Cities have been described as engines of growth due to their multifaceted role in industrialisation and expansion of businesses. Historical data, trend and empirical analysis point to the same conclusion.

In 2020, the World Bank highlighted the fact that 80 percent of the world’s GDP was being generated in cities. The UN-Habitat says the leading factors making cities the engines of growth are productivity and efficiency in production and services; competitiveness enhancement through enhanced efficiency; centres of knowledge and innovation owning to diversity and concentration; and business opportunities through concentration and quality of life.

The belief in the theory and historical evidence compelled the world to adopt a strategy of urbanisation and creation of new cities. The rationale behind the creation of cities was to tap the benefits of urbanisation. This triggered a race.

Some countries adopted specific policies and developed new tools to lead in the race. The developed world was way ahead of the developing world on account of their economic status, technological development and financial resources. This led to mass migration from rural areas to urban centres and development of towns into cities.

The end of the World War II accelerated the process as the economic growth took a new turn due to rapid industrialisation. Cities now host more than 4.2 billion people, a sea change from 750 million in 1950. The trend is unchanged and it is expected that the contribution of cities to the GDP will increase further in the coming years. Many cities will become trillion-dollar economies.

However, cities have been linked to challenges and problems for the humanity. It is becoming extremely difficult to fulfill the food and energy demand of the cities. Cities account for 78 percent of world’s energy consumption and 80 precent of its food consumption. The landmass of the cities meanwhile is around 2 percent.

Cities are responsible for 70 percent of the GHG emissions, the biggest factor in climate change, which is an existential threat to the world. Cities are also major contributors to deterioration of environmental indicators at large. The cities have become centres of concentration of public services like education, health and transport.

There is a need to look for new or alternative way of urbanisation without compromising on the contribution to growth. The alternative model should be designed in such a way that it lowers the GHG emissions, preserves the environmental indicators, works towards human welfare and bridges the rural-urban divide.

Spatially hybrid urbanisation (SHU) has emerged as one such alternative. The core objective of the SHU idea is “to work with the existing non-urban settlements and convert them into urban centres while maintaining non-urban characteristics without impacting the surroundings”.

Non-urban centres can be converted into urban centres by providing services and creating livelihood opportunities. The argument can also be substantiated by analysing the historical trend of migration and reasons of migration. However, we need to design the distribution of services and livelihood opportunities in such a way that it ensures equity, if not equality. The accessibility of services and livelihoods should also be ensured.

With every breakthrough in technology the job market and business landscape changed. The provision and accessibility of services also followed the trends. There is a consensus among experts that every breakthrough of the kind gives fresh impetus to urbanisation.

The process is completed in four phases. The first phase is dedicated to profiling the area, mapping of livelihood opportunities, climatic condition and population density.

The second phase focuses on mapping the availability and need of services like water, education, health, electricity and internet. The third phase creates livelihood opportunities like business, industry, resources, skills and future needs. The fourth phase critically analyses the facilities for connectivity - internet, roads, transport etc.

The key question is how the idea of SHU will contribute to achieving the four indicators highlighted by UN-Habitat as key factors, which can turn the cities into engines of growth. The simple answer is the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its tools like information technology, etc.

We have already witnessed the role of technology in distant businesses and connectivity. E-commerce has already changed the ways of doing business and Amazon and Alibaba have emerged as new giants in business. E-commerce has emerged as an alternative to concentration of population in physical space. Enhanced connectivity through information technology can also be turned into a platform of diversity, which can lead the innovation.

The use of technology during Covid-19 helped a great extent to lessen the impact on mobility and functioning of supply chains and production facilities. The provision of services also witnessed a new trend. Bedsides, the ways of meetings, conferences and daily interaction among the management and employees also saw a gigantic shift.

Virtual meetings and conferences are becoming a norm. This gives us hope that SHU can be achieved if we apply the right set of policy and implementation tools.

With every technology breakthrough the landscape of job markets and businesses has changed. The provision and accessibility of services has also followed the trend. There is consensus among experts that every breakthrough gives a fresh impetus to urbanisation and concentration of opportunities, services and people in cities. However, technological breakthroughs can be used to reverse the process and create a new way of urbanisation. We can use information technology to change the landscape of services like education and health. We can also have new ways of production and managing the supply chains.

For example, schools lacking staff can be connected to schools that have adequate staff. This will require quality video links.

Tele-health is already a big success. We can also design modern tools for other services and industries. Physical accessibility of essential facilities should be designed by adopting the Chinese model of 123 transportation network. This requires that education and health facilities be no more distant than a 30 minutes’ travel, livelihood opportunities a 45 minutes’ travel and recreation facilities a 60 minutes’ travel.

It is time to reconceptualise the urban centres according to the changing circumstances. The oportunity is here.

It is hoped that a reduction in rural-urban divide will be the first and immediate benefit of SHU. Spatial distribution of production facilities and services will also help reduce environmental problems. It is a win-win proposition.

China, which is going through the transformation, can lead the way.

The writer is a political economist based in   Islamabad