The impact of urban governance structures and practices on public green space provision : exploring barriers to urban sustainability from an urban governance perspective through the lens of public green space provision

(1)

Exploring Barriers to Urban Sustainability from an Urban

Governance Perspective through the Lens of Public Green Space

Provision in Bangkok

Sabrina Halkic (10664181) MSc International Development Studies

The Impact of Urban Governance Structures

(2)

Abstract

This thesis explores barriers to urban sustainability through the analysis of public green space provision in Bangkok, Thailand. In order to do so, the concepts of urban governance and decentralization have been combined to identify the underlying causes of urban issues as well as the involved actors working under these conditions. The combination of both allowed for an integrated analysis of urban governance and decentralization dynamics’ impacts on urban sustainability.

The research itself had two primary focuses: first creating a holistic understanding of the governance structures and practices, then presenting a contemporary case study to emphasize the recent changes in the local governance context.

Findings reveal that underlying urban issues have been influencing the public sector substantially and eventually have led to private sector domination of urban development, which came with citywide market-orientation and a loss of collective goals. Nevertheless, contextual practices, such as the substantial royal influence on urban development, were identified as major drivers for sustainable development that have been compensating for the weak public and civic sector in the past. Moreover, recent changes in the governance structure through civic involvement and resistance have been acting as the starting point for further change in urban governance practices and hence improved urban sustainability and resilience.

Accordingly this research suggests an integrated approach that is cultural sensitive and incorporates contextual understanding to produce more sustainable outcomes, and that the urban governance approach in combination with the concept of decentralization can be indispensable to create an integrated approach.

(3)

List of Acronyms

ASA Association of Siamese Architects

BMA Bangkok Metropolitan Administration

BMAPD Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Planning Department

BMR Bangkok Metropolitan Region

CPB Crown Property Bureau

DPW Department of Public Works

DPWTCP Department of Public Works and Town and Country Planning

DTCP Department of Town and Country Planning

MOI Ministry of Interior

NESDP National Economic and Social Development Plan

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PPO Public Parks Office

SRT State Railway of Thailand

TALA Thai Association of Landscape Architects

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

(6)

List of Figures

FIGURE 2.1:ACTORS OF CONTEMPORARY GOVERNANCE ... 12

FIGURE 2.2:INFLUENCE OF CONTEXTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE LOCAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ... 17

FIGURE 3.1:MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS ... 24

FIGURE 5.1:PARKS BY OPENING YEAR IN BANGKOK ... 57

FIGURE 5.2:PARK SIZE BY OPENING YEAR ... 57

FIGURE 5.3:OWNERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE BMA ... 58

FIGURE 5.4:OCCASIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PARKS ... 59

List of Images

IMAGE 4.1:BANGKOK’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ... 34

IMAGE 5.1:BANGKOK’S OPEN SPACE PLAN ... 52

IMAGE 6.1:THE MAKKASAN AREA FROM ABOVE ... 62

IMAGE 6.2:MAKKASAN’S GREEN POTENTIAL AND ITS SWAMP ... 63

IMAGE 6.3:COMMERCIAL ZONING OF THE MAKKASAN PROPERTY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ... 64

IMAGE 6.4:FACEBOOK POSTING ABOUT THE MAKKASAN AREA BY MAKKASAN HOPE ... 66

List of Tables

TABLE 4.1:KEY ACTORS IN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ARENA,BANGKOK ... 33

(7)

1 Introduction

1.1 The Challenge of Governing Urban Growth in the 21st Century Nowadays, more than 54% of the world’s population lives in urban areas, making the twenty-first century the century of urbanization (UN, 2014). Currently about three billion people are living in cities and although urban population growth is a global phenomenon, almost all prospective increase in global population is expected to happen in cities of the Global South (Cohen, 2006). Current estimates expect an increase of 2.5 billion urban citizens by 2050 with a 90% increase in Asia and Africa (UN, 2014). Although urbanization levels in Asia are low in comparison to other regions in the world, urbanization in Asia is proceeding much faster and by 2030 more than half of the world’s urban population will reside in Asian urban regions (Cohen, 2006). In many cases, on-going urbanization and especially the breakneck speed of growth have outstripped cities’ capacities to cope with environmental and social challenges (Marcotullio, 2001). The rapid growth is frequently compromising environmental and ecosystem qualities and the quality of life of urban citizens and thus poses one of the major challenges for sustainable urban development (Cohen, 2006). Furthermore, increased global mobility of investments and resources has led to a competition between urban centres, where cities are competing to maintain their attractiveness for investments and mobile resources vis-à-vis other cities (Logan, 2002). This is challenging sustainable urban development even more due to an imbalance between market-orientation and collective goals (Ooi, 2009; Peters and Pierre, 2012).

Environmental degradation as the result of rapid urbanization and competition between cities, in combination with the increasing recognition of the fact that the world’s environment is volatile and largely unpredictable with possibilities of natural disasters and climate change (Leichenko, 2011) have led to the understanding that cities need to improve their resilience to cope with these stresses. This has turned managing urban growth into one of the most important challenges of the 21st Century (Cohen, 2006). It confronts urban governments with the formidable task to seek a viable balance between social, environmental and economic interests and qualities, whilst at the same

(8)

Unsurprisingly, many cities around the world and especially in the Global South struggle with this task. Governing authorities often find it hard to strike a balance between social, environmental and economic interests and to deliver sustainable growth patterns, a higher quality of life, and resilience along the way. Considering the vast array of distinct urban management approaches applied throughout the world and the many different outcomes produced (Marcotullio, 2001), it becomes crucial to understand how urban management and governance processes and dynamics influence the success or failure of sustainable urban development in cities.

In response to this development, the concept of urban governance has attracted the attention of academics, policymakers, consultants and civic organizations to understand how urban governance can be more effective. Furthermore, through the efforts of various International Organizations, such as the World Bank or the UN (World Bank, 1992; UN Habitat, 2002), the concept of urban governance has become prevalent to improve city management, especially in the Global South.

Nevertheless, universal recipes for bettering urban governance frequently do not go far when applied to concrete cases since the way urban development is governed and the factors that shape, affect and impede with urban governance vary widely between cities around the world. This indicates that a one size fits all urban governance approach is not likely to be effective (Ooi, 2009). Increasing the effectiveness of urban governance in cities will require a tailor-made approach built upon a deep understanding of the multi-various conditions and factors influencing urban governance in a specific context. Only on the basis of such a thorough understanding of local conditions it will be possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of current governance systems and, consequently, solutions to increase the effectiveness of urban governance.

1.2 Bangkok – A Case in Point

Against this background and inspired by the larger tasks defined above, this study seeks to identify the main actors and factors shaping, affecting and impeding urban governance in Bangkok, Thailand.

(9)

Bangkok has experienced dramatic growth rates in the past that have allowed for an unsustainable city to emerge (Logan, 2002). Through the fast rapid growth and little planning measures Bangkok evolved into a mega urban region, the Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR). The BMR contains almost half of the urban population in Thailand (Atkinson, 2001), hence it is the centre of economic activity and development in the country (Webster and Maneepong, 2009). However, this increased economic activity has had its negative sides, such as increasing real estate prices, traffic congestion and the deterioration of the environment (Dahiya, 2012).

Moreover, the competition between cities globally but also in the East-Asian Region influenced the development trajectory in Bangkok (Dahiya, 2012). Government expenditure “has been geared to facilitate international links and bring in capital” (Logan 2002: p.224), which led to the construction of mega-infrastructure projects in the city, e.g. toll roads and elevated railways.

The citywide congestion has been influencing the air quality in Bangkok, which, however, has improved in the last decades but is still among the worst in the world. Especially the lead levels, which cause blood poisoning and affect children’s development, exceed the acceptable standard in Bangkok (Marcotullio, 2001). Furthermore, air quality has been continuing to deteriorate since “[i]ncreases in vehicle ownership […] have outpaced economic growth, doubling every three years in Thailand” (Marcotullio 2001: p.589) and led to an increase of carbon monoxide in the air. This has been affecting the urban environment and the health of urban dwellers substantially.

According to the Climate Change Vulnerability Index, Bangkok is the world’s 3rd most vulnerable city to the effects of climate change (Maplecroft, 2013). A clear illustration of this was presented by the monsoon flooding in 2011, which was caused by mismanagement of the country’s major dams and thus resulted in more than 45 billion dollars damage across the country (Bloomberg, 06.07.12).

Although sustainable development as a concept has been present in Thailand’s policies, i.e. in the Eighth National Economic and Social

(10)

impacting the balance between economic, environmental and social interests in the city (Atkinson, 2001).

This development suggests that urban management and governance structures have not been in place to support sustainability in the city. Intended policies and plans frequently have not been materializing, which can be drawn back to a series of factors such as a lack of implementing powers by the local authorities, low administrative capacities and the city’s market-orientation (Roachanakanan, 2007). Moreover, decentralization processes have led to more responsibility for local authorities without the adequate transfer of resources and decision-making power (Ferarra, 2001), which has been exacerbating the situation even more. Consequently urban governance in Bangkok can be argued to be less than effective in delivering a sustainable, inclusive growth trajectory and in building resilience in the face of threats posed by climate change (Chan et al., 2011).

1.3 Examining Governance Through the Lens of Public Green Space Provision

One field that highlights Bangkok’s inability to steer the city towards a more sustainable development trajectory is the provision of public green space in the city, which is abysmally low with about 1.8 m² per capita (Thaiutsa et al., 2008) and hence far below the Asian benchmark of 15 m² per capita (Siemens AG, 2013). Moreover, in order to mitigate environmental threats the World Health Organization (WHO) is recommending at least nine m² of urban green space per capita (Thaisutsa et al., 2008). Besides their environmental importance in fostering air and water purification, noise filtering and microclimate stabilization, public green areas also increase the quality of life in cities (Chiesura, 2004) since “Bangkok’s green areas and urban forest are critically important in improving its livability” (Thaiutsa et al. 2008: 220). By capturing biotic and abiotic aspects of urban life, they do not only improve the city’s resilience towards environmental threats but also the quality of life of urban dwellers (Chiesura, 2004; Schäffler and Swilling, 2013). Furthermore, publicly accessible green space

(11)

“fulfills many social functions and psychological needs of citizens, which make urban nature a valuable municipal resource, and a key ingredient for city sustainability.” (Chiesura 2004: 137)

Although the local government, which is the responsible authority in this case is working on improving its sustainable policies by focusing on green issues and providing more green space throughout the city (PPO, 2013), the city’s ambitiousness to stop environmental degradation and consequently improve the quality of life does not reach too far (Ratanawaraha, 2010). This can be drawn back to urban governance issues, which are prevalent in the case of Bangkok and thus hinder sustainable development in the long run. The vast amount of involved actors, managerial, institutional and political problems as well as decentralization processes have all impacted the current governance structure and thus the low public green area ratio per capita which in the long run decreases the city’s resilience and its scope to cope with environmental problems.

Consequently, to understand the influences behind a sustainable and more resilient urban structure in Bangkok, Bangkok’s poor public green space record will act as a lens to uncover the factors that are impeding with effective urban governance in this world city of eight million.

1.4 Objectives of the Research

This study seeks to identify the main actors influencing urban development and the factors shaping, affecting and impeding urban governance in Bangkok. The apparent failure of those governing urban development to provide any reasonable amount of public green space offers an example by which to analyse the governance dynamics in the city.

