In our previous blog, we explored the challenges of coordination among urban governance bodies, highlighting how inadequate communication, data sharing, and visibility of on-ground situations contribute to inefficient urban management.
Building on that discussion, this second blog delves into global examples of how cities have successfully addressed these issues. The Importance of Data and Communication: Effective communication and data sharing are fundamental to seamless urban governance.
Before we look at global examples, let's look at one of our best cities to understand the scale and complexity of problems that we face in India.
Duality of Mumbai- a rich and poor city
Mumbai is the densest metropolitan region in the world with over 50,000 people per square kilometer versus Delhi's 29,000 and Shanghai's 28,000.
It is also among the most expensive in the world even as it ranks below global and local peers on ease of living.
In Mumbai, like any other city in India, the urban governance landscape is fragmented, with numerous bodies responsible for various aspects of city management.
To give a glimpse of the coordination problem, here is a small list of important government bodies related to urban services and infrastructure in the Mumbai metropolitan region.
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA)
Mumbai Rail Vikas Corporation (MRVC)
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA)
Mumbai Environmental Management Services (MEMS)
Public Works Department (PWD)
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Water Department
Having numerous bodies managing various aspects of urban governance, coordination between these entities becomes critical.
Lack of standard and automated data sharing channels, multi layered bureaucracy and changing policy environment impacts the overall efficacy of urban management and severely impacts the liveability of the city.
How have global peers handled this problem
To enhance the delivery of urban services, coordination between departments and balance political leanings – the cities around the world have implemented a variety of transparency, administrative monitoring, and data sharing practices.
Examining global success stories, cities like Singapore and Copenhagen provide valuable lessons in institutional coordination. These cities have developed robust frameworks based on these three pillar:
Transparency- Data Sharing
Regular Reporting of Projects
Administrative Monitoring
Transparency- Data Sharing
1. Public Access to Information:
Cities like New York and London have made significant strides in increasing transparency by providing public access to urban planning data and decision-making processes through online portals. This allows residents to understand, evaluate, and participate in urban development initiatives.
New York:
NYC Open Data: Provides free public data published by New York City agencies. This platform allows residents to access, analyze, and utilize city data for various purposes, enhancing transparency and citizen engagement. You can explore the datasets at NYC Open Data (NYC Open Data).
ZoLa (Zoning and Land Use Map): An interactive map that provides detailed zoning and land use information, facilitating public understanding and participation in urban planning. More information is available at ZoLa NYC (NYC Planning ZoLa).
London: London Datastore: An initiative by the Greater London Authority to provide free access to data about the city. It includes a wide range of datasets that support transparency and informed decision-making by the public. Visit London Datastore for more details.
2. Community Engagement:
Engaging the community in the planning stages of projects helps ensure that the initiatives align with the needs of the residents. Cities like Vancouver and Stockholm hold public forums, workshops, and use online platforms to gather public input before finalizing urban development plans.
Vancouver: Vancouver engages its community through various platforms such as public forums, workshops, and online surveys to ensure that urban development plans align with the needs of residents.
3. Standardizing Data-Sharing Protocols
Developing a mandatory framework for data sharing among civic bodies could facilitate better decision-making and service delivery, mirroring successful models in cities like Helsinki and San Francisco.
Helsinki Region Infoshare - Open Data Service: Helsinki Region Infoshare
San Francisco Data Sharing: DataSF
Regular Reporting of Projects
Implementing regular reporting on the progress and outcomes of projects, as done by cities like Singapore, helps maintain transparency and allows for real-time accountability.
Singapore is known for its comprehensive and transparent reporting system on urban development projects. Here's a breakdown of how they achieve this:
Dedicated Reporting Agencies: Agencies like the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) are responsible for tracking and reporting on urban development projects.
Regular Progress Reports: These reports detail project milestones achieved, budget expenditures, and any challenges encountered. The frequency of reporting can vary depending on the project size and complexity, but updates are typically provided quarterly or annually.
Performance Measurement Frameworks: Singapore utilizes specific frameworks to measure project performance. These frameworks define key performance indicators (KPIs) aligned with the project's goals. Examples of KPIs could be increased green space, improved public transport connectivity, or resident satisfaction levels.
Independent Audits: In some cases, independent audits are conducted to verify the accuracy and completeness of reported information.
Benefits of Singapore's Reporting System:
Transparency and Accountability: Regular reporting fosters transparency in project execution and holds authorities accountable for delivering on their promises.
Public Engagement: Making reports accessible allows citizens to understand how projects are impacting their communities and provide feedback.
Improved Project Management: By tracking progress against KPIs, project managers can identify issues early and make necessary adjustments.
Administrative Monitoring
Performance-Based Evaluation
Cities such as Seoul use performance-based evaluations for urban projects and their managing bodies, which are tied to transparent and publicly shared metrics. This helps in holding the involved parties accountable based on objective criteria.
The UK also follows a monitoring system of public servants' performance through KPIs and KRAs for governmental bodies.
ICMA has also published a guide to Performance Management for Local Governments.
Benefits of Performance-Based Evaluations:
Focus on Impact: By prioritizing outcomes, Seoul ensures its urban projects deliver tangible benefits to the city and its residents.
Data-Driven Decisions: The use of metrics provides a data-driven approach to project evaluation, reducing reliance on subjective opinions.
Improved Efficiency: Regular evaluations can help identify areas for improvement and optimize resource allocation during project execution.
Transparency and Public Trust: A clear performance-based system fosters transparency and builds public trust in how urban projects are managed.
Challenges of Performance-Based Evaluations:
Setting Measurable Goals: Defining clear and measurable goals for complex urban projects can be challenging.
Data Collection and Analysis: Gathering and analyzing the necessary data can be time-consuming and require resources.
Balancing Flexibility and Rigidity: Performance-based systems need to be flexible enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances, while still maintaining clear standards.
Independent Oversight Bodies:
Establishing independent oversight bodies can help monitor the activities of urban development authorities. Cities like Berlin have independent commissions that oversee major projects, ensuring they adhere to approved plans and budgets without undue political influence.
Transparency and Accountability: Independent commissions, ideally composed of experts from various fields (engineering, urban planning, finance), can provide objective evaluations of project proposals and progress. This transparency helps ensure public funds are used efficiently and according to plan.
Reduced Political Influence: By removing some decision-making power from politicians, these commissions can help prevent projects from being swayed by short-term political gains or special interests. This can lead to more sustainable and long-term beneficial projects.
Improved Project Quality: With their expertise, independent commissions can ensure projects meet high technical and planning standards. They can also identify potential problems early on, leading to better project outcomes.
Implementing the best practices of transparency, community engagement, regular reporting, performance-based evaluations, and independent oversight can significantly improve institutional coordination and efficiency in urban governance.
By learning from global examples, Indian cities like Mumbai can adopt these strategies to overcome the challenges of fragmented governance, ensuring more effective, transparent, and citizen-centric urban management. This transformation will enhance the quality of life for residents and foster sustainable urban development.
Comments