Cities, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.

463–471, 1998
Pergamon  1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0264-2751(98)00041-9 0264-2751/98 $19.00 ⫹ 0.00

Viewpoint
Urban management in
developing countries
Ronald McGill1*
63 Riccarton Road, Linlithgow, Edinburgh EH49 6HX, UK

This paper reviews current thinking about urban management in developing countries. It does so in the
context of recent contributions to a debate on the nature of urban management (Stren, 1993, Cities 10
120–138; Mattingly, 1994, Cities 11(3) 201–205; Werna, 1995, Cities 12(5) 353–359). The paper therefore
considers various definitions of the process. This is seen to focus on both the strategic and operational
concerns of urban development. It considers the holistic characteristics. This embraces both city and insti-
tution building. The contribution of town planning is assessed. This is viewed as a disappointment, despite
its potential relevance. The process of providing infrastructure is assessed. This requires all the players to
participate, irrespective of organisational location. Integrating the organisational arrangements is therefore
acknowledged. This helps to confound attempts to impose an idealised organisational model for urban
management, emphasising instead inter-organisational arrangements and their unifying planning process.
The wider aim to decentralise urban management is acknowledged. Hence, urban management should be
driven by the lowest level of competent government. Urban management is therefore seen to have a twin
objective: first, to plan for, provide and maintain a city’s infrastructure and services, and second, to make
sure that the city’s government is in a fit state, organisationally and financially, to ensure that provision
and maintenance.  1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

This paper seeks to review current
thinking about urban management in
developing countries. It does so by
exploring a number of themes that are
emerging in the literature and practice.
These themes are helping to establish a
conceptual coherence and structure to
the subject. This is necessary in that
*Tel/fax: ⫹ 44(0) 1506 843260; E-mail:
rmcgill@dircon.co.uk
1
The author started his career in British
town planning and urban regeneration. He
became chief executive (city manager) of
Lilongwe city council, in Malawi’s Garden
City capital, then urban management adviser
to the Malawi government, before complet-
ing his PhD on institutional development for
city management – all through ODA (DfID).
He moved on to Tanzania, as management
adviser (institutional development) to the
Tanzanian government’s civil service
reform programme. He has now returned to
the UK, as a freelance consultant.
there is still no accepted definition of
urban management. As Stren (1993, p
137) suggests, in the context of UN
Habitat’s Global Urban Management
Programme, “while comparative and
conceptual work has taken place, the
overall concept of urban management
has not been addressed head on. Is it
an objective, a process or a structure?”
Mattingly (1994, p 201) argues that “a
clearer view of (urban management’s)
meaning and substance” is required.
Werna (1995, p 356) contends that “the
concept of urban management is still
elusive”. This paper reviews five topics
in an attempt to take the debate for-
ward.
Defining urban management
About 20 years ago, the idea of urban
management was being seen by two
authors as a form of brokerage. It was
the dispensing of resources through the
manipulation of power. In this sense,
urban management was at the interface
between the bureaucracy that had
resources to dispense and the com-
munity that was in the need of these
resources, by way of infrastructure and
services. At that time the focus was on
decision making
In this context, Williams (1978)
attempted to define urban management
as a topic of study. He argued that
“urban managerialism is not a theory
nor even an agreed perspective. It is
instead a framework for study” (p 236).
He went on to define the nature of
urban management as having “a far
more explicit concern with power
relations, the nature of cities and their
social and economic structure” (p 237).
He then looked at the players in the

463

process. “There has been considerable
debate as to whether urban mana-
gerialism should simply be concerned
with the role of government officials (at
both central and local levels) as
mediators or whether it should
encompass a whole range of actors in
both public service and private
enterprise who appear to act as control-
lers of resources sought by urban popu-
lations” (p 239). This question of the
range of players in the process is
returned to under “integrating the pro-
cess”.
On the face of it, this is a political
interpretation. Leonard (1982, p 10)
would seem to agree. He argued that
the origins of this managerialist thesis
is the “concern with the institutions and
officials empowered to allocate
resources and facilities”. It is suggested
that the twin issues of power, in
relation to the provision of infrastruc-
ture and services, and the range of play-
ers in the urban management process,
are central themes in the debate.
As the 1980s progressed, the
developing world experienced a shift in
emphasis from the donor community.
The provision of mono-dimensional
infrastructure schemes (such as major
dams) were slowly being questioned.
This was because of the increasing
realisation that such projects had inevi-
table and major consequences on other
parts of the economic, social and
environmental systems. Two changes
were the gradual result.
First, rather than deliver major
engineering projects, donors moved
towards a process of institutional
capacity building to allow developing
countries to provide and maintain their
own infrastructure. This was the birth
and growth of institutional develop-
ment, as a distinct intervention process
in the developing world. Second came
the idea of recognising the inter-con-
nections between various infrastructure
projects, particularly in the urban sec-
tor.
The former dominance of the mono-
dimensional aid project may have had
something to do with the organisational
structure of the governments requesting
the aid. Many writers have commented
on the sectoral dominance of central
government and the resulting conse-
quences for infrastructure and service
delivery. For example, Baker (1989, p
464
Viewpoint: R McGill
33) suggests that the sectorally domi-
nated organisation “works reasonably
well until the system encounters a prob-
lem of a very broad and highly inte-
grated nature”. One example is obvi-
ously the urban question. Then, the
sectoral structure “tackles only the
parts which are identifiable to each
ministry and then each ministry tackles
the symptom as a problem in, and of,
itself”. This is a simple response to the
highly complex nature of rapidly grow-
ing cities. Urban management must
take a wider view of things.
According to Sharma (1989, p 48)
“urban management can be described
as the set of activities which together
shape and guide the social, physical
and economic development of urban
areas. The main concerns of urban
management then, would be inter-
vention in these areas to promote econ-
omic development and well being, and
to ensure necessary provision of essen-
tial services”. The promotion of econ-
omic development and essential ser-
vices seems reasonable enough but
only as an early step in the analysis.