Hence the aim of this study is the exploration of the following research question:

(12)

To answer this question urban governance structures and dynamics in Bangkok and an overview of the governance structure will be provided, followed by the analysis of the provision of public green space so far and contemporary developments surrounding the creation of new public parks.

The main objective in answering the research question is to identify the underlying causes that have hindered sustainable development in Bangkok in the past and to contribute to a better understanding of the contemporary governance situation (Leichenko, 2011). Consequently it will be possible to identify governance problems that impede with sustainability and quality of life in cities and thus to increase resilience in urban environments in the long run.

Furthermore, this study is theoretically as well as practically relevant. Firstly, in regard to theory, the study provides a stronger framework to analyse current urban development processes by incorporating decentralization theory into the urban governance framework. Through the synergy of both concepts a more holistic understanding of factors and dynamics shaping urban development is created, which can be used for further research in this field. Secondly, findings from this study produce practical knowledge that might be used to change current development patterns and dynamics in other cities with similar conditions, which may influence policy formation in the long run. Hence insights gained through this research will be used to provide recommendations for the unique challenges of South-East Asian urbanization and on a larger scale also on the agenda of global sustainability.

1.5 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is divided into seven chapters, which first of all provide a discussion of the theoretical background before presenting the study’s findings and concluding with a synopsis of the research findings, policy recommendations and implications for further research.

Chapter Two begins with the provision of the research background by discussing the concept of urban governance. Thereafter the importance of decentralization processes concerning urban governance structures is added to understand the critical role of decentralization measures in shaping urban governance dynamics. The chapter concludes with the fusion of both

(13)

concepts, which allows for a holistic analysis of urban development problems and their underlying causes.

Chapter Three introduces the detailed research design and process used to conduct this study. The introduction of the research questions is followed by the research design. Afterwards the research process is introduced, summarizing the process of data collection and the research methods used. Lastly, limitations impacting the research are outlined to create a more transparent picture of the research process.

Chapter Four, Five and Six contain the empirical analysis of this study. In chapter Four urban governance dynamics in Bangkok are outlined by introducing the key actors, the underlying causes of urban issues influencing the urban governance arena and the decentralization processes in Thailand. The chapter concludes with a summary of both, urban governance and decentralization processes in Bangkok and their combined impact on the formal management of urban development in the city.

Chapter Five follows with the analysis on the provision of public green space in Bangkok. Responsible authorities, their resources and collaborations with other actors are identified, followed by an analysis of existing public parks. Furthermore, this chapter concludes with the prevalent issues impeding urban green space provision in Bangkok.

Chapter Six introduces the Makkasan case study that provides an interesting opportunity to analyse the contemporary interplay between the governance stakeholders and the contextual dynamics influencing this particular case. A summary of the barriers and new opportunities in the governance arena concerning the Makkasan case concludes the chapter and thus offers a more integrated understanding of contemporary urban governance structures impeding the provision of public green space in Bangkok and sustainability in the long run.

Chapter Seven discusses the central findings of this study and provides a final summary of the research analysis. Thereafter policy recommendations, which can contribute to more effective city management and eventually better urban resilience and global sustainability, are outlined.

(14)

2 Literature Review & Theoretical Framework

This chapter discusses the theoretical background that serves as the framework of analysis for this study. In order to understand the major factors and dynamics that affect the performance of local governments in dealing with urban development problems the literature suggests the perspective of urban governance. The urban governance perspective embraces both, the stakeholders and institutions in urban politics and captures the heterogeneity of the urban political network by including civil society into the framework. Furthermore it emphasizes the importance of the relationships between actors and the managerial and political constraints these relationships are set in.

To complete the framework, the concept of decentralization is added. It provides a view on institutional reforms and their effects, while focusing on the role of the central government and its influence on the local authorities.

2.1 Urban Governance

2.1.1 The Rise of Urban Governance

The concept of urban governance has become an important framework to analyse urban development, both on a practical and academic level. Rapid urban growth, which frequently resulted in ineffective management of cities since the growth rate outpaced the administrative, institutional and financial capabilities of cities, is especially prevalent in developing countries (Obeng-Odoom, 2012). Hence, the local authorities were often not able to provide adequate urban services and protect the environment from degradation. In order to handle urban growth, to solve urban issues and to promote local productivity, cities’ capacities had to be improved (Kokpol, 1998).

Moreover, structural adjustment programmes introduced by international organizations during the 1980s focused on decreasing costs at every administrative level by reducing public expenditures and subsidies for public services (Chan and Hu, 2004). Especially local urban governments had to adjust to receiving fewer resources from the central authorities, which frequently led to the mobilization of financial resources through privatization.

(15)

Lastly, decentralization measures were introduced in most developing countries during the 1970s and early 1980s. Newly formed local authorities were now responsible for managing high-paced urban growth, often without the adequate expertise, authority and resources to govern effectively (Logan, 2002).

Given these circumstances, a new concept was required to capture the cities’ complexity, namely urban governance. Governance in the Global South owes its rise to international development actors, such as the UNDP and the World Bank, who have been promoting governance as an important factor for effective management since the 1990s (OECD, 2001).

Additionally to the global scale of governance, research focusing on the local level of governance has been getting more and more popular because it offers an attractive approach to understand the complexity of cities and their modus operandi (Kearns and Paddison, 2000). As the concept is still relatively broad, the attempt here is to define a framework for the analysis of urban governance problems.

2.1.2 Defining the Concept

In order to understand the concept of urban governance it will be crucial to look at the definition of the concept itself. The word governance is not a novelty. It has its roots in Latin and can be traced back to the 14th century, where it was used to describe the manner of guiding, governing or steering conduct (Jessop, 1995). The concept of governance is also not particularly new (Kearns and Paddison, 2000). According to Pierre (1998) governance as a socio-political phenomenon has existed as long as government itself but it has been changing over time through the creation of new values and the introduction of new actors to the framework. However, it was the World Bank (OECD, 2001) that emphasized the importance of governance in the provision of sustainable growth in its study of Sub-Saharan Africa in 1992, making it the leitmotiv of various international donor agencies and a popular concept in academic research.

(16)

governance is “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” (World Bank 1992: 3). The World Bank provided a very broad definition that focused mostly on the administrative and governmental framework while ignoring political aspects of governance (Williams and Young, 1994). The focus was on improving the operation of government, which led to a very narrow definition of governance that was basically equated with the term government. Later on the concept of good governance was used by the World Bank to describe a more accountable, capable and transparent government (Williams and Young, 1994).

Other Western bilateral donors added the political dimension of governance to the concept. They have been focusing on different types of various regimes and saw democratization, human rights and civilian freedom as important parts of good governance (Obeng-Odoom, 2012).

The academic perspective on governance is more or less neutral and opens the concept to other stakeholders by abandoning the state-centred perspective. This means that governance does not equate to government since the concept does not prejudge the focus or character of decision-making processes (Jessop, 1995). Other actors, such as civil society and the private sector, are included in the governing relationship since the political power to manage resources is not limited to governmental institutions anymore.

McCarney, Halfani and Rodriguez (1995) see the role of civil society, which includes the civic and private sectors, and the relationship between the governmental authorities and civil society as the focus of governance. The public sector, however, does not lose its role since it is still involved in shaping urban processes by providing organizational control and supervision (Raco, 2009). This implies that governance does not mean government anymore, however, “governance without government” (Jessop, 1995) can be understood as an exaggeration (Pierre, 2011).

Urban governance is mostly used in this broader meaning, concentrating on the various actors and their relationships with the governmental authorities in the urban context. According to Peters and Pierre (2012) urban governance defines “the formulation and pursuit of collective

(17)

goals at the local level of the political system by various actors” (p.2) and breaks with the tradition of common definitions of urban politics, which have a clear understanding of the central actors in the process of defining collective goals. This does not only include formal relationships between stakeholders but also informal ones, which are becoming a more important element in the state-citizen relationship.

New Dimensions: Inclusion of Other Actors and Influences

The concept of governance broadens the scope of actors and includes civil society into the decision process. This was not the case in former concepts such as the urban management approach, which focused on the governmental side of effective city management. The urban management approach sees urban issues mostly in institutional and managerial terms. Moreover, the most important factor to overcome urban problems in the management framework is to strengthen governmental authorities through various administrative reforms and financial mobilization, often combined with privatization (Obeng-Odoom, 2012). However, this concept proved too narrow to cope with problems in developing countries because it is lacking a political dimension that includes the participation of other actors (Obeng-Odoom, 2012). Therefore urban governance can be seen as an alternative to the management framework by including civic stakeholders into the framework.

Civil society became extremely important in the light of structural adjustment programmes that led, as mentioned above, to a cutback of public financial resources, decentralization measures and eventually to a poor urban management performance of local institutions. In order to compensate for the poor performance of governmental institutions, civil society grew stronger and started to undertake certain duties of the governmental agencies (Kearns and Paddison, 2000). This led to a shift in the balance of power and took social responsibility away from the official governmental institutions towards the new actors in the governance matrix as a response to the incapacity of state agencies (Chan and Hu, 2004).

(18)

“an arena outside the state sphere, comprising both organized and unorganized sectors, in which their existence and roles, with or without interaction with the state, have an impact on the functions of cities.” (p.56)

To do so, the actors take over social and economic functions within the urban context. The private sector provides urban services instead of the public authorities and NGOs introduce poverty alleviation and social welfare programmes (Gosh and Kamath, 2012). However, civil society also has a political importance in the city due to its ability to voice demands towards the government and thus influence the governance situation (Martin, 2004). This is affiliated to the emerging middle class in developing countries that has been experiencing improved education and consequently rising incomes. Furthermore, improved access to information has been leading to a new and more vocal middle class that expects better urban services and a responsive governance structure with a larger degree of participation (Birdsall, 2010).

Figure 2.1: Actors of Contemporary Governance (Source: Author’s Own)

Public Sector (Local, National) Private Sector Contemp-orary Urban Governance Civic Sector (Formal, Informal)

(19)

Pierre (2005) argues, taking the capabilities of cities into account, that the urban challenges have been overwhelming and that cooperation between the public, the private and the societal sector will eventually enhance the local government’s capabilities to act.

The literature also discusses the political power of urban movements and establishes that social movements and community groups are nowadays able to negotiate with local as well as national governments, which often results in the improvement of basic needs for the affected people. The role of the local government shifts from services delivery, which is now operated in collaboration with the private or civic sector, to coordinating and steering the actions of institutions and other actors in the governance arena (Kemp and Parto, 2005). This development can be seen as a reaction to the society’s increasing complexity, which is frequently challenging the institutional capacities of cities nowadays. However, the public sector still remains a key actor in the governance field albeit being mostly the coordinator and not the sole provider of public services (Raco, 2009).

Given these circumstances, research on urban governance structures cannot elude the importance of civil society, especially if a holistic understanding of the topic is required. Through the governance approach it is possible to see all actors, informal or formal, state or non-state, and their interactions among each other as important influences on urban development (see Figure 2.1).

2.2 Causes of Urban Issues: Managerial and Political Issues

The causes of urban problems can be divided into two sectors. On the one hand there are managerial problems that are concerned with inadequate resources and institutional weaknesses of local institutions and on the other hand political issues, such as the access to resources and the distribution of power between the various stakeholders, play a crucial role (Pierre, 2005).

(20)

Davey et al. (1996) identify three basic requirements that need to be in place to effectively manage cities: (i) the establishment of laws and their enforcement, (ii) efficient development planning and implementation and (iii) urban service delivery and maintenance. These three factors are frequently lacking in urban regions of the Global South.

Moreover, institutional weakness in general can be seen as the most important cause of environmental degradation in developing countries (UNDP, 2007). This also applies to the incapacity of local authorities to enforce environmental regulations, which makes enforcement issues an important factor for the failure of environmental policies in developing countries. Additionally, institutional constraints such as the administration system, the administrative capacity and urban financial issues need to be considered. The Administrative System

Firstly, the administrative system frequently faces jurisdictional problems due to fragmentation of authority and allocation of responsibilities on various scales and governmental authorities (Peters and Pierre, 2012). This leads to coordination problems, duplication and thus increases inefficiency in the long term. This also applies to development planning, especially when trying to solve environmental problems that are not restricted by boundaries, such as environmental degradation through air and water pollution.

The Administrative Capacity

Secondly, the administrative capacity plays a crucial role. In order to achieve organizational goals, factors such as the internal organizational structure, human resources and strong leadership need to be in place (Block and Paredis, 2013). Responsibilities among authorities need to be divided thoughtfully, and the division of labour as well as the chain of command need to be clear in order to increase efficiency (Peters and Pierre, 2012). Moreover, capable staff that are able to work independently and strong political leadership are crucial to the administrative capacity. Especially administrative leadership needs to be strengthened, meaning that not only strong leaderships are important to improve administrative capacity but also critical to control influence over politicians in the administration.

(21)

Financial Capital

Thirdly, financial capital is central for local authorities to enhance their capabilities. Financial problems in urban regions of developing countries are a major constraint since the cities revenues play a crucial role for the urban economy. According to Peters and Pierre (2012) cities are in this situation because they have been trying to attract businesses by offering low taxes and other incentives. A strong local economy means jobs for the city’s residents and revenues through taxes for the local government, what consequently gives the private sector a privileged position in the urban governance arena (Pierre, 2012). This has been leading to a high interdependence between the public and the private sector, however, the city’s administration is frequently more dependent on the private sector than vice versa, which leads to an imbalance between market forces pursued by the private sector and collective goals pursued by the public sector (Keivani and Mattingly, 2007). These financial troubles also extend to taxation of city residents, which often is not established or not enforced in the Global South (Peters and Pierre, 2012).

Furthermore, decentralization processes have also been leading to a critical financial situation for local governments due to the transfer of responsibilities without the transfer of adequate resources (Norton, 1994). Financial problems eventually make local governments dependent on financial transfers from the central authorities, which limits the autonomy of local institutions and their ability to govern in the long run (Kemp and Parto, 2005).

2.2.2 Political Constraints

Inadequate resources and managerial problems are critical factors for sustainable development, however, focusing alone on these factors will not be enough to create a holistic understanding of the complex problems cities are facing nowadays. According to Kokpot (1998: p.59) “[s]trengthening [the] management capacity in no way guarantees a representative, responsive and accountable urban government.” Especially political factors such as public participation, transparency and accountability as well as leadership issues

(22)

affect the relationship between local authorities and civil society negatively and should therefore be considered in an integrated analysis.

Moreover, democratic shortcomings of the governmental authorities in the Global South, such as the lack of public participation and accountability as well as the absence of consistent political will to set and pursue goals, frequently lead to urban stagnation (Chan and Hu, 2004).

Local governments also struggle to achieve balance between the increasing influence of other actors and their external resources and simultaneously maintaining their important role as a coordinator in the governance process (Kemp and Parto, 2005). This balance is frequently weak, giving other actors, especially the private sector, opportunities to influence public policy as they wish. This is leading to a situation where political and democratic control is challenged, which is especially prevalent in developing countries (UN Habitat: 2002).

Moreover, through alliances in the urban governance field traditional democratic values, such as transparency and accountability, are challenged. This does not mean that they get lost, but their meaning is changed. In the urban governance arena accountability refers more to performance and less to representation. Also, the definition of goals is less tied to collective objectives of the polity but to the complex reality of the cities (Peters and Pierre, 2012). Furthermore, through the broad mobilization of diverse actors, popular input gets limited. Nevertheless, the formed partnerships do enhance the city’s capacities and therefore their capabilities to act but they come at a price of leadership, which can be seen as a threat to democratic values (Chan and Hu, 2004). Also, result-based accountability is getting more important, whereas input-based accountability is decreasing (Obeng-Odoom, 2012). This does not come without problems due to complex governance structures, which make it hard to identify the responsible authorities for specific decisions and developments (Stoker, 2002).

(23)

Figure 2.2: Influence of Contextual Circumstances on the Local Public Authorities (Source: Author’s Own)

Weak institutions and managerial inefficiency as well as ineffective and unrepresentative urban authorities all play a critical role to understand the circumstances urban governance structures are based on (see Figure 2.2). Without understanding these constraints it would not be possible to capture the complex structures of urban systems.

2.3 Decentralization

To understand the issues of local authorities in dealing with urban problems it is important to discuss decentralization processes, which often pose problems in countries of the Global South. The urban governance framework discusses decentralization indirectly by emphasising the importance of local autonomy, however, it does not explain how decentralization processes influence the performance of local urban authorities. In order to answer that, the decentralization concept and its various application modes will be discussed in this section.

Local

Public

Authorities

Managerial

Problems

Insitutional

Problems

Political

Problems

(24)

2.3.1 History of Decentralization

Decentralization in the Global South began in the 1950s. The first transition to decentralization can be ascribed to the transition from colonial countries to politically independent ones (Conyers, 1983). During the 1970s, the emphasis on decentralization measures by international organizations and bilateral donors grew strong since the concept was seen as a means to development (Rodinelli, 1980).

However, these decentralization measures frequently turned out to actually expand the central governments influence on the local level, meaning that instead of devolution, deconcentration of power was taking place (Rodinelli, 1980). This led to limited success of decentralization measures in the Global South since deconcentration and delegation were the most present forms of decentralization until the 1980s.

In the early 1980s the focus changed and emphasized the devolution of power to the local authorities. This was not only supported by international organizations and donors but can also be linked to the accomplishment of democracy movements in the Global South, where decentralization measures played an integral part of reforming the governmental system (OECD, 2001). Furthermore, during that time global and transnational flows have increased the competition over capital and goods between cities, a problem, which was previously dealt with on the national level (Kearns and Paddison, 2000). These implications of globalization also increased the need for efficient and responsive city governments. Moreover, at this stage the decentralization concept also included civil society as a critical factor for success, which made the concept more realistic since it was capturing the increasingly complex urban reality and its various actors (Gosh and Kamath, 2012).

Since then decentralization measures have been implemented in most developing countries and while in many cases they have bolstered the local level, they have to be regarded with caution. Hidden agendas and motives are frequently playing an important role and thus influencing decentralization reforms, since most of them have a political nature and open up spheres for corruption and central governmental intervention (Haque, 2010). This means that even though structural changes can be identified in most countries of the Global South, it is not certain that these will help local authorities to cope with

(25)

urban issues. Moreover, decentralization processes in developing countries can be seen as the transfer of responsibilities to local governmental institutions, without the transfer of decision-making power and resources, leaving local governments without the necessary capabilities to handle urban problems (Logan, 2002).

Although the outcomes described above are frequently negative, the concept of decentralization is critical in order to understand the performance of the local urban governments since the form of national decentralization massively influences the success or failure to manage urban development effectively. In order to do so, a definition of decentralization will be necessary.

2.3.2 Defining Decentralization

Decentralization can be understood in different ways; however, the classical meaning refers to the territorial distribution of power. Through the process of decentralization national territory is divided into smaller parts and political and administrative authorities are created for those areas (Smith, 1985). This definition focuses on the territorial aspect of decentralization whereas others also emphasize the importance of the political sphere, meaning that with the transfer of authority there should also be a transfer of decision-making power (Obeng-Odoom, 2012).

There are various increments of decentralization, such as devolution of power to local institutions as well as deconcentration of power to various national governmental authorities. Also delegation of particular duties to state-owned enterprises can be classified as a specific form of decentralization (Davey et al., 1996). In the last decades decentralization was not limited to governmental institutions but has also included the outsourcing of tasks to the private sector, which frequently resulted in the privatization of public services (Obeng-Odoom, 2012).

(26)

One of the most used definitions of decentralization is provided by Rondinelli (1980) who defines

“the transfer of responsibility for planning, management, and resource-raising and allocation from the central government to (a) field units of central government ministries or agencies; (b) subordinate units or levels of government; (c) semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations; (d) area-wide regional or functional authorities; or (e) NGOs/PVOs.” (p.135)

He also defines four different categories, which entail devolution, deconcentration, delegation and eventually privatization. The most decentralized form is devolution, which emphasizes the creation of independent local institutions that have enough political, legal and financial scope to govern their cities autonomously (Kearns and Paddison, 2000). Deconcentration, on the other hand, does not contribute to an autonomous local government but rather to the increase of central governmental domination at the local level since decision-making powers are not transferred in the process (Rondinelli, 1980).

The Role of the Central Government

To address urban issues properly, the concept of decentralization emphasises the role of the central government to understand the whole system of local government. According to the decentralization concept urban development does not only depend on governance structures but especially on the division of power between the local and central governmental institutions. And since the central government determines the transfer of political but also legal and financial resources to the local authorities, the role of the central government needs to be the focus of the decentralization model.

As described earlier, central governments are frequently not willing to transfer power to local authorities. Haque (2010) argues that this is due to the fact that central governments do not want to lose any decision-making authority or power. Also, decentralization measures are often introduced to

(27)

spread governmental costs onto various levels of administration, without actually transferring power.

The Local Context

Currently most of the models are one-size-fits-all solutions, which miss important factors such as the history of centralization, the local power structure and the legacy of elitism, all being connected to central governments practices. It is important to take determinants such as “the country’s past tradition of centralization, [the] atmosphere of bureaucratic polity, and local political elitism” (Haque 2010: 673) into account to understand the failure or success of decentralization policies.

2.3.3 Problems: Local Autonomy and Central-Local Relations

When looking at urban problems through the lens of decentralization, the literature identifies two variables that affect the local government’s ability to manage urban issues effectively: local autonomy and central-local relations. Local Autonomy

According to Fleurke and Willemse (2004)

“decentralization and local autonomy are treated as two sides of the same coin, a highly decentralized political system also means a lot of local autonomy, and vice versa.” (p.525)

The term refers to a local administration that is able to manage and make its decisions independently, with little regulation from the central authorities. Moreover, independent local institutions and authorities are believed to increase efficiency and accountability and strengthen democratic systems (Fleurke and Willemse, 2004). Also, local autonomy of urban governments leads to better urban management, since local authorities are closer to urban issues than central governments, indicating a better understanding of local problems.

(28)

However, a lot of developing countries have been experiencing decreasing autonomy and more and more influence of the central governmental authorities onto the local level (OECD, 2001). Factors such as (i) functional fragmentation, (ii) fiscal dependence on central funding and (iii) excessive administrative control over local authorities have impacted the management of urban affairs by local governments substantially. Especially administrative control, such as lengthy revisions and approval processes by central governmental authorities frequently result in an inefficient administration, delay implementation and reduce the responsiveness of local authorities to local needs tremendously (Davey et al., 1996).

