NEW PARTNERSHIPS IN URBAN SOLID WASTE IN DEVELOPING WORLD 23
Both internal and external forces, therefore, have altered the setting for urban devel-
opment in Africa, Asia and Latin America. For the purposes of the current analysis it
is not necessary to dwell upon the meaning and the attributes of urban management or
critically examine its ideological roots (for this see Stren, 1993; Werna, 1995; Burgess
et al., 1997, Post, 1997). Suffice it to say something on the evolving new role of (local)
government and, subsequently, to zoom in on the privatisation debate. However, first
we need to say something on how urban management ideas are linked up with the
sustainable development debate.
The concern for urban sustainable development in the South gained momentum in the
course of the 1980s (see Hardoy et al., 1990 and 1992). The underlying concept of
sustainable development has ignited wide debate and aroused mixed feelings in
academic and policy circles both because of its elusiveness and diametrically
opposing interpretations. The major tension is between goals of economic growth and
environmental protection. These are particularly acute in an urban context. Cities are
seen as the engines of economic growth and centres of innovation, but they simulta-
neously draw heavily on natural resources and often threaten to overflow local and
regional sinks. It is within this context of conflicting goals that we have tried to take
position. As explained earlier, we will adopt an approach that starts from the Brundt-
land report and was elaborated subsequently, among others, at the IIED by David
Satterthwaite. It seeks to combine goals of environmental aspects of sustainable devel-
opment with the concern for meeting human needs (Satterthwaite, 1997; see chapter
1). Drakakis-Smith has further refined the conceptualisation of sustainable develop-
ment in the urban setting and distinguishes between the economic component (the
productive role of cities and its ability to provide employment and to reduce poverty),
the environmental aspect (notably the sustainable use of renewable resources, mini-
mising the use of non-renewable resources and appropriate physical planning), the
social dimension (satisfying basic human needs and respecting human rights), the
demographic backdrop (urban growth dynamics), and the political sphere (including
the role of the state, democratic control and participatory planning). These are the
essential components of a comprehensive and integrative programme of urban
sustainable development (Drakakis-Smith, 1995: 663-6). What is important for our
discussion, however, is the realisation that urban sustainable development, including
sustainable modes of collection and disposal of urban solid waste, requires a
multi-disciplinary perspective and frameworks of governance and institutional design
that enable a constructive merging of these perspectives.
Unfortunately, the marriage between ecology and development has not been a very
happy one. The utilitarian and exploitative worldview that occupies centre-stage in the
eyes of most contemporary governments and development agencies is fundamentally
at odds with an ecological outlook (Rees, 1995; Escobar, 1995). Very often the inter-
dependence between the economic, the social, the political and the ecological system
is ignored and academics, policy-makers and activists largely confine themselves to