Challenges of G in Local Gov

All in all, the reality is that globalization is variously embraced, resisted,
subverted, and exploited as it makes contact with specific settings. In
response, cities are modified and reconstructed, rather than being effaced
or homogenized. In other words, despite globalization, ‘place matters’,
(Paul Knox 1997: 21).
Globalisation is a term not only continually contested but also
accompanied by processes undergoing constant transformation.
This enables proponents, as well as opponents, to refine and redefine
the terms of reference, factors and forces seen to propel such change.
It is also this specific feature of globalisation that has enabled
scholars to move from analysis of its macro to its micro dimensions.
This is both useful and interesting because hitherto the global–local
debate had proceeded on the basis of globalisation being equated
with the general, the necessary and the abstract, while the local
was associated with the particular, the specific, the contingent and
the concrete (Robertson 1992). As Ash Amin says, ‘There is a double
movement, of globalisation on the one hand, and devolution,
decentralisation and localisation on the other, which has been termed
as “glocalisation”’ (Amin 1994: 282).
Studies of globalisation increasingly emphasise the interconnections
and multifarious linkages according to which the ‘local’ becomes
an important focal point for social, political and cultural mobilisation
against perceived and present global threats (Teune 1995). This is
Challenges of Globalisation in
Urban Local Governance
Sudha Mohan
CHAPTER
1

120 The Politics and Culture of Globalisation
important because, while the general mechanisms and dynamics of
globalisation have been extensively analysed, the study of their
effects has largely been been at the nation-state level (Mittleman
1997). However, processes of localisation are gaining and ‘place’ is
acquiring a new significance. This emphasis on the local is an
important development, considering its neglect within political
science, which seems to suffer from spatial amnesia.1
It is also in this context of the local gaining prominence that the
term ‘governance’ needs to be understood. Governance was first
problematised in a 1989 World Bank document on Sub-Saharan
Africa that suggested that the Bank’s adjustment and investment
programs in that area were being rendered ineffective by a ‘crisis of
governance’ (World Bank 1989). It is useful to understand the issue
of governance as part of a larger intellectual and political process
focused on recasting the relationship between the state, society and
development in a globalising world. However, the question of
governance is predominantly related to the ‘urban’ level, as it is
here that globalisation is most intensely felt. Interestingly, Bob Jessop
has coined the term ‘glurbanisation’ to denote this spatially bound
process of multiple intersections (Jessop & Sum 2000). Canadian
political scientist Warren Magnusson, who has for many years worked
on the theory of local governance, states that it is ‘the municipality
that is at the boundary between the state and civil society, the centre
and the locality, social disciplines and everyday life’ (Magnusson &
Walker 1988; Magnusson 1996). There is also a body of theoretical
and empirical work that examines the relationship between global
restructuring and urban governance that argues and the current
round of global restructuring involves changes in the institutions of
urban governance (Geddes 2005).
The city thus becomes the site at which the forces of the local and
the global meet. It is also the site where the forces of transnational
capital and local labour markets enter into conflict. As Saskia Sassen
writes, ‘the city has indeed emerged as a site for new claims: by global
capital which uses the city as an organizational commodity, and also
by disadvantaged sectors of the urban population. The denationalizing
of urban space and the formation of new claims by transnational

Challenges of Globalisation in Urban Local Governance 121
actors involving contestation raise the question—whose city is it?’
(Sassen 1998: xx).
In this chapter, I will examine firstly whether globalisation
processes have led to transformations at the local level. Have new
kinds of social and political institutions emerged at the local level;
have new ‘spaces’ been created for the mobilisation and articulation
of concerns, issues and demands by local people? Secondly, I will
examine local proactivity, or the ‘new localism’, which has led to the
regeneration of local governance, in particular, and localities, in general.
Thirdly, I will explore how globalisation poses formidable challenges
for urban local authorities, and fourthly, the changing dynamics of
governance under globalisation given political contestations,
developments and interactions at the local level. Globally, networks
of people’s organisations have increased in strength and significance.
Turning from the global to the local, other types of networks that
help connect global resources to local issues and initiatives have
gained ground. Finally, if we are to understand the dynamics of
globalisation and respond constructively, enhancing the positive and
minimising the negative consequences of this ever-changing process,
we need a more finely tuned study of globalisation. I turn to this
issue in the last section of this chapter.
GLOBALISATION AND LOCAL TRANSFORMATION
Changing power structures have provoked debate about the
ramifications of globalisation and the value, nature and future of
nation-states. The long-held assumption that politics can be represented
in a single, unified political space has also been challenged. Scholars
like Richard Stern focus on the significance of local space, local politics
and governance in the light of three major trajectories: the development
of civil society, local democratisation, and politics in a global context
(Stern 2000). ‘One-size-fits-all’ accounts of globalisation have
become redundant, the new analysis of globalisation rekindling
interest in working through solutions to the question of governance.
When globalisation meets the local, what actually seems to
emerge is far from the picture of homogenisation that many theorists