The Central-Local Relations

The central-local relations have a formal and an informal side. On the formal side, the influence of the central government on legislative, judicial and administrative issues can be immense. However, there are also informal channels, such as party membership, grants and communication channels that can be used to influence the local government’s ability to work (Harpham and Boateng, 1997).

Furthermore, the literature suggests that the central-local relationship is working both ways, seeing local governments not only as recipients but also as negotiators (Davey et al., 1996).

2.4 In Conclusion

The urban governance perspective is a useful approach to understand the underlying causes of urban problems. By including civil society into the framework it adapts to the current complexity of urban stakeholders and their relationships to each other. Furthermore, it points out the important role of civil society at the urban level and their influence on the local public authorities. Nonetheless, the urban governance framework also emphasizes the importance of managerial and institutional constraints that limit the urban stakeholders actions and therefore result in ineffective solutions for urban problems. However, the urban governance model does not incorporate other scales in its framework.

(29)

To make up for that, the concept of decentralization is added to the discussion. This concept analyses the power relations between the local and the national government and the resulting problems that emerge. According to the literature, central governmental intervention often fosters urban issues and can be associated with weaker local institutions and hence low efficiency. These developments are embedded in a local context, which needs to be considered in an integrated analysis. Furthermore, it is important to understand that not only the central authorities influence the local ones but that this relationship also works vice-versa. Nevertheless, this power varies since the access to important resources differs between local governments, which is an important factor influencing the power of local authorities.

(30)

3 Research Methodology

This chapter returns to the research question and discusses the research design and process used while conducting this research. Following the theoretical framework, it will be crucial to understand the interplay between the main governance actors in mega-cities such as Bangkok. Hence this study emphasizes the importance of the actors and their relationships and activities to understand their collective influence on urban development. The aim of this thesis is to understand the current governance structures and practices in Bangkok and in particular the processes influencing the provision of publicly accessible green space. Moreover, this can be linked to the wider framework of environmental sustainability by integrating urban governance structures.

This chapter successively deals with the research questions, the research design, process and the study’s limitations.

3.1 Research Questions

As stated in the introduction, the main research question reads:

What explains Bangkok’s poor performance in public green space production?

To answer this question, three sub-questions have been added in order to break down the main research question into smaller parts.

Figure 3.1: Main Research Question and Sub-Questions

What explains Bangkok’s poor

performance in public green

space production?

How is urban development in Bangkok

formally governed?

How has the creation of public green space

happened so far?

What are the latest governance dynamics surrounding the creation

of publicly accessible green space?

(31)

The first sub-question, How is urban development in Bangkok formally governed? acts as an starting point to introduce the context in which urban development in Bangkok takes place. To deliver a holistic picture the study focuses on the main actors, their relationships and the limitations influencing their actions. Furthermore, various constraints to urban development in Bangkok are analysed to understand the processes influencing the main stakeholders in the governance matrix. This analysis allows for the identification of the most important actors and dynamics influencing urban development in the city whilst focusing on the changing governance structure. The second sub-question, How has the creation of public green space happened so far? aims to identify the responsible actors and processes surrounding the provision of public green space in the past. This is crucial since urban green space is identified as an important factor to increase environmental and social sustainability of cities in the long run (Chiesura, 2004). Local governments usually being formally responsible for the design, development and maintenance of public space (National Audit Office, 2006) make the provision of publicly accessible green space part of governance dynamics and therefore highly interesting.

The final sub-question asks:

What are the latest governance dynamics surrounding the creation of publicly accessible green space?

For the purpose of this study the Makkasan area acts as a case study to analyse the present governance practices in Bangkok. It is especially interesting because it provides a contemporary case to study governance dynamics in the provision of public green space and therefore also identify differences between the past and the current practices.

The combined findings will provide a detailed analysis of the actors, processes and limitations that have influenced the green space provision in the past. Additionally, through the case study it will be possible to address contemporary changes in the governance network that may have contributed to a change of the governance structure and practices in Bangkok.

(32)

3.2 Research Design

To provide adequate answers to the research questions the design of the research was critical. Firstly, semi-structured interviews with the key actors involved in the governance matrix and a detailed analysis of secondary data was used to create a holistic picture of the governance structures and practices in Bangkok.

Secondly, statistics and own calculations of data provided by the respondents were used to affirm the qualitative data gathered through the interviews. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data was helpful to draw a better picture of past events, however, the focus throughout the research was on qualitative methods due to the complexity of the topic (Creswell, 2007).

Eventually, data for the case study was gathered through interviews and participation in various workshops and discussions organized by actors of the governance network, which provided an in-depth look on the contemporary governance system and practices.

The research took place in Bangkok during a nine-week period between January and March 2014.

3.2.1 The Case Study

A case study of the Makkasan area was chosen to reflect on the data gathered throughout the research and to analyse the governance dynamics on a current, contemporary case in Bangkok. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (1989) identifies “[t]he case study […] as a research strategy, which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (p. 543). Since this research is trying to understand the nuances of urban governance structures and practices, a case study combining semi-structured interviews and the analysis of secondary data was identified as the best way to gather insight into contemporary practices.

While the case study emphasizes the importance of contextual understanding, it also has its limitations concerning generalization. However, this implies a positivist scientific background, believing that generalizations on

(33)

the basis of one single case study are not possible. Flyvbjerg emphasizes that

“[o]ne can often generalize on the basis of a single case, and the case study may be central to scientific development via generalization as supplement or alternative to other methods. But formal generalization is overvalued as a source of scientific development, whereas “the force of example” is underestimated.” (p.228)

In the case of governance structures in Bangkok this proved to be true and furthermore, it added to the theoretical model by considering prevailing factors that developed in the city in the last few years.

3.2.2 Unit of Analysis

Since this study tries to understand the governance dynamics in the provision of public green space, the actors of the urban governance system in Bangkok serve as the unit analysis. These actors include the public, private and civic sphere but also other groups currently influencing the development process, such as the media and royal institutions and authorities.

