Cities in National Constitutions: Northern Stagnation, Southern Innovation by Ran Hirschl published by Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance (2020)
In contrast with the constitutional silence concerning urban agglomeration and the stalemate with respect to city status in most Global North settings, several countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa have generated new ideas about the constitutional governance of the metropolis and of the urban/rural divide more generally. In this paper, I explore what national constitutions around the world say (and do not say) about cities, before examining three of the most ambitious attempts to date to bolster the constitutional status of cities. These are the adoption in 1992 of the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution of India; the protection of city status in the constitution of Brazil (1988) and its support through the City Statute (2001); and the inclusion of a chapter in South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution (1996) devoted to cities as an order of government. The comparative analysis suggests that South Africa’s constitutionalization of city power is arguably the most effective of these attempts. In India and Brazil, constitutional experimentation with city emancipation has proven less effective, often succumbing to deeply engrained intergovernmental hierarchies and blatant political manoeuvring. Taken as a whole, this paper highlights the significance of necessity (the vast majority of urbanization takes place in the Global South), constitutional malleability, and, above all, political will in addressing the constitutional status of cities.