have proposed. Rather, interesting new possibilities for fusion and
creativity seem to emerge. Many studies of globalisation have not
paid sufficient attention to the local context, yet it is evident in
many developing countries that organisations, both government and
non-government, shape the local environment and transform political
and social life at the local level. Scholars like Roland Robertson—
arguing that the local and the global need to be delineated as two
interdependent elements in a universal process— use the term
‘glocalisation’ to illustrate their dialectical interrelation. The term
suggests the importance of local actors and their impact, negative
or positive, on a city’s growth prospects (Robertson 1992: 30). It
also points to the urban setting and the management, coordination
and promotion of local development which adopts particular stances
with respect to global terms of reference. In short, ‘glocalisation is
globalisation plus proximity’ (Borja & Castells 1997: 214).
Globalisation, then, is a dialectical process: local transformation
is as much a part of globalisation as the lateral extension of social
connections across time and space. New demands are unleashed for
regional and local autonomy as groups find themselves buffeted by
global forces. Globalisation generates substantial social and cultural
resistance because of its uneven reach and, in some cases, marginalising
consequences within and between countries and states. However,
globalisation has been countered in many developing countries, not
only by building decentralised political and administrative alternatives,
but also through initiatives at the local level.2
Globalisation has an impact on ‘space’ in general and on the
local urban polity in particular. It has compelled local officials to
reconstruct relations between horizontal and vertical linkages and
to reconsider basic governance issues, creating a new kind of local
urban politics.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ‘SPACE’
The present increase in the extent and impact of global
interconnectedness, its new intensity and instantaneity inevitably
brings about a compression and significance of space and time.
‘Space’ has therefore gained importance: ‘[I]t is like the physical

container of direct, personalised, non-commodified relations which
acts as a buffer against the market’ (Chandhoke 1991: 2872). It is
also important to note how international attention has been drawn
towards this issue. For example, Entering the 21st Century: World
Development Report, 1999/2000 focuses on the two clusters of
change—globalisation and localisation—as they have preoccupied
policy makers throughout the world. It recognises these important
forces as raising new challenges, but also new opportunities for
revitalising the local. This report also recognises the importance of
the local for raising levels of participation and involvement, and
for providing people with greater ability to shape the contexts of
their own lives. Localisation, it asserts, can lead to decentralised
government, where decisions take place closer to voters, and may
lead to more responsive and efficient local government. It is here
that vertical structures of power are ‘horizontalised, democratised
and rerooted locally in the political, social and economic organisations
of the people themselves’ (World Bank 2000a: 173).
Processes that allow people to have a voice in defining and
diagnosing their own problems have more practical relevance and
become part of the overall development process. True participation
of the people is a prerequisite for development and democracy.
However, participation in just the electoral sense of voting is no
panacea for problems at the local level. For local development to be
sustainable and for local democracy to be substantive, the involvement
of non-elites is crucial. Interestingly, Jon Pierre views partnerships as
‘instruments of governance’ (Pierre 1998: 20). Public institutions are
compelled to be more sensitive to public needs where there is local
pressure from below. As Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen have pointed
out, in India, local democracy is a highly neglected institutional
basis of political participation and therefore redress can be more
effectively achieved through local activism (Dreze & Sen 1996: 89).
The Case of Mumbai: Compelling Change at the Local Level
In Mumbai it is evident that growth as such has not led to an
improvement in the lives of urban dwellers, and especially slums
dwellers, marginalised as they are by processes of liberalisation and
globalisation. As a consequence there seems to be a growing realisation

that development policies need to involve actors from a number of
sectors across civil society, namely non-government or civil society
organisations. Government can play a vital role building partnerships
across the different levels. More broadly, it has been recognised
that the various social and political processes surrounding urban
development are just as important as policies and programs.
Consequently, initiatives around partnerships and collaborations
have increased since the 1990s to support and supplement the efforts
of government. Communities, too, have organised themselves at
the local level because resistance to global disparities calls not just
for global and national efforts but also local ones. Such resistance
engages the neo-liberal agenda of privatisation, deregulation and
liberalisation in an intelligent and effective manner. In fact it rejects
the neo-liberal version of globalisation, just as it rejects the idea
that nations should cut themselves off from the rest of the world
(Mohan 2005a).
Change is compelled at the local level in the wake of several
forces. However, the political dimension is emphasised here, with a
focus on how local government is being reshaped today under changed
conditions. In this light, we might observe that progress towards
India’s national objectives is nowhere near as advanced as might
have been expected since the beginning of the reforms, either with
respect to the objectives sought or the resources expended. Indeed,
these goals have not succeeded in generating what Rajni Kothari
calls a ‘development process’ (Jain 1985: 14). If experience is any
guide to action, India’s half-century of experience should signal a
warning against things ‘big’, whether in industry, business or
government. It is at the local level, in small-scale change and new
social groupings, that scholars like Henry Tuene have identified a
‘second democracy revolution’, with national centres being ‘attracted’
from above by the global and ‘pulled’ from below by the local (Teune
1995: 8).
NEW LOCALISM AS NEW POLITICS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
New localism is unlike conventional local government politics. It is
about working around and transcending the prevailing institutional

structures of democracy and raising new issues that electoral politics
cannot adequately represent (Sethi 1994), in the process bringing
about new forms of political interaction. This new politics is oriented
towards change at the sites of local living—the micro-level. It is
centred on shared experiences in spheres of life hitherto regarded
as trivial and hence previously relegated to the periphery. New
localism therefore heralds the possibility of new political opportunity
structures that are flexible and dynamic enough to reflect the
economic, social and political changes under way. New localism
can be seen as micro-level experiments and movements. Ponna
Wignaraja’s work, though it does not specifically use the term ‘new
localism’, shows how a tremendous mobilisation of people for change
in one form or another may not always achieve the proportions of
a movement, but may nevertheless empower the poor and vulnerable
through a mix of activities, ideologies and operational methodologies
(Wignaraja 1993). Political developments under new localism are
not isolated from state and national politics. They are linked
vertically to the political, institutional and organisational structures
of governments, and horizontally to the associations and organisations
of civil society. In fact what emerges is a new kind of localism that
gives rise to horizontal–vertical connectivity across and between
state and civil society. The vertical dimension includes the ways in
which central, state and local governments are reorganised and
rearranged and are compelled to redraw their relationships with
each other, while the horizontal dimension includes a redefinition
of responsibilities between the state and the civil society sector at
the local level. In this context, the work of certain organisations
that have been silently but significantly working on urban issues is
to be commended, for instance Annapurna, a women’s organisation
that had its beginnings during the textile strike in Mumbai; Nirmaan,
which basically works for the rights of construction workers; and
Suvidha, which has been providing public facilities in slum areas
(Mohan 2002).
This changing set of relationships both horizontally and vertically
creates spaces for new groups and coalitions. It is undeniably true
that the communities occupying these local spaces more often than
not collaborate. They associate and partner in a relational web where

the fine threads of reciprocity and shared community are the links.
There are examples of many urban initiatives in several areas that
are testimony to the fact that local civic mobilisation is not only
possible but feasible.
The rationale for new localism is therefore to be found in the
fact that it enables individuals to more directly participate and thus
control events that affect their lives. It is seen as the opposite of
remote decision making or the resolution of complex matters at a
distance. This new kind of action is sometimes referred to as ‘new
cosmopolitanism’ (Sach 1992: 102). New cosmopolitanism seeks to
amplify the richness of a place while keeping in mind the complexities
of a multi-faceted world. It cherishes a particular place yet at the
same time knows about the relativity and relatedness of all places.
Generally, there seems to be an increasing emphasis on the
importance of place and place-based phenomena.
New localism, then, refers to the assertion of local diversity as a
universal right. It questions the assumption of uniformity. It is,
by definition, part of the contradictory dynamic of globalisation,
being a protective response by which communities try to avoid
marginalisation in the wake of globalisation. In other words, it is
an attempt by local communities to negotiate their social, political
and economic futures with the political system.
Raison d’Être for New Localism
The political rationale for new localism is not based only on community
values, nor even necessarily on a locational logic. It also includes
the instrumental use of localism as a political strategy to circumvent
or replace the outmoded structures of central bureaucracies. The
economic rationale for new localism emerges from globalising and
restructuring processes through which localities gain a heightened
awareness of their enhanced roles. Finally, ‘going local’ does not
mean being isolated from the outside world, but rather nurturing
the locality and using the resources, skills and strategies of local
people. Localism is not about supremacy, isolation or assimilation.
Contrary to widely held views, just as there is nothing inherently
progressive about globalisation, there is also nothing inherently
backward-looking about localism. Localism has to do with where

decisions are made and the principles that guide those decisions.
These are enduring issues that will and should remain central to
social and political life (Mohan 2005b).
National Politics: Too Big and Too Small Simultaneously
Under compulsion to do so, and due to circumstances beyond its
control, the Indian government has reoriented its development role
and redefined its administrative functions and priorities. Indeed the
state has been forced to respond to a range of challenges thrown
up in increasingly difficult circumstances. The Indian government
first introduced structural adjustment and liberalisation programs
in mid-1991 in an attempt to restore macro-economic stability and
create new development opportunities. The thrust of the reform
process was to increase economic efficiency and international
competitiveness—opening up the market to foreign investment and
technology, with the aim of gaining a competitive edge in the
globalising economy. However, given India’s socio-economic
circumstances, the process could not be restricted to the freeing up
of market forces and a reduction in the role of the state (Jain 1996),
and in the context of new economic policy the question of the role
of the state emerged, giving rise to various perspectives. Despite its
reorientation, the state has had to promote development dynamics
to benefit the poor and disadvantaged. Indeed accountability to the
poor has sharply come into focus as a result of reform preoccupations
with economic efficiency, international competitiveness and opening
up of markets to foreign investment sidelining issues of equity and
distributive justice.
India’s economic reform and liberalisation processes have important
implications for governance. Recent research has concentrated on
the shift towards a market economy and the rise of new socio-
economic groups. Niraja Jayal and Sltdha Pai highlight this as one
of the most significant recent developments in Indian society and
politics (Jayal & Pai 2001).
While national politics is still crucial for the future of the country,
for citizens this level of decision making is removed from daily life
and its associated problems. National institutions, too, have become
somewhat isolated from issues at the local level. As pointed out

earlier, national politics has become too big for the small issues
that constantly emerge locally. Thus people are effectively using
their franchise to achieve their desired results, with voting tending
to oscillate between parties so as to yield the best results. In other
words, when people find themselves unable to control their own
worlds they shrink the world to the size of the localities and
communities over which they do have some control.
In this ever-changing situation the organisations of civil society
have emerged as a fourth sector in the formulation and implementation
of political and economic decisions.3 In many Asian countries, real
decision-making power used to be monopolised by politicians,
technocrats and the business elite. This pattern has receded in the
face of mass mobilisation by labour organisations and environmental,
human and social rights groups, often working in coalition. In short,
such developments associated with new localism present opportunities
for democracy, both vertically and horizontally (Mohan 2005c).
Changes of this kind at the urban local level are sometimes referred
to as the ‘politics of presence’ of strategic actors in the globalisation
process, again pointing to the relevance of working coalitions in local
urban settings (Phillips 1996). This process has been one of the
most challenging in terms of changing the dynamics of governance.
THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF GOVERNANCE—
CHALLENGES FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER
GLOBALISATION
Governance is the deliberative mechanism or process for making
authoritative political choices. Although it defies simple definition,
in a more plural political world with more complex societal
problems, good governance involves sharing decision-making power,
encouraging citizen autonomy and independence, and initiating
processes for developing the common good through civic engagement
(Mohan 2006).
As mentioned earlier, governance was first problematised in a
1989 World Bank document on Sub-Saharan Africa, which suggested
that the Bank’s adjustment and investment programs were being
rendered ineffective by a ‘crisis of governance’. Governance was

