National urban policies aim to address challenges of urbanization at a national scale through coordinated efforts. A proposed universal framework recommends that by 2030, one-third of countries should have formulated, implemented, and evaluated national urban policies. Key elements of successful policies include empowering local governments, fostering multi-level cooperation, and improving investment and quality of life in cities. Open questions remain around comparing policies across different governance systems and monitoring progress while respecting local contexts.

1. Towards a universal framework for National
Urban Policies
Dr. Rene Peter Hohmann, Cities Alliance Secretariat
Städtebau Kolloquium, 19 January 2016, University of Stuttgart

2. • Relevance of NUPs in International
Development
• Definition of National Urban Policy
• History of NUPs in OECD countries
• Snapshots of NUPs in urbanising countries
• Reflections on a potential global framework
for NUPs
Overview

3. Source: UN Habitat 2014
Relevance: Do National Urban Policies Matter?

4. Picture: Pablo Lopez Luz

5. 1. Scale of local investments needed clearly exceeds financial
capacity of local governments;
2. National interventions needed to rebalance the national system
of cities;
3. Integrated development approaches are often framed through
national regulatory frameworks and institutional environments;
4. Urbanisation and demographic/social pressures
5. Environmental hazards, degraded ecosystems, climate change
and resource inefficiency
Relevance: Do National Urban Policies Matter?

6. Source:
Relevance: Do National Urban Policies Matter?

7. Relevance: Do National Urban Policies Matter?

8. • ‘Urban Policy is essentially about the welfare of local residents in an urban
society’(Blackman 1995 :5)
• ‘Urban Policy includes any policy that is particularly relevant for cities’ (Glaeser
2011: 111)
• ‘Nothing more nor less tan the cluster of initiatives aimed at dealing with the
problem of cities or the inner cities’ (Cochrane 2007: 1)
• ‘Urban policy…is a practice of articulation that constitutes space, and institutional
practice that defines space’ (Dikec 2007: 4)
• ‘State activity [which] affects the use of space and the built environment’
(Fainstein and Fainstein 1982: 16)
• ‘a loose collection of policies aimed at addressing or mitigating the effects of
apparently distinctively urban problems’ (Thomas 2000: 57)
• ‘Urban Policy is…most fundamentaly about places…that is, urban settlements’
(Imbroscio 2013: 3)
Definitions

9. “The simplest definition is a government statement of what
it intends to do within cities and towns to make them
function better – economically, socially, ecologically and
institutionally – and to help them accommodate future
population growth more efficiently and equitably. It is
bound to be broad in scope, offers a vision of a better urban
future and encourages coordination across different
departments and spheres of government in order to ensure
that public and private investment decisions are
complementary, carefully-sequenced and connected in
space.” (Turok 2015)
Working Definition

10. Overview of NUPs in OECD countries
Source: OECD 2010
Further literature: Harding 2007

11. Snapshot NUPs: England
Source: Hohmann 2013

12. 12
Decay and
decline,
pessimism,
palliatives
Falling prices,
reinvestment,
nascent renewal
and
regeneration
Growth
pressure -
basic infra-
structure
Size, politics,
congestion –
growth control,
prices, dispersal,
neglect
Source: Turok 2014
Is there an evolutionary cycle in OECD countries?

13. SSA: Ethiopia, South Africa, Rwanda, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi
Mena: Morocco
Asia: South Korea, China, India
LAK: Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Brazil
Oceania: Australia
Source: UN Habitat 2014
National Urban Policies beyond OECD countries

14. National Urban Policies in Sub Sahara Africa
Source: Cities Alliance 2011

15. • Sustained support for NUP (since around
2000)
• Centralised government, but far-sighted
• Revised planning laws
• Strengthened technical capacity of govt
officials
• Improved financial arrangements
• Active process of planned urban expansions
• Green Growth is one of the pillars of the
Ethiopian Cities Prosperity Initiative
15
Snapshot: NUP in Ethiopia
Further literature:
MUDHCO 2014

16. • A pioneer of NUP in many respects
• Strong national recognition and commitment, e.g. in the constitution, statute, and national
ministry for cities
• Brazilian Constitution in 1988 : right to ownership to dwellers in non-claimed urban land for over
05 years + municipal autonomy.
• The approval by the National Congress of the City Statute in 2001: (i) attribution of land planning to
municipalities, (ii) recognizes the right of informal dwellers to remain in the land they already
occupy and gives instruments for municipalities to enable the regularization process and to reserve
vacant land in the city for low income housing.
• The creation of the Ministry of Cities in 2003, the public debate and launching of the National
Housing Plan, 2006 – 2008: projections for housing needs until 2023, typology of subsidies and
targets.
• Establishment of the National Conferences for Cities and the National Council of Cities – 2004 - a
deliberative body with representatives from civil society and government (private sector, social
movements, professionals, etc.). For: propose and approve new policies and plans.
• The launching and implementation of the Growth Acceleration Program – PAC SLUM UPGRADING
in 2007, establishing slum upgrading as priority investment area for the country, reach: 1.8 million
families.
• The launch of the subsidies program for low income housing in 2009 – “MINHA CASA, MINHA VIDA
- MCMV”, with a clear income segmentation, connecting up front subsidies and credit. Target: 4
million houses.
16
Snapshot: NUPs in Brazil
Further literature:
Martine 2010

