As some of the world’s large cities turn themselves around and thrive — just 600 now account for two-thirds of global GDP — countless smaller and medium-sized cities, mainly in Africa, Latin America and Asia, are descending deeper into violence and becoming less liveable, a leading Latin American urban specialist says.
In a new paper in Foreign Affairs, Robert Muggah, research director at the Igarape Institute in Brazil, says anarchy now rules in some places.
“North, Central, and South America [are] home to a staggering 45 of the world’s 50 most dangerous metropolises. In some ways, fast-expanding cities such as Acapulco in Mexico, Caracas in Venezuela, Maceio in Brazil and San Pedro Sula in Honduras are harbingers of what’s to come in the rest of the southern hemisphere.”
The reason some cities spiral into perpetual crisis as others prosper may come down to mayors and city authorities, rather than to national governments, he says.
“The city and not the state will determine stability and development in the coming decades. Civic planners in the world’s largest metropolises have learned how to make urban spaces safer and more liveable, allowing cities to recover, thanks to new approaches to policing and social investment,” he says.
The first step toward making cities less dangerous and more liveable is improved communication.
“In some places, mayors have opened a lively dialogue with vulnerable communities about gang violence and factors that drive it, such as extreme income inequality, inadequate service provision and weak or corrupt police and justice institutions,” Muggah says. “This kind of honest dialogue is essential for identifying shared priorities and deploying scarce resources most efficiently. Mayors such as Enrique Penalosa in Bogota, Rodrigo Guerrero in Cali and Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles have all shown that a radical change of approach is possible.”
Another solution is to bring fragile cities together with healthier and wealthier ones to share experience. Twinning initiatives from the 1950s onwards partnered North American cities with war-damaged European ones to aid with reconstruction.
More recent initiatives have teamed US cities with African ones, Australian cities with those in the South Pacific islands and Canadian cities with Latin American municipalities. Large foundations are getting in on the act by contributing to initiatives that enable the world’s municipal leaders to share ideas and tackle broader international challenges.
“Strengthening cities requires greater attention not just to specific spaces, but also to specific groups of people. Young unemployed men with a criminal record are statistically more likely to violate the law than other residents who have not committed crimes. Indeed, only about 0.5 percent of people generally account for up to 75 percent of homicidal violence in major cities. But instead of locking up and stigmatizing young men, municipal officials should support them. Proven remedies include mediation to interrupt violence between rival gangs, targeted education and recreation projects for at-risk teenagers, and counseling and childcare support for single-parent households,” Muggah says.
“The most far-reaching strategy for strengthening fragile cities involves investment in measures to boost social cohesion and mobility. Investments in reliable public transportation, inclusive public spaces, and pro-poor social policies can go a long way toward improving safety,” he adds. “There are many examples of how to drive down crime, but Medellin provides the most convincing case of how to do it best. During the 1990s, it was the murder capital of the world. But a succession of mayors beginning with Sergio Fajardo turned things around by focusing their attention on the poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods. They connected the city’s slums to middle-class areas by a network of cable cars, bus transport systems and first-class infrastructure. By 2011, homicidal violence declined by about 80 percent, and in 2012, Medellin was named the city of the year.”
Muggah says there are signs that “new technologies can play a decisive role, too.” Information communication technologies are already closing the digital divide between and within urban centers. New smart cities that have begun to take advantage of these tools include Tanzania’s Kigamboni, which is an administrative ward of the capital, Dar es Salaam, Congo’s Cite du Fleuve, Kenya’s Tatu and Kozo Tech, Ghana’s Hope City and Nigeria’s Eko Atlantic developments.
In India, Muggah says, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced plans to create 100 smart cities over the next two decades, adding to India’s growing tally of “tech-friendly” urban centers like Ahmedabad, Aurangabad, Khushkhera, Kochi, Manesar, Ponneri and Tumkur.
“Investments in hard and soft technologies are fueling a virtuous cycle by supplying cities with yet more new talent and consolidating their place as hubs of innovation and connectivity,” Muggah says. “To turn fragile cities around, public authorities, businesses and civic groups must come to grips with the risks that will come with rapid urbanization, but also with the many available solutions. This means starting a conversation about what works and what doesn’t, and sharing these findings globally. Successful mayors in developing countries will need to use lessons learned around the world to solve local problems. The more proactive among them are already doing so.”
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS