Explore the vast range of titles available.

A recent article by Corburn et al. lays out the policies that would help slum communities in the global south deal with COVID-19. That article notes the vulnerabilities of people in these informal settlements and argues that any assistance program must recognize these realities so that the policies do not further jeopardize the survival of large segments of the population of these communities. This note extends the arguments in that paper, focusing on some of the logistic issues involved in providing assistance to informal settlements. It argues that such assistance is essential not only for the help it would provide to people in these settlements but also because the residents of these communities should be key targets of assistance. Because of the location and occupation of most of the residents of these communities, targeting them simultaneously addresses health and economy-wide concerns generated by COVID-19. Their characteristics make them much more likely to be afflicted by the virus and spread it to others. The main conclusions of this note with respect to policy are that the scale of such assistance is likely to be larger than has so far been proposed, that in countries with limited testing ability slums provide one of the most effective places to target assistance, that the role of community groups in providing the assistance is difficult to exaggerate, and that philanthropy has a role to play in supporting innovation.

Sanitation delivery in the urban areas of sub-Saharan African countries has been a chronic issue, particularly difficult to tackle. Under the Millennium Development Goals, the sanitation target in urban sub-Saharan Africa was missed by a wide margin and witnessed almost no improvement. After 2 years of review, the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme published a new measure of access to sanitation as a baseline for the Sustainable Development Goals. There are a number of improvements in the new measure. However, despite the improvements, the new measure continues to be characterized by an important flaw: it continues to disregard how shared toilet facilities contribute towards the SDG sanitation target. As a result, the new measure does not indicate whether progress is being made in low-income urban areas where a large number of households rely on shared sanitation; nor does it provide a goal that can be achieved in cities of the poorest countries over the measurement period. But, its most egregious failing is that it directs resources towards investments which will often fail cost/benefit tests. In sum, it is not a surprise that a Working Group recommended that the measure should be changed to include some shared facilities. Following the Working Group’s recommendation would have avoided the adverse consequences of continued reliance on a key component of the methodology used for monitoring sanitation improvements under the Millennium Development Goals. The paper discusses the limitations of this methodology in the context of urban sub-Saharan Africa, where current sanitation conditions are seriously lacking, and the significant future urban population growth will add more pressure for the delivery of vital sanitation services.

This article discusses housing policy in developing economies. It examines recent research findings in light of earlier arguments as to the benefits of more market-oriented approaches. It also looks at whether the recommendations of earlier work have been refuted or developed in subsequent analyses and policy measures. In particular, it reviews the empirical analysis of the effects of policy on housing supply, the richer understanding of the effects that land market regulations have on housing affordability and the functioning of urban areas, and the alleged mysterious effects that researchers claim effective property rights have on housing policy and on development more generally. It also examines the effects of the increased emphasis on community participation, showing how it helps to more fully reconcile the incentives faced by beneficiaries of housing policy and donors. Finally, it examines recent literature on the welfare effects of rent control. The article shows that some of the conjectures as to the likely benefits of more market-based policy have been refuted, but large welfare gains for poor people can still be realized by adapting this approach. Furthermore, this approach appears to be gaining ground as the consensus approach to effective housing policy.

Ghana has been one of the most rapidly growing economies in sub-Saharan Africa. This growth has been aided by Ghana's improving policy environment. In light of this, the paper addresses the question of why, given its higher level of per capita income and relatively strong growth, the housing conditions of the poor in Accra are considerably worse than those in a number of other African cities with lower incomes. There are not many data available to answer this question, so the method is indirect and takes two approaches. First, a variant of the monocentric city model is used to calculate Accra's housing supply elasticity relative to those of other similarly sized African cities. The model suggests that housing supply responsiveness is considerably lower in Accra, a result consistent with the observed higher housing costs. Secondly, a number of traditional housing demand and reduced-form equations are estimated for Accra and the other cities. This allows the formation of a quantitative judgment about Accra's housing supply elasticity. Taken together, the two approaches indicate that lower-income families in Accra have such poor housing conditions because the market is extremely unresponsive to demand. The welfare costs of current housing and land policies are considerable. The results suggest that making Accra's real estate market more responsive would go a long way towards improving the effectiveness of the broader policy environment. It would also no doubt improve the housing conditions of the poor and help to reduce the city's expanding footprint.

