Abstract
The post-war decades have witnessed an increasing urbanization of poverty, as well as the growth of informal settlements connected to cities of the global south. While the scale of on-going urban transformations pushes development actors to take positions , Norwegian development aid has received mounting criticism for acting ‘spatially blind’; too conservative in its perceptions regarding urbanization, and too reluctant in its approaches to urban growth. This thesis investigates how urbanization, the city and human settlement patterns have been conceptualized in Norwegian aid throughout the post-war era. Focusing on bi- and multilateral engagements in the periods between the three international Habitat Conferences, I exemplify ways in which urbanization has been perceived and examined, and discuss the potential path-dependencies existing within Norwegian aid. My investigation indicates that aid continues to be constrained due to historical engagements with the subject, and that historical path-dependencies have lasting implications for Norwegian habitat policy perspectives. A qualitative analysis of key documents and a set of expert interviews suggest that anti-urban bias in Norwegian aid has been strengthened on the basis of four overall factors. Firstly, urbanization and the developing country metropolis continues to be conceptualized as a double risk: a risk to socio-environmental limits and a security risk that increases with major city growth, and a risk of benefitting urban elites or privileged groups—rather than those in need—when prioritizing cities. Secondly, even as most population growth in developing countries occurs in cities, the methods used to capture development challenges remain insufficient at describing urban forms of poverty and urban-rural linkages. Highlighted in the literature, and supported by findings urban development challenges are placed largely outside the mapped field of aid. Thirdly, with increasing urbanization and urban engagements since the millennium, Norwegian aid has considered urban growth as an ‘inevitable’ process involving economic growth and a transition to modern societies. From the metropolis being perceived as a non-traditional and un-natural element, urbanization has been, somewhat, re-framed as a ‘natural’ process of modernization—understood in isolation from countryside transformation and informal livelihood. The final factor to consider is that urban management and planning continues to exist as an academic and professional field on the side-line of development practice. Broader than the Norwegian case, the inaptitude to critically explain urbanization and urban phenomena and the reluctance to engage in integrated urban management, leaves the task to under-funded cities, agencies, civil society organizations, and local groups.