced by the western model were said to invest resources in giant cities at the expense of smaller cities and rural areas.

Fostering Rural-Urban Migration

Still, regardless of region or patron, the location of large-scale industry in the cities, increased population pressure on the land, and the inability of family lands to provide for all members of the households created an impetus toward rural-urban migration.

Moreover, as migrants poured into urban areas, associated problems developed:

• regional imbalance
• labor market inequality
• housing problems
• quality-of-life concerns..

As urban development continued, the problems became more severe, leading to mounting debate centered on neo-Mathusian predictions of over-population. Much of the dialogue centered on concern over rural-urban migration. We’ll talk about that in next post on Cold War Cities.

The Capitalist City

The world city is said to be a spatial representation of global capitalism, a city in which “quite a disproportionate part of the of the world’s most important business is conducted.” It houses the headquarters of transnational corporations, major banks, insurance companies, and investment houses, and is noted for its large population size. Since it is a center of very specialized goods and services, an increasing share of its international labor force is employed in the service — as opposed to the industrial — sector.

Not all world cities are of equal importance. Three — New York, London, and Tokyo — are the undisputed leaders, command and control centers of world affairs. Yet cities in the less developed world — Rio de Janeiro, Lagos, Hong Kong, Cairo, and Taipei — are also classified by some as world cities.

Taipei’s status as a world city is based on “its status vis-a-vis the economic development of the Republic of China . . . . [when Taipei] became synonymous with access to decision makers and those individuals and institutions best placed to direct and oversee foreign trade. The city thus became a magnet for services as well as industry.”

It is important to note, however, that in the case of the world city, the penetration of capitalism and the integration of the city into the world capitalist system does not necessarily imply the adoption of Western models of land use. Taipei, for instance,

does not fit any of these models because of historical, cultural, and economic reasons. The commercial, military, and administrative origins of Taipei have left an imprint which includes many of the elements of a traditional planned Chinese city. These elements would include a grid street pattern, the inclusion of agriculturally productive lands, and the dispersion of economic activities . . . . Culturally, the continued merging of the location of work and residence produces a juxtaposition of land uses not readily amenable to Western models.

Consequently, while Taipei has, indeed, developed into a capitalist city, its built environment doesn’t explicitly imitate the Western land use model. In fact, as previously mentioned, the city continues to reflect some Leninist influences. Nevertheless, the three principal groups which are argued to have established the infrastructure for the emergence of the world city do play a primary role in Taipei’s urban activities as they do in other world cities. These groups are multinational companies, banks, and state governments. The multinational role is thought to have been particularly significant.

It has been asserted that, as these firms changed the nature of production worldwide, they also changed the nature of cities, acquiring greater control over the world’s raw materials, penetrating foreign markets through expansion of production, and exploring cheap labor abroad to produce goods for exports to overseas markets.

Multinationals became increasingly dominant during the 1980s, displacing firms with chiefly national or regional concerns, and subsequently accounting for 70-80% of world trade outside of the centrally planned socialist economies.

Accordingly

the world-economy is not now simply based on a single economic pole (the United States) but has become multipolar, with the borders of capitalist production moved much further out, and encompassing an increasing number of newly industrializing countries. It is on the growth of these (especially Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico) that Harris predicts  The End of the Third World (1987).

Those concurring with this explanation note that the globalization of production was accompanied by the internationalization of finance, banking, and domestic currency.

Internationalization is not necessarily new. Cities like Havana were sites for the international banking system headquartered in Canada and New York as early as the 1930s when the National City Bank of New York and the Royal Canadian Bank each had about 26 branches in Cuba. At that time, in Havana, “apart from the local and expatriate representative of these banking firms, other forerunners of today’s producer-services community included estate agents, insurance firms, shipping and air agents, advertising firms, real-estate firms, managing agents, and others.”

As a consequence of the more recent shifts, however, it is now argued that the most notable characteristic (and the principal geopolitical characteristic) of world cities is their enhanced function as ‘command and control centres’ in the capitalist world-economy . . . .”

I realize that this discussion has been somewhat theoretical. So the next time we talk about Cold War Cities we’ll focus on the more complex urban problems at play during the early Cold War timeframe.