Rakodi (1991, p 542) offers a similar
view. “Urban management aims to
ensure that the components of the sys-
tem are managed so that they make
possible the daily functioning of a city
which will both facilitate and encour-
age economic activity of all kinds and
enable residents to meet their basic
needs for shelter, access to utilities and
services, and income generating
opportunities”. Both authors recognise
that urban management has a strategic
responsibility with operational conse-
quences.
Churchill (1985, p v) concurs with
the idea of an increasing complexity.
“The term urban management is begin-
ning to take on a new richer meaning.
It no longer refers only to the systems
of control but rather, to sets of behav-
ioural relationships, the process
through which the myriad activities of
the inhabitants interact with each other
and with the governance of the city”.
Clearly, the mono-dimensional inter-
vention has been replaced by a more
subtle and complex pattern of thinking,
in dealing with urban development.
The question is perhaps, where does
urban management begin and end.
Richardson (1993) presents three
tests of urban management success.
“The ability of metropolitan managers
to implement a declared spatial strategy
may be regarded as a reasonable test of
managerial efficiency” (p 63). “Another
reasonable test of the effectiveness of
metropolitan management in cities of
developing countries is the ability to
deliver basic urban services and trunk
infrastructure to a rapidly growing
urban population” (p 64). “The other
key managerial problem with urban
service delivery is the simple one of
operations and maintenance” (p 65). In
this context, it would be reasonable to
argue that the implementation of a
declared spatial strategy could be
almost entirely dependent on the pro-
vision of trunk infrastructure to support
that strategy. In turn, the infrastruc-
ture’s operation and maintenance rep-
resents the operational life – blood to
the city; the strategic and operational
concerns of urban management.
In short, the initial parameters of
urban management embrace three top-
ics. First, is it just a government con-
cern (dispensing resources) or is it a
matter for all players in the city build-
ing process. The question therefore
seems to be, who or what should be the
driving force of urban management?
Second comes the institutional dimen-
sion in the sense of organisation; sec-
toral thinking versus the inter-sectoral
nature of the city. The question here
seems to be, is there a way to ensure
an institutional complexity to match the
urban complexity it is dealing with.
Finally, is the apparent contradiction
between a strategic imperative and an
operational vitality. Here, it is sug-
gested that urban management is
required to conceive of itself as a verti-
cally integrated concept; the divorce of
planning from implementation being
the Achilles heal of traditional town
planning (see the third section). The
question now is, how can these initial
ideas of urban management hang
together? One answer is to attempt a
holistic definition of the challenge.
Its holistic characteristics
UNDP (1989, p 60) has argued that
“one of the most important lessons
learnt from the distant and recent past
is the failure of outdated models and
practices of physical planning
(discussed in the next section) as well

as of isolated projects (noted above)
and initiatives in providing an answer
to the vast and pressing needs of rap-
idly forming urban centres in the
developing world. Urban management
can be the answer to this challenge,
provided that it develops, both in con-
cept and in practice, as a holistic
approach”. This is very encouraging.
Shabbir Cheema (1993, p 7) concurs.
Because policies and programmes to
control rural-to-urban migration and
the diffusion of urban population
have not been successful, there is an
increasing recognition that the
growth of cities is inevitable and that
the solutions to urban problems
depend heavily on effective urban
management. Urban management is
a holistic concept. It is aimed at
strengthening the capacity of govern-
ment and non-government organis-
ations (NGOs) to identify policy and
programme alternatives and to
implement them with optimal results.
The challenge of urban management
is thus to respond effectively to the
problems and issues of individual cit-
ies in order to enable them to per-
form their functions.
The important dimension here is the
need to strengthen government and
other players, such as NGOs, in the
urban management process. There is
therefore, an early recognition that
government is not the only player in
managing urban development. The
important distinction to be made how-
ever is that between a strategic and
operational intervention. NGOs have an
enviable record of working with com-
munity groups to help themselves, for
instance in squatter upgrading. How-
ever, they should operate in the context
of an agreed strategic (or urban
development) framework, that is
decided by (ideally) the lowest level of
competent government. It is the stra-
tegic definition of urban management
that is important at this stage.
Stren et al. (1992) constantly
reinforce the idea that intervention in
the urban system has to be both holistic
and integrated.
(1) Urban policy must be treated hol-
istically (in terms of sectors, and in
terms of the relationship between
the urban and rural environments)
(p xiii).
(2) The “urban development approach-
”…recognises the diversity of the
urban experience and the many
Viewpoint: R McGill
ways in which different sectoral
policies affect the urban areas.
Such an approach is both holistic
and multidisciplinary (p xiv).
(3) The need for a holistic approach…
Approaches to the environmental
challenge involve first and fore-
most, a higher level of inter-sec-
toral co-operation (p xxi).
(4) As urban life is dynamic and multi-
dimensional, so the approach to the
study of cities must reflect this
diversity. The essence of the holis-
tic approach…is to recognise the
interconnectedness of all sectors
and locations… (p 4).
(5) Any strategy or approach which
attempts to bring some coherence
into the urban policy field is often
called an urban development
approach… Ideally, such an
approach should be holistic
(recognising the complex interac-
tions of elements which make a
city “work”) (p 10).
(6) A holistic approach is now essen-
tial (because) all human activities
are closely linked, as the urban sys-
tems concept itself implies (p 67).
(7) A holistic approach, for
example…(requires) explicit link-
ages between policies involving the
formal and informal sectors of the
economy (p 68–69).
(8) Wastes in the urban economy are a
good example of the importance of
viewing urban problems in an inte-
grated and spatially coherent man-
ner. The term waste economy is
itself a holistic concept… (p 76).
It is the nature and characteristics of
intervention in the urban development
process that is the central concern of
urban management.
In recording a policy discussion on
the challenge of cities in developing
countries, Harris (1992, p xxi) notes the
following. There is a move “away from
the traditional project approach to one
that emphasises process, that seizes
opportunities as they arise, that stresses
continuity, and, recognising the multi-
sectoral nature of urban activities, also
stresses the need to look at cities in a
holistic way”. Looking at cities in a
holistic way offers an indicator for the
institutional question but does not, of
itself, answer the question about what
should be the driving force for urban
management.