3.2.3 Research Location

Bangkok was chosen as the primary research location for various factors. Firstly, Bangkok, with more than eight million citizens is the most important city in the country and therefore also the place where decisions are made (UNDP, 2007). Since it is the economic and political hub, governmental agencies and company headquarters are located in the city, making it the centre of Thailand’s business economy (Webster and Maneepong, 2009).

Secondly, Bangkok has its own independent local government that, theoretically, has the right and responsibility to govern the city autonomously. However, although decentralization processes were introduced in the 1990s, the central government is still intervening into the decisions of the local

(34)

Thirdly, the green space ratio in Bangkok is much lower than the benchmark in other South-East Asian metropolises (Siemens AG, 2011), indicating that responsible authorities in Bangkok are experiencing limitations concerning the provision of public green space.

All these factors influenced the choice of the fieldwork location and furthermore of the case study, which proved to be an interesting case where the barriers to urban redevelopment could be analysed. Moreover, through the case study of the Makkasan area it was possible to identify important factors of current governance structures and practices interfering with urban green space provision in Bangkok.

3.3 Research Process

3.3.1 Data Collection

Prior to going to the field secondary data analysis of relevant documents, such as scientific literature, newspaper articles, statistics and policy documents was undertaken. This was vital to provide a basic understanding of the main actors in the governance network but also to understand the dynamics influencing it. In the field interviews were conducted with various stakeholders – ranging from civic actors to government officials. In the first place respondents were identified through preliminary research, mostly targeting obvious governance actors, such as local governmental institutions. Since the “methods must be driven by the questions we wish to answer” (Overton and van Diermen 2003: 55) interviews and document analysis were identified as the best way to collect data due to the nature of the topic, which required complex and mostly tacit information and knowledge that cannot be accessed through other ways, such as surveys, observations and so forth.

During the interviews the respondents identified other stakeholders, which eventually led to snowball sampling. Biernacki and Waldorf (1981) emphasize that

“[t]he method yields a study sample through referrals made among people who share or know of others who possess some characteristics that are of research interest.” (p.141)

(35)

The snowball sampling helped to identify other actors that were viable for the analysis, especially considering that prior research frequently did not bring any results because a lot of information on the internet was only available in Thai, including names and professional qualifications. At first this limited the access to Thai interviewees, however, after conducting a few interviews most of the respondents made referrals to other stakeholders. This was extremely valuable since a lot of the referrals were senior actors, meaning that interviews without prior introduction would not have been possible at all.

More information and contacts were gathered at a three-day workshop on Sustainable Urban Environments in which I participated in end of March.

All in all, twenty-one interviews were conducted with main actors of the governance network, including local authorities, central governmental stakeholders, the private sector, experts, journalists, royal institutions and core members of civic movements.

All responses were recorded and supplemented with comments and observations undertaken during the interviews. The interviews were transcribed as soon as possible; frequently on the same day the interview took place to ensure accuracy.

In order to structure the large number of interview transcripts, they were coded following the theoretical framework. However, new factors that came up during the coding process were added to the coding scheme. This procedure guaranteed the openness of the coding process.

3.3.2 Research Methods

Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews served as the primary research technique during the fieldwork. The interviews usually lasted about one and a half to two hours each and were all conducted in Bangkok, Thailand. Interviews were conducted in English; except one, where a translator was present.

Interviews were identified as the most suitable method to analyse the governance dynamics since the interviewed stakeholders have incomparable insights into the dynamics surrounding urban development in the city. They

(36)

process and therefore to understand the multiple levels and processes urban development inhibits. Moreover, semi-structured interviews allowed for the discussion of a broad range of topics whilst staying in the governance framework, which made it the most efficient way to collect data. Furthermore, interviews also offered an opportunity to talk about details and nuances of specific processes, which enriched the data and was extremely beneficial to understand the complexity of the research topic. All in all, the interviews conducted have an explanatory nature, giving insight into different dynamics and actors that contribute to a contemporary and integrated analysis of the current governance structure and processes.

In the beginning an interview guide was designed for each of the main actors, including public, private and civic stakeholders. It featured questions that were connected to the sub-questions of this study and topics drawn from the operationalization of the theoretical framework, which was guiding the empirical work during the study. The interview guide was updated throughout the process to include new themes that came up during past interviews. This appeared to be critical to ensure the openness of the interview process and hence the gathered data.

Interviewees were recorded with their consent. However, due to the delicateness of the topic, e.g. corruption practices, their anonymity was guaranteed (Scheyvens et al., 2003). Consequently the analysis chapters mention no names in order to protect the respondent’s identities. Rather than referring to the respondent’s names, the quotes indicate the profession of the respondents and the date the interview took place.

Methods of Qualitative and Quantitative Data Analysis

All the interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Therefore variable categories drawn from the theoretical framework were established and applied. Coding was “used to segment and reassemble the data” (Boeije, 2010: 89), which lead to a structured analysis process and eventually made it easier to categorize the data and discover relevant links between the categories.

The same procedure was used to analyse secondary sources such as governmental websites, workshop materials, newspaper articles and so forth.

The impact of urban governance structures and practices on public green space provision : exploring barriers to urban sustainability from an urban governance perspective through the lens of public green space provision

Exploring Barriers to Urban Sustainability from an Urban

Governance Perspective through the Lens of Public Green Space

Provision in Bangkok

The Impact of Urban Governance Structures

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

List of Figures

List of Images

List of Tables

1 Introduction

2 Literature Review & Theoretical Framework

Local

Public

Authorities

Managerial

Problems

Insitutional

Problems

Political

Problems

3 Research Methodology

What explains Bangkok’s poor

performance in public green

space production?