defined as ‘the manner in which power is exercised in the management
of a country’s economic and social resources for development’.
Earlier views emphasised the economic content of both development
and governance, at best only partially acknowledging the political
context of the crisis of governance in the developing world (World
Bank 1989). After 1995, the World Bank’s position seemed to change
marginally on issues relating to the role of the state in development,
where it acknowledged the role of the state as being a ‘partner,
catalyst and facilitator’ (World Bank 1997).
Governance began to be used as an effective tool for this purpose,
notably in various participatory development processes, where
government came to be seen as but one, albeit very significant, actor
among many. This redefinition of governance stems in large part
from the fact that governments were unable able to fulfil the goals
of development. In urban areas in the developing world, the inability
of local government to provide basic services and infrastructure is
starkly visible. With rapid growth of urban populations, the
limitations of urban local government have become even more
pronounced. Five areas seem to be of critical importance. Firstly,
decentralisation has not been seriously implemented, and excessive
controls exercised by higher levels of government have negatively
impacted local government’s capacity to carry out its functional
and financial responsibilities. Secondly, the rapid growth of cities,
and the inability of local government to cope with increased demand
for services, has led to impairment of local government functions.
Thirdly, a mismatch of functional powers and financial resources
has meant that urban local governments have not been able to meet
high citizen expectations. Fourthly, in many countries there is a
conflict of interest between the local bureaucracy and elected
representatives. This is particularly true of Mumbai. Fifthly, at the
city level, the organisational structure is highly centralised and the
management style very bureaucratic. It does not have a customer
orientation and lacks vision (Mohan 2006).
Apart from these challenges there are other serious obstacles for
local government. These various problems are bound to grow to
alarming proportions unless the Indian government devises strategies
to overcome them in a sustainable manner. First and foremost is

the development of large infrastructure projects now underway in
most urban areas. They are usually promoted by different branches
of government and administration agencies and are often poorly
coordinated, resulting in completion delays and sometimes total
controversy.4 The second issue is real estate capital, a huge private
market mired in corruption in most urban localities, and most
certainly in cities like Mumbai. Real estate capital seeks to maximise
its profits through the development of large housing areas, with
the promise of relocation for urban slum dwellers. More often than
not, however, the rules are flouted and the promises broken (Mukhija
2001). The third problem for urban local government is the challenge
posed by organised citizen groups.5 Cities have increasingly become
focal points for international investments, the communications
revolution and new patterns of production and consumption, but
it is here too that competing claims by different classes of people
are made on the city. These phenomena have been responsible for
shaping discourses relating to governance and globalisation.
THE STATE ‘REFORMED’ (RATHER THAN REPLACED);
GOVERNMENT ‘REORGANISED’ (RATHER THAN REDUCED)
It is apparent from these political developments that the state—
from the national to the local level—needs to be reformed to enhance
and widen its capabilities. In this connection it is pertinent to point
out how pessimism and cynicism have in the past been responsible
for undermining any spirit of innovation and efforts at regeneration.
As James Manor argues, pessimism and political decay have made
it ‘difficult for us to recognise just how remarkable this enduring
capacity for regeneration in India is … but there is need to acknowledge
the politics of optimism’ (Manor 1996: 236). The development of
new social forces over a period of time could lead to a new
progressive political period. There is a growing political awareness
within the local sector, and there have been some local successes
with new grassroots strategies. However, there is also an increasing
realisation of the need to move from protest (the traditional political
method to voice demand and concerns) to concrete collaborative
proposals that have well-defined political programs.

Despite inefficiency, compromise and corruption, the state cannot
be wished away. Nor will it wither away. The political dangers of
ignoring this are as important as the need for local participation,
community empowerment and the strengthening of civil society. In
fact micro-movements have begun to voice a new discourse on
democracy, seeing globalisation as undermining and de-legitimising
institutions of democratic governance. These movements have
reinvented participatory democracy as a form of social action and
political practice (Sheth 2004; Mohan 2006). Even if a wider
‘development model’ is not the objective of small efforts at the local
level, the ability of communities and organisations to organise
themselves, to assert their identity and to improve their living
conditions, cannot be ignored or undermined. This process, however,
depends on the particular local context and the experience and skills
available. It seems true indeed that ‘developmental wisdom is lodged
not in government bureaucracies, but in local communities and
interests’ (Hayden 1996: 4). It is abundantly clear that local
communities are keen to collaborate and join together around
common issues and problems, using their own strategies and local
skills to negotiate with political and administrative structures for
tangible results. In this connection it is worth bringing to notice the
valuable report, Attacking Poverty (World Development Report
2001). A background study conducted for this report sought the
views of more than sixty thousand people living in poverty in sixty
poor countries. The results show that people are interested in moving
from strategy to action. They believe that public action will make
state institutions more responsive to them, and that only state–
community coalitions can foster rapid development and better
service delivery.
According to Anthony Giddens, this kind of relationship among
aggrieved groups is a possibility because societies and individuals
are becoming more aware of themselves and their environments. In
changing circumstance they are also forced to make active choices
and to rethink their responses in each new situation (Giddens 2001).
Indeed, effective participation of people in several urban initiatives
compels us to look beyond the macro-institutional level of parliaments
and elections and to consider instead the intermediate and local

