In this research we have been concerned with whether and how the poor beneยฎt from city economic growth, and whether and how they are able to inยฏuence the agenda of the institutions of city governance. Of the vast array of factors which have a bearing on these issues, this paper focuses on those relating to urban governance (Devas, 1999). These can be gathered into three broad groups: ยฎrstly, the political process, and whether this enables the voice of the poor to be heard; secondly, the capacity of city governments to respond to the needs of the poor; and thirdly, the impact of civil society on access and inยฏuence by the poor. We will look at each of these in turn, ending with a brief review of some of the policies and practices of city governance institutions which may or may not enable the poor to beneยฎt.
City governance in its widest sense includes a broad range of actorsรprivate businesses, both formal and informal, civil society organizations including NGOs, community organizations, religious groups, trade unions and trade associations, as well central and local government agencies. The main focus here is on city government itself, since this is the locus of whatever political representation and accountability there is, as well as the dominant (but by no means the sole) provider of services affecting the poor. The concern is as much with the informal processes by which things happen as with the formal processes of decision-making and implementation. In the end, it is what the poor do for themselves that determines their survival and livelihoods, but the actions of the institutions of city governance can make that more or less difยฎcult.
1 INCLUSIVE POLITICAL PROCESSES Election of City Government: Mayors and Councillors
Every state, and every city, has its own institutional arrangements and political processes, so that generalizations are dangerous. But it does seem that certain political arrangements are more likely than others to make the votes of the poor count, and hence to enable the