Nevertheless, the suggested holistic
characteristics of the urban develop-
ment process should be matched by the
managerial interventions that seek to
harness its innate energy. The idea of
opportunism, as a desired characteristic
of urban management, should therefore
be recognised. One could argue that the
NGO model is ideally suited to har-
nessing such opportunities for the bene-
fit of local communities (e.g. Habitat
for Humanities’ housing projects in
southern Africa). Therefore, the oppor-
tunistic as well as the holistic nature of
urban management should be coupled
with its institutional requirements for
harnessing all the players and matching
the complexity of the phenomenon
being managed; the city. To this end,
town planning should make a signifi-
cant contribution, with its twin con-
cerns for towns as a social way of life
and planning as technical problem solv-
ing.
Town planning
Returning to UNDP’s “outdated mod-
els and practices of physical planning”,
there is a wealth of information to con-
firm this contention. Lakshmanan and
Rotner (1985, p 85) highlight the cen-
tral dilemma in traditional town plan-
ning responses to cities in developing
countries. In the context of Madras,
they record that “until recently, the
urban planning system was divorced
from public investment and the budget-
ary and economic planning processes
of the state and local government”.
That is, it was dominated by the master
plan syndrome. Sinou (1988, p 25) sup-
plements the argument. “The demo-
graphic explosion of Third World cities
(some attaining annual rates of up to
10%) also underlined the vain character
of urban planning and methods mod-
elled on cities with slow growth rates”.
This was epitomised by the master plan
syndrome, modelled on the Western
tradition (UNCHS, 1987, p 2). What is
highlighted here is the often quoted
failure or fundamental flaw in town
planning practice; the divorce of plan-
ning from budgeted implementation.
Richardson (1993, p 61) concurs.
“For example, several cities (e.g. Delhi,
Madras, Karachi, Dhaka, and Jakarta)
465

have periodically developed master
plans that have included elements of a
spatial strategy. Unfortunately, these
plans have been almost useless. They
usually involve wildly inaccurate popu-
lation projections and land use zones
that deviate, often dramatically, from
reality. Invariably, they are too rigid
and inflexible to accommodate
readjustments as conditions change”.
Clarke (1992, pp 149–150) echoes
the point. “Traditional master plans
have been mainly static in nature,
attuned to a scenario of slow urban
growth in which major investments in
infrastructure, roads, services and other
public investments could be carefully
planned in the context of a finite long-
term plan. Rapid population growth,
lack of infrastructure and services, and
shortages of funds and staff in the typi-
cal developing country city, require a
more dynamic planning process in
which priorities have to be continually
assessed and re-assessed in the light of
available resources”.
This argument is expanded at length
by Farvacque and McAuslan (1992, p
63).
Master plans take too long to pre-
pare; they seldom offer guidance on
the phasing and techniques of
implementation; they seldom evalu-
ate the costs of the development they
propose or try to determine how they
could be financed and pay little or no
attention to the necessary resource
allocation and financial feasibility of
policies and programmes; master
plans are seldom based on realistic
appraisals of the city’s economic
potential or likely population growth;
community leaders and implemen-
tation agencies are seldom meaning-
fully involved in the master planning
process; master plans are
infrequently updated and their static
nature cannot keep up with the
dynamic process of urban growth in
the developing world. In the majority
of cities with master plans, the sup-
ply of shelter for the low income
population is built in spite of the
master plan, not because of it. In
brief, master planning and compre-
hensive planning techniques are
primarily concerned with the product
rather than the process and do not
adequately address implementation
issues, the increasing complexity of
land markets, the role of the public
sector versus private sector actions
and the links between spatial and
financial planning.
466
Viewpoint: R McGill
This is, indeed, the Achilles heal of
town planning.
One way out of this dilemma (ie the
potential of town planning to contribute
centrally to urban management and
therefore, to overcome its master plan
syndrome) is to focus more specifically
on the provision of infrastructure. This
is a growing feature of urban manage-
ment practice. “More recently, planners
have come to acknowledge the need
not only to become involved with the
planning of new infrastructure, but also
to use the provision of infrastructure as
one of the key means for influencing
the pattern of land development”
(Devas, 1993, p 88). For example, this
introduces the idea that trunk or arterial
infrastructure should be a primary
determinant of spatial form. This is
especially so when infrastructure thre-
sholds are taken into account when
allocating and phasing major urban
building; eg a new housing location.
Additionally and in its defence, what
town planning training still does is to
stress the interconnections of the vari-
ous elements of towns and cities; Ged-
des’ idea of the “synoptic vision”. Take
that thought a stage further, one starts
to develop a pattern of thinking that
recognises the interconnected-ness of
the intervention mechanisms within
towns and cities. It is suggested that
this is the intrinsic or (again) the holis-
tic nature of urban management.
Thus, if urban management is con-
cerned with intervening in the develop-
ment of towns and cities, then it
becomes a process that should:
• embrace all the players in the city
building process (not just be a dis-
penser of resources);
• harness the driving force of urban
development (not attempt to govern
it artificially, through a master plan);
• be horizontally integrated (to over-
come sub-sectoral myopia);
• be vertically integrated (to overcome
town planning’s Achilles heal of
being divorced from budgeted
implementation);
• be capable of responding to opport-
unities that present themselves (the
implied release of the innate capacity
of the community or informal sector,
through NGO participation).
In so doing, urban management begins
to reveal the characteristics of its hol-
ism. At the aggregate level, these
characteristics are two-fold. First, it
must understand the nature of the urban
environment it is dealing with. Second,
it must organise the instruments of
intervention in such a way that the
institutions that conduct the urban man-
agement are in a fit state, organis-
ationally and financially, to do so.
Thus, it is suggested that urban man-
agement in developing countries is con-
cerned with both city building (with its
insatiable need for infrastructure) and
institution building (with its seemingly
endless need for increased capacity to
perform). The remainder of this paper
therefore reviews these twin concerns.