institutions and consultative interactions made possible at that level.
It is at this interface, between state and society, where ‘everyday
forms of democracy either flourish or flounder’(Heller 2000). These
kinds of mutually empowering relations, between political and social
forces or state and society, create genuine political opportunities
for both. Nevertheless, as Atul Kohli has argued, while such mutually
empowering situations have emerged in local politics in some Indian
states, it will take time, conviction and devotion for them to develop
nationally (Kohli & Shue 1994).
It is in this context that governments find themselves being
reorganised, though this is not to say that their role or relevance is
any less. This is a very useful and rewarding experience at the local
level, with many civic innovations taking place at the local urban
level. Civic innovation is not rooted in charity or social welfare,
but rather in the mobilisation and involvement of the local people
in the process of addressing civic issues and solving problems. The
state does not just wither away but rather is reincarnated in myriad
forms and on many spatio-social levels. This does not mean that
the state now is everywhere, or that all politics is inside states. Yet
many of the traditional functions of nation-states are now displaced
onto lower- or upper-level state institutions that either did not exist
previously or have been fundamentally altered in the innovation
process. Globalisation makes states, but different kinds from the
ones we have been used to. This argument has been highlighted in
most of the works that have been examined in this chapter.6
A recent work reiterates this point in a vigorous call to develop
a cosmopolitan post-colonial urbanism, in the sense of conceiving
all cities as sites of modernity. This does not diminish the stark
differences between places that are differentially connected to
networks across the globe, and it does not ignore the different
challenges cities face as a result of uneven development and unequal
resources. Yet these differences, according to Robinson, need not
be the foundation for ordering cities hierarchically, viewing more
privileged places as sites of modernity and all others as evidence of
that modernity through their depiction as atavistic or primitive
(Robinson 2006).

CONCLUSION
In this chapter I have attempted to examine how globalisation has
led to new kinds of transformation at the local level. I have argued
that when globalisation is modified by its contact with the local, it
shapes the local environment, drawing out responses that transform
political and social life at that level. Global interconnectedness has
not only brought about a compression but also a new salience of
space. It has led to new processes of political interaction oriented
towards change at the sites of local living. This new localism has
enabled both vertical and horizontal linkages between government
organisations and the associations of civil society, in other words,
producing new modes of governance at the local level. There are
formidable governance challenges, too, posed for urban local
authorities. New social forces have emerged and grown in strength,
with organised citizens groups making new claims on the city. These
developments have been responsible for shaping discourses relating
to governance and globalisation.
The political discourse that pompously proclaims the ‘end of
ideology’, history and so on, cannot really stand the test of time.
This is mainly because it refers to a particularly western experience
attempting to universalise itself in such statements, bypassing
discourses and practical experimentation at the local level. It is
important to combat such hegemonic notions that history is dead
and that the market will deliver social justice. They are challenged
practically in the myriad changes and contests I have outlined,
pointing to how actions at the local level are constantly critiquing
the existing political, social and urban order. These actions have
highlighted the inadequacies of existing systems and have, into the
bargain, offered alternatives ways of thinking and acting. These
new developments suggest that there is a need to bridge state power
and civil society activism, especially in the local arena. Only this
kind of interface will create a ‘new balance between authority and
accountability, decentralising government and increasing the political
responsiveness of private institutions to those who work in them
or are affected by them’ (Hirst 1996: 105).