As England's Industrial Revolution started the process of urbanization that has since characterized development throughout the world, a poet worried about the \"dark satanic mills\" that were such a fundamental part of this revolution. However, despite his misgivings, he also suggested that it was necessary for societies to arm themselves with \"chariots of fire\" and other weapons so that they could master this process. In a somewhat more prosaic poetic vein World Bank President Robert McNamara launched the bank's shelter assistance programs saying that 'If cities do not begin to deal more constructively with poverty, poverty may begin to deal more destructively with cities.' These concerns would appear to have even more resonance today as the population of cities in developing countries increasing by unprecedented levels of more than 1 billion people per year for the next 15 years. This magnitude suggests the scale of the increase in the investment in shelter needed to meet the needs of this growing population.

For 18 months in 2009–2010, the Rockefeller Foundation provided support to establish the Roundtable on Urban Living Environment Research (RULER). Composed of leading experts in population health measurement from a variety of disciplines, sectors, and continents, RULER met for the purpose of reviewing existing methods of measurement for urban health in the context of recent reports from UN agencies on health inequities in urban settings. The audience for this report was identified as international, national, and local governing bodies; civil society; and donor agencies. The goal of the report was to identify gaps in measurement that must be filled in order to assess and evaluate population health in urban settings, especially in informal settlements (or slums) in low- and middle-income countries. Care must be taken to integrate recommendations with existing platforms (e.g., Health Metrics Network, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) that could incorporate, mature, and sustain efforts to address these gaps and promote effective data for healthy urban management. RULER noted that these existing platforms focus primarily on health outcomes and systems, mainly at the national level. Although substantial reviews of health outcomes and health service measures had been conducted elsewhere, such reviews covered these in an aggregate and perhaps misleading way. For example, some spatial aspects of health inequities, such as those pointed to in the 2008 report from the WHO’s Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, received limited attention. If RULER were to focus on health inequities in the urban environment, access to disaggregated data was a priority. RULER observed that some urban health metrics were already available, if not always appreciated and utilized in ongoing efforts (e.g., census data with granular data on households, water, and sanitation but with little attention paid to the spatial dimensions of these data). Other less obvious elements had not exploited the gains realized in spatial measurement technology and techniques (e.g., defining geographic and social urban informal settlement boundaries, classification of population-based amenities and hazards, and innovative spatial measurement of local governance for health). In summary, the RULER team identified three major areas for enhancing measurement to motivate action for urban health—namely, disaggregation of geographic areas for intra-urban risk assessment and action, measures for both social environment and governance, and measures for a better understanding of the implications of the physical (e.g., climate) and built environment for health. The challenge of addressing these elements in resource-poor settings was acknowledged, as was the intensely political nature of urban health metrics. The RULER team went further to identify existing global health metrics structures that could serve as platforms for more granular metrics specific for urban settings.

• Why is productivity higher in cities? • Does urbanization cause growth or does growth cause urbanization? • Do countries achieve rapid growth or high incomes without urbanization? • How can policy makers reap the benefits of urbanization without paying too high a cost? • Does supporting urbanization imply neglecting rural areas? • Why do so few governments welcome urbanization? • What should governments do to improve housing conditions in cities as they urbanize? • Are innovations in housing finance a blessing or a curse for developing countries? • How will governments finance the trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending needed for cities in developing countries? First in a series of thematic volumes, this book was prepared for the Commission on Growth and Development to evaluate the state of knowledge of the relationship between urbanization and economic growth. It does not pretend to provide all the answers, but it does identify insights and policy levers to help countries make urbanization work as part of a national growth strategy. It examines a variety of topics: the relevance and policy implications of recent advances in urban economics for developing countries, the role of economic geography in global economic trends and trade patterns, the impacts of urbanization on spatial inequality within countries, and alternative approaches to financing the substantial infrastructure investments required in developing-country cities. Written by prominent academics in their fields, Urbanization and Growth seeks to create a better understanding of the role of urbanization in growth and to inform policy makers tackling the formidable challenges it poses.

The inadequacy of housing and its effect on the quality of life go a long way toward explaining many aspects of Russian life, but little data has been available to determine how housing affected the relative well-being of the citizenry. This paper presents comprehensive data examining for the first time the effect that seventy years of a socialist housing allocation scheme had on the distribution of income. It seems clear that housing provided by the government or by employers has a value that can be measured to yield useful inferences about the distribution of income and wealth. This article shows that housing allocation had a progressive effect on the distribution of income in Russia. In addition, when the imputed value of housing is added to household income, the increase in income inequality that occurred in recent years is significantly reduced. The analysis concludes with a discussion of how housing policy could be used to address poverty concerns, an important aspect of the transition process.