Integrating infrastucture
provision
Many writers highlight the fundamental
importance of infrastructure provision
(water, sanitation, roads, houses and
serviced land for development) to
urban development: eg Steinberg
(1991, p 7), Linn (1983, pp 56–57),
World Bank (1991, p36) and UNDP
(1991, p 53). Thus, a test for urban
management can be introduced.
According to Mabogunje (1993, p 3),
“the acid test of efficiency in the man-
agement of cities is the state of infra-
structure provision”. It is suggested that
such a test is at the lowest level of
impact but is the legitimate first stage
of analysis (e.g. is there clean water for
all; are the roads passable without
effort). The next level of analysis
would then be the contribution of trunk
or arterial infrastructure to determining
the spatial pattern of urban develop-
ment. Finally, would come the macro-
economic impact of infrastructue pro-
vision; its contribution to the economic
growth of households and enterprises.
At whatever level the urban manage-
ment test is pitched, its provision of
infrastructure is entirely dependent on
two things. First is the nature of the
planning process that helps ensure that
provision (below). Second is the
location of that process in the insti-
tutional framework (the next section).
Authors have attempted to define the
nature of the planning process in urban
management. Recently, the general
characteristic of its integration has
come to the fore. According to UNCHS

(1989, p 11) one item on its future Glo-
bal Urban Management Programme
agenda was to develop operational
models for urban management. In parti-
cular, “a key theme will be to develop
guidelines for the integration of spatial,
sectoral, economic, financial and insti-
tutional planning so as to better achieve
urban development goals”. As Stren
(1993) has already suggested, its sub-
sequent work has been “comparative
and conceptual…the overall concept of
urban management has not been
addressed head on”. Fortunately, there
is a wealth of material to draw upon in
the community at large to help present
such an overall concept.
The scope of infrastructure provision
and the notion of an external economy
to urban development indicates the
wide range of players necessary for
success in the urban management pro-
cess. Amos (1989, p 208) makes a tell-
ing point in this regard. “Urban man-
agement is the responsibility of
municipal government and urban man-
agement is concerned with all aspects
of urban development, both public and
private. It is in no way confined to the
services operated by the municipal
authority… Good urban management
depends on the power to co-ordinate
the activities of a variety of agencies at
national and local levels”. This is vital.
It reminds us of “the range of players”
in the process. It also reinforces the
notion of integrating the whole urban
management process.
From a different perspective, Dom-
icelj (1987, p 252) notes that “the city-
wide approach is frequently more the
result of increased technical and finan-
cial assistance reflected in more project
components than any strategic analysis
of development trends, potentials and
constraints”. However, within such an
enforced necessity, opportunities
present themselves. He suggests that
“in order to achieve better integration
and to identify the broad range of
potential problems, the Asian Develop-
ment Bank’s recent attempts to study
urban sectors and then to identify
related projects within this sphere,
appears to be both successful and well
received”. In this example, integration
is seen to encompass both institutional
involvement and sectoral proposals.
The need for that matching institutional
Viewpoint: R McGill
complexity to deal with the urban ques-
tion is being responded to.
Using the Asian Development
Bank’s territorial focus, Clarke (1985,
p 44) cites the example of Jakarta.
“Given the evident fragmentation of
decision making and the difficulties in
project implementation for both levels
of government, a more integrated
approach was stressed through better
co-ordination between the socio-econ-
omic, financial, physical and insti-
tutional planning sectors”. The inte-
gration here, it is suggested, is both
horizontal (across sub-sectoral
boundaries) and vertical (strategic and
operational; “both levels of
government”).
Allport and Einsiedel (1986) looked
at a similar case, covering the urban
management of Manila. Five major
problems were identified, including the
bane of urban management in
developing countries, institutional frag-
mentation. In order to overcome these
problems, a planning system was
devised “involving an annual planning
cycle of activities linked to the national
budgeting system and its major output
is a five-year rolling investment pro-
gramme of projects, which are consist-
ent with expected available funds and
government priority”. In this case the
stress is on integrating not only the
agencies in the planning process but
also planning with programming and
budgeting. Courtney and Lea (1985, p
106) heralded this approach as a model
to be developed elsewhere.
The point is to identify the central
role of the annual policy and budgetary
cycle and the integration of all the
funding players in the urban manage-
ment process. Amos (1989, p 206)
explains, “At municipal level, there
should be for each urban area, an urban
programme which identifies projects
together with the appropriate resource
allocations for capital investment,
maintenance and operating costs. The
programmes should be…regularly
reviewed, revised as necessary and
rolled forward annually… It should
include all public sector expenditure”.
This is very important. First, the annual
programme and budget cycle is recog-
nised. Second, the need to integrate all
the players in the city building process
(ie “all public sector expenditure”) is
reinforced.
Thus, according to Davidson (1991,
p 122), “urban management is about
mobilising resources in a way that can
achieve urban development objec-
tives”. Later, he suggests that “inte-
gration is a much used word. Many
projects include the word integrated in
their titles, but actually, achieving inte-
gration is much more difficult… Inte-
gration is a benefit when 2 ⫹ 2 ⫽ 5
(p 126)”. According to him, factors for
effective integration include “an inte-
grated plan, a modest initial scale, inte-
grated area based management and
integrated finances” (p 127).
Lee (1987, p 30) notes “it has been
argued that urban development is not a
sector like any other traditional sectors
involved in the development of urban
areas. The merit of urban development
is the opportunity it affords to co-ordi-
nate and integrate…various compo-
nents on an area basis. An issue is
whether such co-ordination and inte-
gration are possible and practical, and
whether there is a limit to such endeav-
our. In the formulation of a programme
and a project however, it is not only
functional linkages that matter but also
institutional arrangements…” In other
words, whatever the institutions in the
city building process, they should have
a common reference point (or strategy)
for both planning and implementation.
With a common strategy, irrespec-
tive of organisation, all the players can
participate in the urban management
process, by way of co-ordinated city
building. The players range from cen-
tral to local government and on to the
private sector. The private sector
includes both the formal and informal
components. This captures the require-
ment for both the horizontal and verti-
cal integration. Therefore, integration is
very important when attempting to
organise institutions for urban manage-
ment.