What is required in an ever-changing world is not the mastery
of a whole gamut of complex issues, but responses to local issues
by both the people and government. The government and the
governed will have to deal with specific sets of problems and goals in
specific local circumstances. Such micro-political activities constitute
a new version of what is called ‘situation-specific politics’, which
increasingly relies on ‘local knowledge and local actions’. It involves
a multitude of potentially converging activities and is a decisive
component of the fragility of modern society (Feenberg 1995: 37).
A country of a billion people cannot forever adhere to a given
political hierarchy. The endless diversity of this vast society needs
to be articulated in multiple platforms by a plurality of actors and
sectors. When the views of people from different practical and
theoretical positions converge, not only on questions but also on a
sense of where the answers might lie, a new ‘agenda’ is born. It
seems that solutions to current ills may involve rebuilding beyond,
as well as within, formal politics.
NOTES
1. This is especially true of India, where local government had
received scant attention until the passage of the 74th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1992. This Amendment attempts to re-structure political
governance by devolving a constitutional status to local bodies, thus making
India a three-tiered federation. There is also the long-held notion that ‘India
lives in its villages’. Though this certainly was a reality, another actuality
that was completely ignored is the fact that India lives in its cities too, with
one out of every three Indians living in an urban area, a fact borne out by
the 2001 census (Mohan 2001).
2. For a detailed and interesting analysis of changes taking place in
Latin America and South Africa, see Rodrigues et al. (1995) and Swilling
(1997) respectively.
3. Apart from the first sector—formal political institutions viz.
legislature, executive and judiciary; the second—the public-sector; and the
third—market/private institutions; the fourth—civil society organisations—
has started to actively interface with the other three.
4. Mumbai Urban Transport Project is referred to as Mumbai’s
unending transport problem. For more details, see www.technology.com/
projects/mumbai_urban/mumbai_urban1.html-8k>

5. For an account of such citizen efforts see chapter five of Mohan
(2005b).
6. For an interesting account of civic innovations see Alan Flower (1999)
and Roger Keil (1998).
REFERENCES
Amin, A. (ed.), 1994. Post Fordism: A Reader, Blackwell, Oxford and
Cambridge.
Borja, J., and M. Castells, 1997. Local and Global: Management of Cities
in the Information Age, Earthscan, London.
Chandhoke, N., 1991. ‘The Post-Colonial City’, Economic and Political
Weekly, 31(50): 2868–73.
Dreze, J and A. Sen., 1996. Economic Development and Social
Opportunities, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Feenberg, A., 1995. Alternative Modernity, University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Flower, A., 1999. ‘NGDOs as a Moment in History: Beyond Aid to Social
Entrepreneurship or Civic Innovation’, Third World Quarterly, 21(4):
647–54.
Geddes, M., 2005. ‘Neo-liberalism and Local Governance: Cross-National
Perspectives and Speculations’, Policy Studies, 26(3–4): 360–77.
Giddens, A., 2001. The Global Third Way Debate, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hayden, G., 1996. ‘Civil Society, Social Capital and Development: Dissection
of a Complex Discourse’, Studies in Comparative International
Development, 32(1): 3–25.
Heller, P., 2000. ‘Degree of Democracy: Some Comparative Lessons from
India’, World Politics, 52(4): 484–519.
Hirst, P., 1996. ‘Democracy and Civil Society’, in P. Hirst, and P. and S.
Khilnani (eds), Reinventing Democracy, pp. 97–116, Blackwell, Oxford.
Jain, L.C., Krishnamurthy, B.V., and P.M Tripathi, 1985. Grass Without
Roots, Sage, New Delhi.
Jain, R.B., 1996. ‘Globalisation, Market Economy and Human Security’,
Indian Journal of Public Administration, Special issue on Liberalisation
Policy and Social Concerns, XLII(3): 309–20.
Jayal, N., and S. Pai (eds), 2001. Democratic Governance in India:
Challenges of Poverty, Development and Identity, Sage, New Delhi.
Jessop, B., and N. Sum., 2000. ‘An Entrepreneurial City in Action: Hong
Kong’s Emerging Strategies in and for Inter-Urban Competition’, Urban
Studies, 37(12): 2287–313.