 

We’ve talked a lot about patron-client relationships on this blog, and about the importance of global flows associated with national security objectives. But it would be a mistake to suggest that urban expansion was in some way related to superpower patronage. (Notably, even though sub-Saharan Africa wasn’t a high priority for superpower investment, that region’s urban population increased by 800%.)

In reality, the wide variation in urbanization levels among countries of the less developed world wasn’t linked to a superpower model of urban growth  or to superpower influence in general. Instead, accelerated urban growth in the less developed countries reflected a prevailing trend based on the following factors:

• natural population increase linked to improvements in health care
• changes in classification whereby expanded village boundaries caused an increase in the portion of the population considered to be urban
• an actual increase in village population (within pre-existing boundaries) so that some villages became urban by definition
• migration from the countryside to the city.

As a result of the confluence of the above factors, by Cold War’s end in 1990, 32 countries in the less developed world had achieved an urbanization level of 67% or more, a level 1.5 times the global average of 42%.  Brazil — host of the 2014 FIFA World Cup — was one of the most urbanized.  In 1990, that country’s urbanization level was 77%.

Models of Urban Change

Even though superpower patronage didn’t necessarily dictate the pace of urban growth, Cold War associated global flows are likely to have influenced the development of urban form in some client areas. Still, since both socialist and capitalist cities are quite heterogenous, the application of an “ideal type” model, while widely employed, is problematic. Regardless, many argue that the impact of communism is quite visible in the organization of the Soviet or socialist city, just as they assert that the world or global city clearly reflects the influence of liberal grand strategy.

Alternative Approaches

Clearly not every city will conform to a capitalist or socialist model. Isfahan (Iran) is such a case.

From 1945 until the revolution of 1978-1979, the city exhibited a duality, shaped in part by the bazaar and in part by more western influences. For many residents and merchants, the bazaar complex and related spaces formed the center of public life with bazaar and adjacent residential areas physically integrated. Others were attracted by newly constructed subdivisions and shopping arcades built on the western model.

Since the revolution, Isfahan has been influenced by some of the tenets of western urban planning, particularly in areas destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War. However, Islamic influences remain strong and the city continues to reflect the importance of the bazaar economy.

Look for our next post when we’ll talk about Soviet Cities.

Cold War Legacy: Cities in Crisis

By the early 1990s, it was obvious to almost all observers that cities in the less developed world were in crisis.   Problems included overcrowding , slums and squatter settlements, shortages of urban services, unemployment and underemployment, environmental degradation, and associated social issues. Traditional urban policy approaches hadn’t provided solutions to the on-going challenges listed above. Nor had the newer  neoliberal approach — with its associated downsizing of government, privatization of state owned enterprises, and drastic restructuring of the economy.  Instead, as Alan Gilbert asserted:

. . . what seems eminently clear, is that urban poverty will continue to plague every Third World city in years to come. . . . The grandchildren of the urban poor will continue to suffer from social polarization, material deprivation, and political repression. If urban conditions may well have improved in Seoul or Sao Paulo, they may well have deteriorated in Calcutta or Addis Ababa.

Gilbert continued:

The detailed future of the Third World city is in doubt, but there is little reason to believe that the urban poor are about to disappear.

As the cities of Brazil prepare to host FIFA’s 2014 World Cup, Gilbert’s 20 year old statement rings true.

Primate Cities

To many, the persistence of poverty and the excessive size of many cities in the developing world are linked, and their challenges remain worrisome.  Many of these large cities are known as primates. Primacy is defined as a condition whereby one city becomes so dominant that it keeps other parts of its country from developing. During the early Cold War period, primate cities were linked to the absence of regional or national economic integration. They were thought to be antithetic to the preferred model of balanced economic growth. Apprehension over increasing economic imbalance led some scholars and planners to describe many nations as overurbanized, with cities whose economic base was inadequate to cope with their associated population pressures. According to this perspective, urbanization became deviant any time urban population numbers were out of sync with the Western example. Controversy emerged regarding the most appropriate distribution of urban population among different-sized cities. A related notion concerned “systems of cities” within economically interdependent regions. Overurbanization, some contended, was a term developed for understanding First World urbanization processes and had little relevance to the so-called Third World where the links between economic growth and urbanization were far more varied and complete. Issues of primacy or overurbanization were thought to be dominated by global processes whereby cities were now competing in the world economy. Therefore, primate cities were not a problem. They just needed to be strengthened so that they could be better competitors.

The First World vs. The Third World

Differences between the First World and the Third World emphasize the difficulty in applying a universal model of appropriate urbanization. A look at the income gap between rich and poor countries shows that, in 1950, the average per capita income (in 1980 US dollars) of low-income countries was $164. In 1980, as the failure of past approaches to development were acknowledged, and just when the neoliberalist project came into its own, the same income had risen to only $245. Meanwhile, incomes in rich countries had increased from $3,841 to $9,648. In other words, over a thirty year period, the income gap between rich and poor had increased from $3,677 to $9,403. In terms of total income (gross national product: GDP), the low-income countries declined from 4.3 % of that earned by the industrialized countries in 1950 to 2.5% in 1980. By 1995, the income of low-income countries was equal to only 1.7% of that of the industrialized countries. Particularly relevant in the urban context was the reality that within developing nations there was a growing gap between rich and poor. Nowhere was this more evident than in the urban environment which houses a nation’s most privileged and its most destitute. The problems of low income countries have been exacerbated by the rapidly changing international situation. As the Cold War ended, benefits accruing from the flow of military and economic assistance related to national security objectives disappeared. In a situation that some consider exploitative, countries are now required to spend their own money to purchase arms in the hopes of securing substantial aid in return. Influential Non-State Actors (Like FIFA) To make matters murkier still, many feel that the impact of non-state actors on city economies most usually results in exploitation. In fact, one of the most worrisome aspects of the 2014 FIFA World Cup is the perception by many that exploitation is the name of the game. The tournament is scheduled to be the biggest football celebration of all time. But not everyone is expected to benefit. On the contrary, it is argued that the quarter of the Brazilian population living in poverty will suffer. Aside from evictions of favelas for image reasons, and human rights violations, there is the fear that the Brazilian people will not benefit from the billions in profits generated by the international competition. FIFA and the World Cup sponsors (Adidas, Coca-Cola, Budweiser — to name a few) refuse to allow the expected billions of dollars in profits to be taxed in Brazil even though the Brazilian population must bear the cost of hosting the World Cup. Unfortunately there is a prototype. The 2010 World Cup in South Africa resulted in three billion dollars in revenue for FIFA and three billion dollars in losses for the South African State. So it is expected that social benefits in Brazil will come under pressure because of state debt and, in the end, the 50 million poor of Brazil will end up paying  for affluent sports lovers to enjoy the World Cup.

2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa

A closer look at the balance sheet for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa is sobering. The tournament was eagerly anticipated. Among the South African population there was the expectation of economic growth, better life prospects, and new jobs. But this is what actually transpired.

• the cost to the South African State was 1,709% higher than planned
• instead of a profit of 700 million Swiss francs, South Africa suffered a loss of 2.8 billion; on the other hand, FIFA and its partners took in over 3 billion Swiss francs
• of the 10 stadiums built or expanded to house the 2010 games, at least 3 are considered to be “white elephants,” too big to be used in a cost-effective manner after the World Cup; the stadiums were built despite the objections of the South African Football League after pressure from FIFA
• 20,000 were evicted from their homes to build stadiums and other infrastructure
• up to 100,000 street vendors lost their livelihood during the World Cup
• South Africa was forced to impose reductions in social benefits due to World Cup losses.

2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil

Despite the example of South Africa, let’s take a look at what’s happening in Brazil.

• 99% of the costs of the 2014 World Cup will be borne by Brazil; the country is investing $14.5 billion (USD) in airports, stadiums, and new transportation systems 
• 5 new stadiums are being built and 7 are being renovated, to the tune of $3.9 billion
• private investors are reluctant to invest; only the renovation of 2 stadiums and parts of a third are being privately financed
• it is predicted that the stadiums of Brasilia, Cuiaba, Manaus, and Natal are not likely to be used to capacity after the World Cup
• Brazilian Federal states and the cities are taking on long-term debt (the usual rules on the limitation of excess credit have been suspended); debt ceilings for host cities have been raised
• goods and services linked to stadium building have been given tax exemptions.