Integrating institutions
Shabbir Cheema (1987, p 154) dwells
on the challenge of co-ordination in the
urban management process. “Two
types of co-ordination problems are
discernible; horizontal, among the cen-
tral, regional and municipal level
agencies, respectively, in the city; and
vertical among related activities of sev-
eral levels of government and adminis-
467

tration concerned with urban develop-
ment”. Later, as many authors seem to
suggest, “experience shows that there
are no universally applicable insti-
tutional arrangements or structures for
co-ordinating urban development
activities…” (p 155).
Sharma (1989, p 50) offers the pic-
ture that is trying to be avoided.
“Unless agencies have a common set of
goals and targets, time based and pro-
ject-based action does not always work
to the best advantage of city develop-
ment. Municipalities have to perform
their management tasks in isolation of
the development inputs of various
agencies. The process also takes on a
random form because of the lack of
(co-ordinated) programmes. Cities are
replete with examples of unco-ordi-
nated development even at project level
because the priorities of different
agencies often do not match and, at
times are even divergent”. Without a
commonly agreed or integrated strat-
egy, such problems will simply be per-
petuated.
For example, in Calcutta, “inter-
sectoral horizontal communications are
wanting. The planning sector is ignored
by the operational sectors; its pro-
gramme development is more often
than not, side stepped by project
implementing departments” (Banerjee,
1989, p 75). In Bangkok, “co-ordi-
nation in planning and implementation
is ineffective (p 129)… Co-ordination
in the execution of projects…has
always posed a problem”
(Dhiratayakinant, 1989, p 130). It is
therefore no accident that the absence
of an integrated strategy will result in
various degrees of dysfunction. There
is only one city (at a time). Therefore,
there should be one commonly agreed
strategic framework for both the city’s
development and the institutional
responses to support that development.
Allport and Einsiedel (1986, p 34)
seem to concur. A new (urban) plan-
ning could “only be achieved, either by
giving the city government power (over
government ministers) to dictate what
should happen within its area or devis-
ing some form of inter-agency body
comprising the city government and the
major resource allocation and spending
agencies, reliant for its effectiveness on
persuasion. Accordingly, a senior level
inter-agency technical working group
468
Viewpoint: R McGill
was formed, comprising senior rep-
resentatives of all the key resource allo-
cation and spending agencies, and
chaired by the commissioner for plan-
ning”. This example comes from Man-
ila. A model of that inter-agency pro-
cess is worth developing.
Sivaramakrishnan and Green (1986,
p 83) agree by strongly suggesting that
from the Asian experience, “to meet
minimum organisational needs, empha-
sis should be placed on the formation
of networks of existing institutions, in
both the private and public sectors, to
channel information and policy pro-
posals to a metropolitan management
team for overall planning purposes, and
subsequently, to recommend related
development projects and programmes
to it for metropolitan review, selection
and financing”. This highlights the
need for sound inter-agency arrange-
ments. However, such arrangements
are only a means to an end. In this
immediate context, the end is a com-
mon planning process.
One model does exist to show that
an inter-organisational planning and
implementation process can work. As
such, it reflects Sharma’s (1989, p 50)
argument of agencies that must “have
a common set of goals and targets, time
based and project based…”. The model
in question is based on the pioneering
work of the Tennessee Valley Auth-
ority (TVA). Pearsall (1984, p 47)
presents the following:
Several of the agency directors and
planners were initially sceptical that
an overall planning process could be
developed which would not infringe
on agency jurisdictions, which would
not supersede agency planning pro-
cesses, and which would enhance the
success of agency initiatives. The
Tennessee Protection Planning Com-
mittee has developed such an overall
process. The Committee’s work is
accomplished through discussion and
consensus development at the meet-
ings and through the actions of indi-
vidual agencies working alone or co-
operatively after the meetings.
Agency personnel have developed
commitment to the process since its
inception, primarily because the pro-
cess enhances the success of their
individual agency natural area pro-
grammes. It is therefore possible to
establish a multi-agency planning
process which neither replaces nor
supersedes the individual agency
processes. Such an approach requires
that the agencies themselves co-ordi-
nate a conglomerate of processes.
The resulting overall process will be
cyclical, creative and fragmented…
Amos (1989, p 208) supports this
argument, “Urban management is the
responsibility of municipal government
and urban management is concerned
with all aspects of urban development,
both public and private. It is in no way
confined to the services operated by the
municipal authority… Good urban
management depends on the power to
co-ordinate the activities of a variety of
agencies at national and local levels”.
This is vital. It reminds us of “the range
of players” in the process. It also
reinforces the notion of integrating the
whole urban management process
through “a strategy which provides
common purposes for the agencies”
(p 202).
The TVA example is an ideal out-
come. For a start, this inter-agency
planning shifts the emphasis from
organisational structures to organis-
ational processes. It also concentrates
the mind on the nature of the inter-
organisational relationships. This
seems a very useful way forward. The
added dimension is the desire for the
inter-agency arrangements to be as
decentralised as possible. At this stage,
decentralisation has ceased to be an
issue. It is accepted as a prerequisite for
successful urban management and the
delivery of its services (UNCHS, 1984,
p 106; UNCHS, 1990, p 49; Malo and
Nas, 1991, p 182; Rondinelli, 1990, p
1); Mabogunje, 1991, p 9); Hardoy and
Satterthwaite, 1992, p 64).
Thus, from an institutional perspec-
tive, two points emerge. First are the
inter-agency arrangements. Second is
the (accepted) decentralisation agenda.
It is suggested that the ideal outcome
is an urban management process,
driven by a robust local government. In
turn, that drive must harness the under-
lying force of the urban development
process, dominated as it is, by the
informal sector. Here, central govern-
ment should offer its steering hand in
relation to general policy and its own
responsibilities for investment. The one
complication is that too often, central
government is still the major funding
player for infrastructure provision in
the rapidly growing cities of
developing countries. That generates a
host of questions about the funding of

urban infrastructure which are beyond
the scope of this paper.