Keil, R., 1998. ‘Globalization Makes States: Perspectives of Local Governance
in the Age of the World City’, Review of International Political Economy,
5(4): 616–46.
Knox, P., 1997. ‘Globalization and Urban Economic Change’, Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 551(1): 17–27.
Kohli, A., and V. Shue (eds), 1994. State Power and Social Forces: Domination
and Transformation in the Third World, Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Magnusson, W., 1996. The Search for Political Space, University of Toronto
Press, Toronto.
Magnusson, W., and R. Walker., 1988. ‘De-centering the State: Political
Theory and Canadian Political Economy’, Studies in Political Economy,
26(37): 96–123.
Manor, J., 1996. ‘Political Regeneration in India’, in D. Sheth and A. Nandy
(eds), The Multiverse of Democracy, pp. 230–41, Sage, New Delhi.
Mittleman, J., 1997. Globalisation: Critical Reflections, Lynne Reinner,
London.
Mohan, S., 2001. ‘Revitalisation of Urban Local Governance, with special
reference to the 74th Constitutional Amendment’, in N. Mody and K.
Raman (eds), Revitalisation of Indian Democracy, pp. 205–15, Allied
Publishers, Mumbai.
2002. ‘Role and Relevance of Civil Society Organisations in Mumbai’,
Indian Journal of Political Science (Special Issue on Civil Society), 63(2–
3): 193–211.
2005a. ‘Between Privatisation and Participation: Basic Services in
Mumbai Metropolitan Region’, in S. Klaus, S. Raiser and V. Krister
(eds), Public Problems—Private Solutions? Globalizing Cities in the
South, pp.191–206, Ashgate.
2005b. ‘Political Transformations and Capacity Building: Civil Society
Networks and Civic Engagement in Mumbai’, in S. Raiser and V. Krister
(eds), Civil Societies in the Globalizing Cities of the South, pp. 11–24,
Free University, Berlin.
2005c. Urban Development and New Localism, Rawat, New Delhi.
2006. ‘Issues, Challenges and the Changing Sites of Governance: Self-
organising Networks in Mumbai’, Journal of Governance and Public
Policy, 1(1): 25–40.
Mukhija, V., 2001. ‘Enabling Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai: Policy
Paradox in Practice’, “Click to go to publication home” Housing
Studies,“Click to view volume” 16(6): 791–806.
Phillips, A., 1996. ‘Dealing with Difference: A Politics of Ideas, or a Politics

of Presence?’ in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting
the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 13–52, Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
Pierre, J., 1998. Partnerships in Urban Governance, Macmillan Press,
London.
Robertson, R., 1992. Globalisation: Social Theory and Global Culture,
Sage, London.
Robinson, J., 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development,
London, Routledge.
Rodrigues, A., Espinoza, V., and H. Herzer, 1995. ‘Argentina, Bolivia, Chile,
Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay: Urban Research in the 1990s—A
Framework for Analysis’, in R. Stern (ed.), Urban Research in the
Developing World, Volume III: Latin America, pp. 211–73, University
of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Sach, W., 1992. ‘One World’, in W. Sach (ed.), Development Dictionary,
pp. 1–7, Zed, London.
Sassen, S., 1998. Globalization and its Discontents: Selected Essays, New
Press, New York.
Sethi, H., 1994. ‘Some Notes on Micro Struggles, NGOs and the State’,
Alternatives, 3(1–2): 45–58.
Sheth, D., 2004. ‘Globalisation and New Politics of Micro-Movements’,
Economic and Political Weekly, 39(1): 45–58.
Stern, R., 2000. The Growing Importance of the Local, Centre for Urban
and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Swilling, M., 1997. ‘Building Democratic Local Urban Governance in
Southern Africa’, in M. Swilling (ed.), Governing Africa’s Cities, pp.
211–73, Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg.
Teune, H., 1995. ‘Preface’, Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Sciences (Special issue on local governance around the world),
540: 11–23.
Wignaraja, P. (ed.), 1993. New Social Movements in the South, Vistaar
Publications, New Delhi.
World Bank, 1989. From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Bank, 1997. The World Bank Report, World Bank, Washington,
DC.
World Bank, 2000a. Entering the 21st Century: World Development Report,
1999/2000, Oxford University Press, New York.
World Bank, 2000b. World Development Report, 2000–2001: Attacking
Poverty, Oxford University Press, New York.

Challenges of G in Local Gov

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Challenges of G in Local Gov

Similar to Challenges of G in Local Gov (20)

Challenges of G in Local Gov