Brazil’s Expectations

What are Brazil’s expectations?

• it is expected that 700,000 jobs will be created
• GNP is expected to increase by $4 billion or 0.26%

To what extent these expectations become reality remains to be seen. Another expectation has already been dismissed. While Brazil voiced a determination to organize the “greenest” World Cup in history, environmental laws have been applied less stringently to infrastructure construction for the 2014 games. There will be simplified environmental sustainability tests for “mega events” and the Constitution and Justice Commission has proposed and amendment to the Forest Law, allowing the reclassification of formerly protected areas. Cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre, and Salvador de Bahia are reducing their protected areas because of infrastructure construction surrounding the World Cup. According to Raquel Roinik, UN special envoy for housing rights:

The 2014 World Cup is being used to change the system of Brazilian cities without criteria, without studies, without open discussion or democratic processes.

In this context, a good look at democratic transitions, institutions, the privatization process, the existence (or not) of civil society, social movements, and (even) culture might give us more knowledge about today’s urban conditions. How these evolved in a Cold War framework will be the subject of coming posts. Next time, though, we’ll take a look at the characteristics of socialist and capitalist cities.

In the context of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, urbanization matters.

In today’s globalized environment, urbanization — and its timing — is critically important. Many of today’s cities came of age during the second half of the 20th century when urban change worldwide was dictated, in large part, by Cold War associated needs and demands.

To reiterate what’s been said in previous posts, after World War II the US became obsessed with the war against communism and the idea of containment.  The overarching US objective was to prevent Soviet penetration of emerging nations. The USSR, on the other hand, was determined to prevent “capitalist encirclement” of its territories and was eager to prove its economic and industrial prowess.

The widely differing positions of the two superpowers resulted in a competitive grand strategy which provoked an intense rivalry centered on providing military and economic assistance to less developed nations.  Much of this assistance involved “global flows” that shaped the form and organizations of cities where FIFA World Cup soccer has been played. 

By the mid-1950s, each superpower believed that the success of its grand strategy depended on “winning” the Third World. 

The competition to supply military and economic assistance, including weapons, technology, and expert advice accelerated. It was in this environment that ‘development theory’ was conceived and that urban growth accelerated.

Nevertheless, the clash of Cold War grand strategies  in the Cold War period is almost always excluded from urban analysis. In other words, America’s actions in response to the Soviet threat haven’t been considered as variables in the post World War II urbanization process even though their ramifications influenced the built environment, demography, and political economy of widely dispersed urban areas. Nor have Soviet policies designed to prevent ‘capitalist encirclement’ been weighed.

Instead, the emphasis has been on prevailing theories of modernization, development, dependency, world systems, or the ‘new’ international division of labor (IDOL).

Through these lens, individual players such as the state, the military, and the transnational organization (in this case FIFA) have been unified under the guise of capitalism. However, as we will see in 2014 Brazil, their interests and priorities are quite different. In many instances, the actions of these players have resulted in an on-going contestation between the local and the global.

The Cold War and Urbanization

Cold War forces have rarely been a focus of inquiry regarding urbanization in the less developed world. In fact, until recently, most scholars disregarded the study of Third World cities altogether, focusing instead on metropolitan areas in post industrialized nations, especially the United States and Western Europe. Bureaucracy, fiscal strains, and class implications have been the central themes.

Notably, studies of Third World cities have been absent even though the city often serves as a ‘bellweather’ for the nation as a whole. Important urban occurrences include protests and demonstrations, industrial expansion and entrepreneurial production, and the formation of civil society and political parties.

Still, while cities have traditionally been neglected, a link between the national and the international has been acknowledged at the level of the nation state. Peter Gourevitch has argued that:

The interaction of domestic politics with international is an age old phenomenon and theorists of politics have long known this. The oldest tradition of this kind explores the impact of war. Greek philosophers examined the way wars influenced the constitutions of city-states . . . .

