Search results

Is urbanization a danger or a solution to global sustainability? What institutions need to change to make urban areas more sustainable? In examining urbanization rates in countries over time, we see that they are often more correlated to carbon dioxide emissions than per capital income [1]. This tells us that urbanization patterns of the last 100 years have contributed to the increase in carbon emissions. We therefore need to develop a new kind of urbanization in order to tackle global challenges. However, reports about global changes often portray urbanization as "a problem". Cities are polluted and increasingly crowded; urban inhabitants consume proportionately more resources and are responsible for a large portion of carbon emissions ([2], p. 927). As a urban planner, when I read those reports it seems I am looking at the books of urban planning in the last century, particularly those on urbanization in the colonies, where urbanization was presented as an unwanted process that caused a lot of harms to the "civilization" [3,4]. We must therefore change the discourse on how we describe urbanization if we want to transform it, as it will not be stopped. We must stress the many benefits that urbanization has brought to society, which are the main reasons people want to come to the cities in the first place. A question to be considered is therefore how to make urban life compatible with global challenges? i.e., how can we continue implementing/developing urbanization and the benefits that come with it without disproportionally increasing carbon emissions, the destruction of ecosystems and unsustainable consumption. There are many opportunities for win-win strategies between global sustainability challenges and development in urban areas, or synergies, such as climate co-benefits, i.e., tackling climate change and promoting development, particularly in some developing countries where cities are still being built and the path of urbanization can be changed [5,6]. Nevertheless, despite all we have learned about urbanization and the possible co-benefits opportunities since the last century, we lack understanding of the contextual and institutional conditions that make those solutions emerge.

1. The BRICS and International Development Assistance: Between the Old and the New -- 2. The 'End of 'Development Assistance' and the BRICS -- 3. Locating BRICS Development Strategies in Global Development Policy Narratives -- 4. International Development Assistance: A case study of Brazil, a member of the BRICS -- 5. The New Development Bank (NDB) vs The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB):An analytical comparison from a critical perspective -- 6. Sustainable Development and the New Development (BRICS) Bank: A Forward-Looking Assessment -- 7. The BRICS' New Development Bank at the Crossroads: Challenges of Building Development Cooperation in the 21st Century -- 8. BRICS Banking and the Demise of New Developmentalist Alternatives to the IMF and World Bank

This volume presents a novel framework to understand urban climate co-benefits in India, that is, tackling climate change and achieving sustainable development goals in cities. It utilizes methods and tools from several assessment frameworks to scientifically evaluate sector co-benefits for informed decision making. The co-benefits approach can lead to significant improvements in the way societies use environmental resources and distribute their outputs. The volume discusses four main themes: (1) Concepts and theories on cities and climate co-benefits; (2) Contextualizing co-benefit issues across spatial scales and sectors; (3) Sectoral analyses of co-benefits in energy, transport, buildings, waste, and biodiversity, and (4) Innovations and reforms needed to promote co-benefits in cities. The discussions are based on empirical research conducted in Indian cities and aligned with the international discourse on the 2030 UN Development Agenda and New Urban Agenda created at the UN-Habitat III in 2016. The analyses and recommendations in this volume are of considerable interest to policy experts, scholars and researchers of urban and regional studies, geography, public policy, international development/law, economics, development planning, environmental planning, climate change, energy studies, and so on. How can India provide services and infrastructure to its rapidly urbanizing population and simultaneously reduce emissions? While answering such questions this book is a must read to understand India's course in implementing the Habitat III agenda, as well as achieving relevant Sustainable Development Goals. -Professor Govindan Parayil, Dean of the Patel College of Global Sustainablility, University of South Florida, USA (Former Vice-Rector and Director, UNU-IAS, Japan)

SUMMARYA key challenge at the beginning of the 21st century is to de‐carbonize and de‐materialize the global economy in time to avoid irreversible changes to the global and local environment while generating enough social and economic development opportunities to reduce poverty and inequity. Four main 'development paradigms' dominate the contemporary public discourse on how to best meet this challenge and achieve the social, economic and environment pillars of sustainable development: (i) a growth‐focused development paradigm; (ii) a pro‐poor growth development paradigm; (iii) a green‐growth development paradigm; and (iv) a resilient growth development paradigm. Although these four development paradigms are usually perceived as mutually exclusive, the paper argues that they should be regarded as complementary, with each providing a necessary but in itself insufficient response to the challenge of sustainability. The new sustainable development paradigm will require a substantial transformation of the present economic development model analogous to what transition economies underwent during the industrial revolution. The paper discusses the political, managerial and social implementation challenges for this societal shift and finds that its success will depend on whether public administrations are adequately prepared to translate government policies into action at the different levels, negotiate conflicts and build trust among stakeholders. The paper concludes by summarizing some of the solutions advocated in the individual contributions to this Special Edition of PAD to strengthen the capacity of public administrations in creating a sustainable future. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractThe COVID‐19 pandemic has exposed fundamental flaws in the design of public administration in late democracies. While much writing to date focuses on the initial and vital responses to COVID‐19, the magnitude of this event also furthers insights into the risks of incomplete institutional designs and practices, such as the case of Brazil, an example of the administrative flaws in late democracies. This article is not a critique of responses to COVID‐19 per se, but an examination of these considering democratization processes that include state‐building and the need for another push in administrative and political reforms. Shortcomings in state‐building, which existed before COVID‐19, inflict heavy costs on society and, if left unaddressed, add to the costs of future disasters and unraveling of support for state and democratic institutions.