Summary and conclusion
In summary, urban management is con-
sidered to be conceptually holistic in its
approach to towns and cities in
developing countries. At its core, this
holism requires that the urban issues
are considered at the same time as the
institutional questions, to ensure a sus-
tained strategic and operational
response; the integrated structure of
urban management. The acid test of the
urban management process should be
seen as the provision of infrastructure.
This would support not only economic
development but also the spatial distri-
bution of urban growth. That provision
ranges across the institutional spec-
trum, from government to the informal
sector. The need is therefore to have a
central driving force to ensure the
necessary inter-agency planning and
budgetary co-ordination. Ideally, that
driving force should be at the most
practical level of decentralised govern-
ment, namely a robust local or city
government.
In this light, it is difficult to accept
the question of an elusive concept to
urban management (Werna, 1995).
From a practitioner’s perspective, the
challenge of coping with a rapidly
growing city in a developing country is
all too real (McGill, 1994b, 1995). It is
therefore suggested that urban manage-
ment in developing countries should
seek to achieve the simple but funda-
mental twin objective of:
• planning for, providing and main-
taining a city’s infrastructure and ser-
vices, and
• making sure that the city’s local
government is in a fit state, organis-
ationally and financially, to ensure
that provision and maintenance.
This is the essential meaning of urban
management.
Local government is therefore seen
as the necessary driving force to inte-
grate all the players in the city building
process. By integrating all the players,
one harnesses the urban development
process itself. It is, or should be, a
mutually reinforcing cycle. That cycle
is institutionally located. Hence, the
Viewpoint: R McGill
importance of institution building to
urban management (McGill, 1993,
1994a).
What remains is the need to intro-
duce a sharper focus to the much
needed comparative analysis of urban
management experience in developing
countries. That experience might reflect
on the process in terms of:
• the existence of an integrated urban
management strategy, which
• focuses on both the urban and its
supporting institutional development
challenges, that
• encourages an inter-sectoral debate
and subsequent co-ordinated inter-
ventions, that
• ensures a direct relationship between
planning and budgeting, and
• embraces the informal sector as part
of the city building challenge.
That process might then be judged by
its tangible outputs; for example:
• efficiently located development;
• clean water;
• decent sanitation;
• maintained roads;
• serviced locations for development;
• squatter upgrading; and
• basic health and education services.
This is the essential substance of
urban management.
These outputs could then be assessed
in terms of their impact on, for
example, poverty reduction and
environmental enhancement; the cur-
rent focus of the Urban Management
Programme.
A contribution to the comparative
analysis, from an institutional develop-
ment perspective, therefore focusing on
the means of urban management, has
already been made (McGill, 1996).
What the institutional development per-
spective tends to focus on is the role of
the players in the process. What it does
not do is uncover the relationships
between (a) the players in the urban
management process and (b) the recipi-
ents of its products: the infrastructure
and services. It is suggested that this
introduces the concept of governance to
urban management, a topic that is now
worth exploring.
In conclusion, this paper attempts to
address the questions by Stren (1993)
in terms of “concept, structure, process
and objective” by Mattingly (1994) in
terms of “meaning and substance” and
Werna (1995), by refuting the notion
that urban management is still elusive.
It does so from the perspective of a
practitioner, who was given the opport-
unity to reflect on that practice. Urban
management is very real and very test-
ing for anyone who seeks to achieve a
tangible and beneficial impact in the
community.
References
Allport, R and Einsiedel, N (1986) An
innovative approach to metropolitan
management in the Philippines. Public
Administration and Development 6,
23–48.
Amos, F (1989) Strengthening municipal
government. Cities 6, 202–208.
Baker, R (1989) Institutional innovation,
development and environmental man-
agement: an “administrative trap”
revisited. Part 1. Public Administration
and Development 9, 29–47.
Banerjee, T (1989) Issues in financial struc-
ture and management: the case of the
Calcutta metropolitan area. Regional
Development Dialogue 10, 61–80.
Churchill, A (1985) ‘Forward’ in Lea, J and
Courtney, J (Eds), Cities in Conflict:
Planning and Management of Asian Cit-
ies, p v, World Bank, Washington DC.
Clarke, G (1985) ‘Jakarta, Indonesia: plan-
ning to solve urban conflicts’ in Lea, J
and Courtney, J (Eds), Cities in Conflict:
Planning and Management of Asian Cit-
ies, pp 35–38, World Bank, Wash-
ington DC.
Clarke, G (1992) Towards appropriate
forms of urban spatial planning. Habitat
International 16, 149–166.
Courtney, J and Lea, J (1985) ‘Lessons in
resolving the conflicts (of managing
Asian cities)’, in Lea, J and Courtney, J
(Eds), Cities in Conflict: Planning and
Management of Asian Cities, pp 101–
108, World Bank, Washington DC.
Davidson, F (1991) Gearing up for effective
management of urban development. Cit-
ies 8, 120–133.
Devas, N (1993) ‘Evolving approaches (to
urban management)’ in Devas, N and
Rakodi, C (Eds), Managing Fast Grow-
ing Cities: New Approaches to Urban
Planning and Management in the
Developing World, pp 63–101, Long-
man, London.
Dhiratayakinant, K (1989) Issues in finan-
cial structure and management: the case
of Bangkok metropolis. Regional Devel-
opment Dialogue 10, 111–144.
Domicelj, S (1987) ‘International assistance
in the urban sector’ in Urban Policy
Issues, pp 247–268, Asian Development
Bank, Manila.
Farvacque, C and McAuslan, P (1992)
‘Reforming urban land policies and
469

institutions in developing countries’,
Urban Management Programme Policy
Paper 5, The World Bank, Washington,
DC.
Hardoy, J E and Satterthwaite, D (1992)
‘Environmental problems in Third
World cities: an agenda for the poor and
the planet’. International Institute for
Environment and Development, London.
Harris, N (Ed) (1992) Cities in the 1990s;
the Challenge for Developing Countries,
UCL Press, London.