Manuel Castells goes even further by arguing that urban analysts have been misled “into believing that what they saw happening in cities was a product of cities . . . .”  He goes on to say that it is critical “to identify the underlying processes which become manifest in the urban environment.”

Some of the issues that need to be discussed revolve around effects stemming from the sorts of transactions which alter urban form, particularly  flows of money, goods, people, and messages across international boundaries. These types of transactions are certainly observable in the case of FIFA and the 2014 World Cup.

An important contribution, also, is the critique of the structural model of change in which it is argued that an exclusive focus on the power capabilities of states ignores the impact of domestic and transnational actors.

So what are the issues now affecting Brazilian cities as they prepare for FIFA’s 2014 World Cup? What are the contestations and protests taking place and who do they involve?

In my post on Global Threats, I discussed two specific problems regarding Brazil’s hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The first involved the informal sector and street vendors; the second, the bulldozing of marginal housing or favelas. However, these are not the only issues that need to be addressed. In addition to worries about how the World Cup is affecting the less fortunate population of Brazil’s cities, the Brazilian government is concerned with perceived challenges to national identity and growing concerns regarding cultural terrorism.

Stadium Gentrification

Brazil is building two brand new stadiums and remodeling another 10 for World Cup tournament play. When the games are over, the country will be left with a glut of state-of-the art arenas. The government’s worry is that many Brazilians who supported teams in the past will be priced out of the new facilities as administrators look to gentrify the soccer-going public to increase income.

Deputy sports minister Luis Fernandez told Reuters:

To have socially exclusive stadiums as a result of the World Cup investments is not the legacy we want. . . . Some stadium administrators are quite explicit in saying that, to be economically feasible, they would have to shift the type of attendance at games. . . .But if you want to shift the social origin of the spectators so you can have people that can afford to buy other merchandise and food besides tickets, that could be a negative side effect.

The food and merchandise comment, particularly, is interesting because, until recently, there has been nothing to buy inside Brazilian stadiums except basic fast food and soft drinks. Observers say that

supporters often prefer to buy counterfeit merchandise from unlicensed street vendors, know as camelos, in front of the stadium.

The stadium controversy brings up several issues, among them the whole idea of privatization and public/private partnerships. Nine of Brazil’s 12 World Cup stadiums are owned by the governments of the respective states and, after the World Cup, they will be handed over to private administrators who want to make money from selling merchandise inside.

Fernandez says:

Football had and has a very central role in building national identity in Brazil. . .  . So we are very concerned with that aspect and will be dealing with it in terms of national and state legislation.

Cultural Terrorism

National identity also comes to play in another issue involving a local food and street vendors.

According to a Global Voices article, Brazilians are accusing FIFA of “stamping out local culture.”  Residents are reportedly angry because World Cup authorities refuse to allow street vendors in the northeastern city of Salvador, one of Brazil’s 10 World Cup cities.

The vendors affected are women in the state of Bahia who prepare and sell acaraje, a dish made from fried black-eyed peas and a spicy filling. The food is of African origin and has become a symbol of Brazilian culture. It is traditionally sold in and around stadiums during football matches in Bahia’s capital city of Salvador.

A local street vendor association says

A FIFA resolution forbids any street trading within a two kilometer radius of all World Cup stadiums. This excludes Brazilian traditional food sellers . . .

The association demands that vendors be free to sell around the stadium area during the World Cup just as they have been doing for non World Cup matches. Moreover, the “baianas do acaraje,” as the street vendors are known, have taken to the streets in their typical all-white cotton dresses, headscarves, and caps to demand their right to sell the dish.

The Global Voices article goes on to discuss another instance of cultural terrorism,  this time involving the naming of a stadium in Brasilia.  According to the article, the name of Mane Garrincha, one of Brazil’s most famous soccer players who played for Brazil’s national team from 1955 to 1966, was removed from the National Stadium in Brasilia at FIFA’s bidding. FIFA supposedly defended the decision, saying that the World Cup is an event of “international interest” so the names of game sites should be consistant. The uproar spread to Twitter where Professor Cesar Oliveira posted:

One can’t put the name Mane Garrincha, nor sell acaraje! What is the point of having a crap FIFA’s World Cup if we can’t even be who we are.