17. • Remarkable experience of urbanisation
supporting economic growth and industrial
transformation
• Three phases: explicit spatial concentration
followed by attempts at dispersal and then
acceptance and focus on quality and
sustainability
• Infrastructure, land, skills, industrial policy
• Attempts to frame the national urban policy
under Green Growth Paradigm
17
Snapshot: NUPs in South Korea
Further literature:
KRHIS 2011

18. 1. NUP requires a political process of
mobilisation and sustained effort
2. A technical process of building institutional
capabilities, procedures and financial
instruments
3. Devolution of powers and resources to city
institutions
4. Focus on limiting extensive urbanisation
(sprawl)
5. Dense integrated development requires
focused effort/ joined up institutional
collaboration
6. High costs of retrofitting: Better to plan ahead
than to rectify afterwards
Early lessons: What did it take to formulate a NUP?
Further literature:
UNH/CA 2013

19. Old approaches New paradigm
Locus of decision-
making
National government City government in the context of multi-level
governance
Main policy goals Poverty alleviation
Social inclusion
Physical renewal
Improving sub-standard housing
Urban transformation defined as efficient,
inclusive and resilient urban development
Functional places to live and work
Productive use of land and other resources
Sustainable communities and ecosystems
Key policy tools Special funds to deliver better
public services
Property-led regeneration via
subsidies to private developers
Flagship projects
Deregulation
Investment in economic assets & enterprises
Proactive planning and management of land via
responsive legal frameworks
New financial instruments to invest in improved
public infrastructure
Government support for more capable city
governments
Main agents National government
Special purpose agencies
City governments in partnership with other
spheres of government (regional and national),
the private sector, and civil society (community
organisations)
Geographical focus Small areas of need Metropolitan regions
Timescale Short-term - problem response Long-term - prevention and preparation
Source: Turok 2014
So what? A paradigm turn in the formulation of NUPs?

20. • Convened by UN Habitat and OECD
Habitat III Policy Unit on NUP

21. Recommended Targets for Habitat III:
1. By 2020, 2/3 of the member countries will have initiated the
process for developing a NUP, or are reviewing their existing NUP
framework;
2. By 2025, half of the member countries will have formulated and
initiated the implementation of a NUP; and
3. By 2030, 1/3 of the member countries will have monitored and
evaluated their NUP.
Towards a universal framework: Recommendations of HIII Policy Unit Unit on NUP
Source: UN 2015
Recommended Indicators of Success:
1. The NUP answers nationally defined goals in the short, medium and long
term.
2. The vision of the NUP is mainstreamed into departmental programmes and
policies.
3. Measurability through access to adequate data sources that allow
comparison with a baseline scenario (M&E).
4. The use of participatory monitoring and evaluation techniques in order to
ensure an inclusive monitoring and evaluation process that is open to all
stakeholders (M&E).

22. Source: UN 2015
Towards a universal framework: Recommendations of HIII Policy Unit Unit on NUP
NUPs shall trigger key transformations:
1. Increased coherence of national and local policies affecting and
relevant to urban development (territorial/spatial impact of
national sectoral policies).
2. Empowering local authorities by building capacity, rebalancing fiscal
systems and giving legal and political mandate.
3. Empowering communities, grassroots organization, social and
traditional leaders and civil society at large by providing them tools
for monitoring and evaluating policies and increasing participatory
mechanisms in budgeting and/or policymaking process.
4. Improving investment in cities by improving business environment.
5. Fostering co‐operation and collaboration across jurisdictions by
overcoming metropolitan fragmentation and discouraging “race‐to the‐
bottom” competitions (e.g. regulatory competition, harmful
competition that prevents local governments from collecting
sufficient revenue).
6. Improved quality of life and well being (poverty, accessibility,
environmental quality, etc.).

23. Source: UN 2015
Towards a universal framework: Recommendations of HIII Policy Unit Unit on NUP
Key recommendations for action:
1. Considering the feasibility of NUP
2. Understanding the context: mapping institutional settings and key
stakeholders
3. Creating a national vision/strategy for urban policies
4. Reviewing and adjusting existing national legal, institutional and
fiscal frameworks and guidelines
5. Maximizing the use of technology (geo‐spatial and behaviour) to
help evidence‐based decision‐making
6. Establishing a participatory mechanism to facilitate policy dialogues
7. Establishing a global mechanism (e.g. intergovernmental panel) to
stimulate policy‐relevant research
8. Building capacity (human, institutional, financial and technical) at all
levels of government

24. Open questions
• Beyond apples and oranges: How can we compare policies
while acknowledging different polities, e.g. Federalist vs
unitary states?
• How to learn from research on cross-national policy transfers?
How to avoid ‘fast policy transfers’ (Peck 2002) without
contextualisation?
• How can the implementation of SDGs and NUPs in OECD and
urbanising countries be monitored while acknowledging
different local contexts and historical legacies?

25. Thank You
Stuttgart, 19th of January 2016
country programmes
knowledgetransfers
partners
members
needs
strategic
country
framework
gaps
advocacy
capacities
implementation
enable
cooperation
development
coherence
learning
communications
collaboration
effort
aligned
technical
partnership brokering