Lakshmanan, A and Rotner, E (1985)
‘Madras, India: low cost approaches to
managing development’ in Lea, J and
Courtney, J (Eds), Cities in Conflict:
Planning and Management of Asian Cit-
ies, pp 81–94, World Bank, Wash-
ington DC.
Lee, B K (1987) ‘Major urban development
issues: an overview’ in Urban Policy
Issues, pp 15–60, Asian Development
Bank, Manila.
Leonard, S (1982) Urban managerialism: a
period of transition. Progress in Human
Geography V, 190–215.
Linn, J (1983) Cities in the Developing
World; Policies for their Equitable and
Efficient Growth, Oxford University
Press, New York.
Mabogunje, A L (1991) ‘Local government
issues in Africa’. Paper presented at the
launch of the Municipal Development
Programme in Harare in May 1991. Uni-
versity of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Mabogunje, A L (1993) ‘Infrastructure: the
Crux of Modern Urban Development’
Urban Edge 1(3) 3. World Bank, Wash-
ington, DC.
Malo, M and Nas, P J (1991) ‘Local auto-
nomy: urban management in Indonesia’,
Sojourn: Social Issues in Southeast Asia,
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Sin-
gapore 6(2) 175–202.
Mattingly, M (1994) Meaning of urban
management. Cities 11, 201–205.
McGill, R (1993) Institution building for a
Third World city council: some lessons
from the practice. International Journal
of Public Sector Management 6, 24–33.
McGill, R (1994a) Institutional develop-
ment and the notion of sustainability.
International Journal of Public Sector
Management 7, 26–40.
McGill, R (1994b) Integrated urban man-
agement: an operational model for Third
World city managers. Cities 11, 35–47.
McGill, R (1995) Urban management per-
formance: an assessment framework for
Third World city managers. Cities 12,
337–351.
McGill, R (1996) Institution Building: A
Third World City Management Perspec-
tive, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke and
St Martin’s Press, New York.
Pearsall, S (1984) Multi-agency planning
for natural areas in Tennessee. Public
Administration Review 44, 43–48.
Rakodi, C (1991) Cities and people: towards
a gender-aware urban planning process?
Public Administration and Development
11, 541–559.
Richardson, H (1993) ‘Problems of metro-
470
Viewpoint: R McGill
politan management in Asia’ in Shabbir
Cheema, G (Ed), Urban Management:
Policies and Innovations in Developing
Countries, pp 51–75, Greenwood Pra-
eger Press, Westport.
Rondinelli, D (1990) ‘Decentralising urban
development programs: a framework for
analysis’, US Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC.
Shabbir Cheema, G (1987) ‘Strengthening
urban institutional capabilities: issues
and responses’ in Urban Policy Issues,
pp 147–184, Asian Development Bank,
Manila.
Shabbir Cheema, G (1993) ‘The challenge
of urban management: some issues’ in
Shabbir Cheema, G (Ed), Urban Man-
agement: Policies and Innovations in
Developing Countries, pp 1–16, Green-
wood Praeger Press, Westport.
Sharma, S K (1989) Municipal manage-
ment. Urban Affairs Quarterly – India
21, 47–53.
Sinou A (1988) ‘From planning to manage-
ment’ RISED Bulletin (8) 25–26. Euro-
pean Environmental Bureau, Brussels.
Sivaramakrishnan, K C and Green L (1986)
Metropolitan Management: The Asian
Experience, Oxford University Press for
the World Bank, Washington, DC.
Steinberg, F (1991) Urban infrastructure
development in Indonesia. Habitat Inter-
national 15, 3–26.
Stren, R E (1993) Urban management in
development assistance: an elusive con-
cept. Cities 10, 120–138.
Stren, R E, Bhatt, V et al. (1992) ‘An urban
problematique: the challenge of urbanis-
ation for development assistance’,
Centre for Urban and Community Stud-
ies, University of Toronto.
UNCHS (1984) ‘Human settlements poli-
cies and institutions: issues, options,
trends and guidelines’, United Nations
Centre for Human Settlements
(Habitat), Nairobi.
UNCHS (1987) ‘Environmental guidelines
for settlements planning and manage-
ment, Vol 1, Institutionalising environ-
mental planning and management of
settlements development’, United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements
(Habitat), Nairobi.
UNCHS (1989) ‘Urban management pro-
gramme: overview of programme activi-
ties’, United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat), Nairobi.
UNCHS (1990) ‘Roles, responsibilities and
capabilities for the management of
human settlements: recent trends and
future prospects’, United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements (Habitat), Nairo-
bi.
UNDP (1989) ‘Urban transition in
developing countries: policy issues and
implications for technical co-operation
in the 1990s’, Programme Advisory
Note, United Nations Development Pro-
gramme, New York.
UNDP (1991) ‘Cities, people and poverty,
urban development co-operation for the
1990s’, UNDP strategy paper, New
York.
Werna, E (1995) The management of urban
development, or the development of
urban management? Problems and prem-
ises of an elusive concept. Cities 12,
353–359.
Williams, P (1978) Urban managerialism: a
concept of relevance? Area 10, 236–240.
World Bank (1991) ‘Urban policy and econ-
omic development: an agenda for the
1990’, A World Bank Policy Paper.
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Appendix
This paper is necessarily limited in length.
However, students and practitioners of
urban management may be interested in
additional sources on the topic of urban
management in developing countries.
Bahl, R and Linn, J (1992) Urban Public
Finance in Developing Countries, World
Bank, Oxford University Press, New York.
Bamberger, M and Hewitt, E (1987) ‘A
manager’s guide to monitoring and evaluat-
ing urban development programmes: a
handbook for programme managers and
researchers’, World Bank Technical Paper
No 54, Washington, DC.
Batley, R and Devas, N (1988) ‘The man-
agement of urban development’ Habitat
International l2(3) 173–186.
Benninger, C (1987) ‘Training for the
improvement of human settlements’ Habitat
International 11(1) 145–160.
