No abstract

Contrary to the official view that rejects urban cultivation as an irrational activity by a small group of recent migrants who have yet to be integrated into the urban environment, urban agriculture is an innovative response by a majority of the urban poor, who are fully entrenched in an urban economy that currently lacks the capacity to provide them with sufficient real income. Though insufficient income is a primary reason, it is not the only factor affecting a household's decisions regarding cultivation. Low-income households consider urban cultivation as a form of long-term investment that requires a minimum threshold of predictability of return on the investment. To be sure of this return, most households must decide to live in the city on a permanent basis and gain access to land, which usually requires seven to eleven years of urban residence. Once the decision to invest is made, variations in the pattern of cultivation among households result from relative differences in access to land and the need to maximize the return on domestic labour time, the opportunity costs of which vary with household income. Variations in the pattern of crops between plots and rainy-season gardens also occur as a result of rational decisions by households to maximize the return on land at two different locations. The policy implications of these findings are at least threefold. First, since urban cultivation allows urban workers to survive with insufficient monetary income, not only should the harassment of cultivators be stopped but efforts should be made to encourage cultivation, particularly since the opportunities for these workers to increase their monetary income, at least in the short term, are minimal. Second, one sure way of encouraging cultivation is to provide assurance to low-income households regarding the return on their investment. This would involve ensuring that they have access to land through the granting of legal titles, either for renting, leasing, or owning land. Third, there is scope for further increases in the productivity of rainy-season gardens, for instance by providing better access to the peripheral areas and taking some measures to reduce the theft of produce. To be sure, bringing about changes in official attitudes towards urban cultivation and formulating new policies to encourage it are not easy tasks. There are interested social groups who benefit from the rising price of urban land, and they are bound to object to policies which will not contribute to property inflation. It is hoped that this article will at least help explode some of the myths about urban cultivation that are currently used to legitimize the arguments of these interests.

Many African cities are currently marked by the decline of the formal urban economy and the simultaneous upsurge of household cultivation by the urban poor. This has generated two types of critical responses, though for very different reasons. The modernization proponents view urban cultivation as a manifestation of rural habits, predominantly relied upon by recent migrants lacking integration into the urban economy and culture. The New-Marxist critics, on the other hand, blame such activities for contributing to the "double exploitation of labor" and for maintaining the status quo of capitalist social relations of production. This paper, based on a survey of 250 low-income households in Zambia, attempts to respond to both criticisms. First, it demonstrates that the modernization proponents' assumption regarding who cultivates and why are basically incorrect. The paper then provides evidence that urban cultivation is an innovative response from below which was initially strongly resisted by capitalist countries. The paper also argues that urban cultivation by the poor reduces their vulnerability to the fluctuations of fortune that currently beset the economies of African cities.

No abstract

This article argues that an inadvertent side effect of the current preoccupation with planning from below has been a lack of attention to public sector planning at the top, which remains a critical institutional mechanism for development. To be effective, however, public sector planners must anticipate institutional resistance to their efforts, particularly from within the state structure, and incorporate this understanding into the formulation and sequencing of planning tasks in unorthodox and counterintuitive ways. Drawing on examples of planning for the provision of housing and employment for the urban poor in newly industrializing nations, the article demonstrates that in effective practice, substantive and procedural theories of planning are not separated, because planning procedures are largely influenced by the particular substantive nature of problems to be addressed. Hence, planning theorists need to better understand the substantive nature of problems in order to provide practicing planners with institutional insights about the type of resistance they are likely to encounter when a problem is formulated in a particular way. This awareness of resistance to planning was absent in development planning's formative years; but the last 50 years of planning experience have generated rich tacit knowledge which, if formalized, can contribute to more effective public sector planning.