Rui Mora wrote on the Mundo Botafogo football blog dedicated to Garrincha’s former team:

Garrincha was an ace with worldwide prestige, the best player ever, according to many opinions. Since when does FIFA rule a country? If the stadium was called Pele (considered by many the best player of all time, Pele, who won the World Cup of 1958, 1962, and 1970, promotes football worldwide together with FIFA), would it be okay? And the Members of Congress will accept that reduction of the country’s sovereignty by accepting something stated as not stated?

In an effort to contain the damage, FIFA has provided assurances that Brazil 2014 will enjoy a local flavor.

Inside World Football writes:

FIFA has respoded swiftly to accusations of “cultural terrorism” in Brazil and that they have interfered in the renaming of stadia and have banned street vendors from the vicinity of World Cup venues.

FIFA announced:

. . . we have reached an agreement that acaraje will indeed be sold inside the Fonte Nova stadium and your information regarding the baianas (the traditional sellers of acaraje) is not true. In fact they will be involved in the preparation and sale of the acarajes inside the stadium.

So far as the naming of the stadium in Brasilia is concerned, FIFA says Garrincha’s name was never on the stadium. A FIFA spokesman said:

FIFA has never and will never tell any stadium owner how to name the respective stadium.

I guess it will be some time before the true story is revealed. For now — and in the context of Cold War Studies — it’s enough to say that the forces shaping urbanization during the half century Cold War are still at play.

Furthermore, the past tells me that once an urban legend or a conspiracy theory takes hold, its very difficult to dislodge, especially in instances where the local and the global are in conflict.

__________________________________

Related posts:

Soviet Efforts in the Third World

Global Threats: Crime, Poverty, Terrorism

Photograph by Rodrigues Pozzebom (Agência Brasil) 

Global Threats

Today’s global threats are, in part, rooted in the urban growth that swept both the Soviet and Western camps during the half century Cold War.  Moreover, today’s challenges — crime, poverty, and terrorism — are quite different from those faced in last century’s ideological conflict with the Soviet Union.

As we have seen in previous posts, defense of  Western nations during the Cold War period fell largely on the shoulders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO. Today NATO remains important, but the defense against crime, poverty, and terrorism is more diffuse, less multilateral. For example, who is responsible for ensuring the public safety at a global event like FIFA’s 2014 World Cup? Does the obligation belong to FIFA, the host nation (in this case Brazil), the various municipalities where stadiums are located, or some nameless global defense organization? And has the accountability changed as a result of the terrorism in Boston that affected the widely attended Boston Marathon?

As most of us concede, the threat against urban areas has grown since the World Cup’s inception 83 years ago. And the various facets of urban development have changed also. A look back at urbanization during the period of Cold War rivalry is enlightening, providing a glimpse of the forces shaping the development of today’s megacities, targets for many current threats. Brazil’s cities are a good example.  As you can see in the graph below, Brazil’s population escalated rapidly during the Cold War period. Much of this population growth occurred in urban areas, so much so that by Cold War’s end in 1990, Brazil was 77% urbanized.

Cities, worldwide, grew at a rapid pace during the half century Cold War. Over the course of the conflict, the rate of urbanization in the developing world approached — and then exceeded — urban growth in the industrialized countries.

During the 1950s and 1960s (the first years of the Cold War), the proportion of global population in cities of 100,000 or more increased about a third faster in the underdeveloped regions of the world than in the developed ones. This growth trend reversed the urban momentum long held by First World cities.

In 1920, almost three-fourths of the worlds’s urbanites lived in western cities, while only a little more than a fourth lived in the less-developed regions. By 1990, in contrast, two-thirds of the estimated population in cities of five million or more lived in the Third World.

Much of the urban expansion during the Cold War period took place in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, the three regions that the two superpowers saw as most militarily significant.

Over the entire period, from 1950 to 1990, urban population grew by 604% in the Middle East, 449% in South-Southeast Asia, and 470% in Latin America.