Blair, T (Ed) (1985) Strengthening Urban
Management, Plenum, New York.
Bubba, N and Lamba, D (1991) ‘Urban
management in Kenya’ Environment and
Urbanization 3(1) 37–59.
Cadman, D and Payne, G (Eds) (1990)
The Living City: Towards a Sustainable
Future, Routledge, London and New York.
Chandrasekhara, C S (1989) ‘Improving
municipal management’ Nagarlok: Urban
Affairs Quarterly, Centre for Urban Studies,
The Indian Institute of Public Adminis-
tration 21(4) 54–67.
Clarke, G (1991) ‘Urban management in
developing countries: a critical role’ Cities
8(May) 93–107.
Davey, K (1993) ‘Elements of urban
management’, Urban Management Pro-
gramme, Working Paper 11, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Davey, K et al. (1996) Urban Manage-
ment. The Challenge of Urban Growth,
Avebury, Aldershot.
Gunesekera, R (1988) ‘Training urban
development managers: an example from
the technical co-operation training pro-
gramme for India’, Habitat International
12(3) 149–161.
Habitat (1996) An Urbanising World.
Global Report on Human Settlements,
Oxford University Press for the United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements
(Habitat), Nairobi, Kenya.
Halla, F (1985) ‘Changing the theoretical
basis of urban planning from “procedures”
to “political economy”’. Working Paper, No
16, Development Planning Unit, University
College, London.

Hart, D (1989) ‘Mismanaged urbanisation
in Africa: the examples of Cairo and Lagos’
South African Geographical Journal (71)
182–192.
Hart, D and Rogerson, C (1989) ‘Urban
management in Kenya: South African policy
issues’ South African Geographical Journal
(71) 192–200.
van der Hoff, R and Steinberg, F (Eds)
(1992) Innovative Approaches to Urban
Management, Avebury, Aldershot.
Juppenlatz, M (1979) ‘A comprehensive
approach to the training of human settle-
ments’ Third World Planning Review 1(1)
86–99.
Kopardekar, H D (1989) ‘Training and
developing skills for urban management’
Nagarlok: Urban Affairs Quarterly, Centre
for Urban Studies, The Indian Institute of
Public Administration 21(4) 130–142.
Laquian, A (1979) ‘Human resource
development for human settlement policies’
Habitat International 3(3/4) 393–401.
Lee-Smith, D and Stren, R E (1991) ‘New
perspectives on African urban management’
Environment and Urbanization 3(1) 23–36.
Lusagga Kironde, J M (1992) ‘Received
concepts and theories in African urbanis-
ation and management strategies: the strug-
gle continues’ Urban Studies 29(8) 1277–
1292.
Mabogunje, A L (1992) ‘Perspective on
urban land and urban management policies
in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Africa Technical
Department Series No 196, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Martin, R (1989) ‘Developing the
capacity for urban management in Africa’
Cities 8(May) 134–141.
Mattingly, M (1988) ‘From town plan-
ning to development planning: a transition
Viewpoint: R McGill
through training’ Habitat International
12(2) 97–109.
Mattingly, M (1989) ‘Implementing plan-
ning with teaching: using training to make
it happen’ Third World Planning Review
11(4) 417–428.
Okpala, D (1987) ‘Received concepts and
theories on African urbanisation studies and
urban management strategies: a critique’
Urban Studies 24 137–150.
Rakodi, C (1990) ‘Can third world cities
be managed?’ in Cadman, D and Payne, G
(Eds), The Living City: Towards a Sus-
tainable Future, pp 111–124, Routledge,
London and New York.
Ramachandran, A (1993) ‘Improvement
of municipal management’ Habitat Inter-
national 17(1) 3–31.
Rogerson, C (1989a) ‘Managing urban
growth in South Africa: learning from inter-
national experience’ South African Geo-
graphical Journal (71) 129–133.
Rogerson, C (1989b) ‘Successful urban
management in Seoul, South Korea: policy
lessons for South Africa’ South African
Geographical Journal (71) 166–173.
Rondinelli, D and Shabbir Cheema, G
(Eds) (1988) Urban Services in Developing
Countries: Public and Private Roles in
Urban Government, Macmillan, Basings-
toke, England.
Roth, G (1987) The Private Provision of
Public Services in Developing Countries,
Oxford University Press for the World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Safier, M (1992) ‘Urban development:
policy planning and management. Prac-
titioners’ perspectives on public learning
over three decades’ Habitat International
16(2) 5–12.
Sidabutar, P, Rukmana, N, v.d. Hoff, R
and Steinberg, F (1991) ‘Development of
urban management capacities: training for
integrated urban infrastructure development
in Indonesia’ Cities 8(May) 142–150.
Stren, R and McCarney, P (1992) ‘Urban
research in the developing world: towards
an agenda for the 1990s’, Major Report No
26, Centre for Urban and Community Stud-
ies, University of Toronto.
Stren, R E and White, R (Eds) (1989)
African Cities in Crisis: Managing Rapid
Urban Growth, Westview Press, Boulder,
CO.
Stren, R E (1991) Old wine in new
bottles? An overview of Africa’s urban
problems and the “urban management”
approach to dealing with them. Environment
and Urbanization 3, 9–22.
UNCHS (1987) ‘Executive summary of
the global report on human settlements’,
United Nations Centre for Human Settle-
ments (Habitat), Nairobi.
UNCHS (1987) ‘Global report on human
settlements’, United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements (Habitat), Nairobi.
Wallis, M (1987) Local government and
development in Southern African states:
Botswana and Lesotho compared. Planning
and Administration 14, 68–76.
World Bank (1995) ‘Better urban ser-
vices: finding the right incentives’. Wash-
ington, DC.
World Bank and UNCHS (1990) ‘Urban
management programme: phase 2’, Wash-
ington, DC and Nairobi.
World Bank and UNCHS (1991) ‘Urban
management programme: revised prospec-
tus’, Washington, DC and Nairobi.
World Bank and UNCHS (1994) ‘Urban
management programme: annual report
1993’, Washington, DC and Nairobi.
471