Urban areas in the post World War II Third World didn’t develop in a vacuum. Although some were affected by the intense militarization surrounding the Cold War conflict, all cities in the developing world were subject to the same urban trends. And while differences in the Soviet and American models of urban growth and land use ultimately influenced the most important (and most closely affiliated) of their client states, many aspects of urbanization were shared in common by both the socialist and capitalist camps.

The Cold War’s Urban Problems

During the first half of the Cold War period, mutual concerns included matters associated with rapid urban expansion, particularly population growth leading to regional imbalance. Related anxieties included rural-urban migration, jobs, housing, and quality-of-life issues.

The early Cold War period — from the 1950s to the 1970s — was marked by the on-going marginalization of many urban areas and was a time when shantytowns and squatter settlements became visible to authorities, elites, and the urban population in general. Much of this marginalized housing is still with us. In fact, in the context of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, it is anticipated that “over 150,000 people will be evicted from their homes because of the World Cup.” Most of those evicted live in  favelas — Brazilian shantytowns that are being sanitized for image reasons.

SOLIDAR SUISSE, a non-governmental organization (NGO) supporting more than 50 projects in 12 countries, argues that

Relocations have already been carried out in all the major cities where World Cup matches are to be held — Sao Paulo, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Recife, etc. But the preparations for this large-scale operation have only just begun.

At kick-off time, an estimated 150,000 to 170,000 people will have been evicted from their homes. Whole neighborhoods must disappear to allow the construction of stadiums and infrastructure, such as roads or airports. On the other hand, the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics are being used as an excuse to “renew” whole parts of towns. To compare, Raquel Rolnik, UN special envoy for housing rights, spoke of 20,000 evictions in South Africa. There have already been eight times more in Brazil!

Of course, the World Cup is not the only culprit. Other large events worldwide have triggered similar actions and policies. In every such case, people are displaced  and relocated to

sites on the outermost borders of the cities, dozens of kilometers from their original places of residence. There are hardly any schools or health facilities there. Those who had jobs can often no longer get to them because there is not public transportation. There are almost no jobs in these places, and thus no chance of income. All this constitutes a violation of the right to adequate housing. Social networks are being destroyed, which makes it even harder for people to organize their lives.

Compensation is very low for a clearance of informal housing that is not 100% legal, which is the case for the majority of the housing in Brazil’s cities. The amount is woefully insufficient to allow people to live adequately elsewhere. The former inhabitants cannot afford to return to the new buildings. Those who fight back are forcibly evicted by the police or the buildings are torn down without warning. The profits of constructing the new buildings pass through to private hands. Raquel Rolnik speaks of massive land and real estate speculation. (SOLIDAR SUISSE)

In the second half of the Cold War, additional problems were observable. Capitalist cities, especially, concentrated on questions associated with the impact of debt, structural reform (frequently imposed in accordance with guidelines established by the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund), privatization, and the globalization of manufacturing. Questions surrounding capitalism and the contest between the local and the global will be discussed in future posts. Suffice it say for now that these issues were, at times, related to a debate over the role of cities as both consumers and producers. Interestingly, this discussion also had relevance in the socialist world.

Consumer and Producer Cities

Some scholars argued that cities in developing countries worldwide could be characterized as consumer centers where

collective consumption referred to forms of services collectively provided, usually by the state — mass housing, transport, health facilities, and so on.

In the capitalist case

the provision of such services was identified as a source of political mobilisation, as it spawned urban social movements, protest groups aiming to improve urban conditions through contesting the existing pattern of collective consumption.

In the socialist case

the task before policy-makers . . . [was} to convert them into ‘producer cities’.

This was seem as requiring a reduction in

the size of the largest cities (deurbanization), containing large-city growth and promoting the self-sufficiency of the urban economy, and encouraging the growth of small- and medium-sized towns and, where necessary, creating new towns.

[Havana (Cuba) is a great example of this policy approach.]

The Informal Sector

In both camps, the period from 1970-1990 became known as the era of the permanent informal sector after it became clear that “marginal sectors whether defined spatially, economically, politically, or socially were not about to disappear.”

Today, in most cities worldwide, these marginal sectors are entrenched. In Brazil,  preparation for the upcoming World Cup means that “street vendors fear for their livelihoods because the World Cup sponsors demand exclusive sales rights.”

The World Cup basic agreement plans exclusion zones around the stadiums and fan parks. According to StreetNet International, the federation of street vendors’ organizations, existing street vending licences in host cities have already been withdrawn or not renewed. In the tourist areas of the host cities, no new licences are being issued. . . Police repression in city centers has increased: vendors’ goods have been confiscated without compensation, and their stalls destroyed, they were fined, and there have been cases of physical violence. Furthermore, many street vendors have lost their sales locations in the inner city because of construction sites linked to the World Cup or to the Olympics. Displacement to the outskirts of the cities threatens their livelihood. Up to 300,000 street vendors may be affected by this. (SOLIDAR SUISSE)

To wrap up, regardless of economic or ideological underpinnings, urban concerns in the developing world converged throughout the Cold War period as neither socialist nor capitalist cities were able to devise policies to incorporate the disadvantaged. Many are now arguing that — so far as Brazil is concerned — it is FIFA’s responsibility to do what the United States and the Soviet Union were unable to accomplish. One such group says:

FIFA must finally face up to its responsibility and make a contribution to improving the living conditions of the Brazilian population. It must consistently commit itself to verifying that no human rights are violated or workers exploited. And it must not pocket all the profits, leaving Brazil with a mountain of debt.

I’d love to hear what you think. Comments are welcome.

During the Cold War period, global flows associated with the move from internationalization to globalization were gaining momentum.  The impact was especially strong on cities — especially in the less developed world.  Here, as a contest between the global and the local was surfacing, thought leaders began talking about social inversion, a process whereby individuals once thought of as marginal take over public space and services in the world’s urban areas.

Social inversion is not the same as contamination, an idea that dominated the early Cold War years. Contamination reflected the predominant belief that those who were marginalized and disadvantaged were undesirable inhabitants of urban environments.

In contrast, according to Richard M. Morse in his work on “Cities as People,” social inversion refers to a

people’s invasion that appropriates the city center, creates its own space for commercial activity, causes deterioration of tourist hotels and promenades, and in seaboard locations appropriates the beaches.  For the first time since the European conquest, the city is not an intrusive bastion against and control center for the rural domain. The nation has invaded the city . . . . Cities are now nodal points for the nation and not its citadels of control.’

In capitalist cases, the ‘people’s invasion’ could not occur in a vacuum. It was supposed to arise as a response to the austerity programs and structural adjustment policies imposed by global forces like the International Monetary Fund in response to demands for new borrowing and restructuring of past debt. Sound familiar? Take a look at these photos of what’s happening with the Euro crisis today. The problem now is that austerity is impacting the whole of society, not just those at the fringes.

There are lots of questions relating to both past and present. Regarding capitalist cities:

• Does the people’s participation in protest activity such as food riots, general strikes, or political demonstrations infer rejection of both the economic and political aspects of the neoliberal project.

(If you’ll remember, the neoliberal project was promoted by America’s liberal grand strategy during the Cold War conflict and supported by the International Monetary Fund. You can read more ‘grand strategy’  here.)

What about socialist cities?  In the case of Havana, a people’s invasion has reportedly materialized as a reaction to the collapse of Soviet grand strategy. You can read more about rural-urban migration in Cuba here.  Will social movements follow in Havana as in the capitalist world?

• What is the relationship between the global and the local in socialist cities?

And more broadly:

• Does the contest between the local and the global have universal significance?
• Or is the notion of globalization that is now being promoted a mask for the advancement of US interests worldwide?

If you’re interested in these questions, you might want to take a look at The Making of Global Capitalism by Sam Grindin and Leo Panitch. The book provides an in-depth account of the making of global capitalism through the organization of a global financial system under US hegemony throughout the Cold War period and beyond. I read the book over the recent holidays and learned  a great deal about the origins of the recent financial bust and the problems we’re facing now. It’s a challenging read though. Another illuminating book is Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World by Michael Lewis. It’s a lot shorter and easier to get through, but also illuminating.