For decades, the dominant theories and models in urban research have been built on the experiences of a small number of cities, primarily Western cities. Other urban contexts, especially those in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, are too often treated as peripheral, as if they simply imitate or lag behind “northern” norms.
Urban geographer Jennifer Robinson criticized this, arguing that urban theory needs to take seriously the diverse realities of all cities. This means starting from places like Johannesburg, South Africa’s commercial capital, or São Paulo, Brazil’s financial capital, not just as isolated case studies, but as central locations for understanding dynamic urban processes. Much of the urbanization of the next decade will occur in exactly these conditions.
Last year, I read the book Urban Power, written by Benjamin Bradlaugh, a professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University, with this framework in mind.
Bradlaugh focuses on three key urban public goods in São Paulo, with a population of 22 million, and Johannesburg, with a population of 6.5 million: housing, transport, and sanitation.
His central question is why some cities are more effective at reducing built environment inequality than others.
The answer lies in what Bradlaugh calls urban power.
What is “urban power”?
Bradlaugh defines urban power as how formal and informal relationships are integrated within a city, influencing how the city is governed and ultimately how public services and infrastructure are distributed across urban space. Two factors determine how well this will work in a particular urban context.
The first is embeddedness, or the link between city government and social movements in civil society. The second is unity. This is the ability of city governments to coordinate across their departments and agencies.
Bradlaugh argues that effective cities are built when they are both permeable and cohesive. These things determine how well policies are informed and accountable to those most affected.
Struggles to construct and exercise such power therefore form the core foundations of urban governance. This will ultimately shape both the distribution of urban public goods and how effectively they reach the most marginalized.
Fundamentally, it is about how those in power are willing and able to work together with society and within government to equitably meet the needs of all.
Housing: various paths
When São Paulo (1980s) and Johannesburg (1990s) entered democratic eras, both were led by mayors who explicitly committed to redistributing wealth by extending adequate housing to the most marginalized areas.
But housing is also the area where Bradlaugh sees the most striking contrast in the two cities’ outcomes.
During South Africa’s democratic transition, the cry of “one city, one tax base” rallied neighborhood associations, social movements, and local branches of trade unions. To overcome the fiscal fragmentation left by apartheid, wealthy, predominantly white areas of the city were to contribute property taxes to a central fiscal administration. This central agency would precisely cross-subsidise new capital investment in poor black neighborhoods.
However, in the following years, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) demobilized social movements in favor of a centralized one-party system.
This influence was also evident in Johannesburg. The weakening of ties between city government and civil society (embeddedness) meant that city bureaucracies became increasingly alienated from the housing movement. As a result, they were in a disadvantageous position to challenge the dominance of private real estate interests.
In São Paulo, the city’s bureaucracy maintained close ties to the housing movement. They used this embeddedness to build cohesion within their own ranks. This allowed the city to use state mandates to counter the power of real estate interests and introduce innovations that expanded social housing.
Central to this effort was a 2001 city ordinance. This law clearly codifies the constitutional right of “social functions of property” at the city level. This legal framework has made available tools such as Zones of Special Social Interest (ZEIS), which set aside well-located land for social housing.
Importantly, São Paulo became one of the first major Brazilian cities to adopt a master plan that explicitly promotes the redistributive goals of the housing movement.
The housing situation in São Paulo is far from perfect. And the city continues to struggle to meet demand for affordable housing. Nevertheless, important progress has been made.
Transport: Institutions or technology first?
Bradlaugh explains how São Paulo pursued an “institution-first” approach to transportation. For years, social movements have called for lower fares and improved services to urban peripheries. In response to these demands, the Erundina government (1989-1992) restructured the relationship between private bus operators and the city commercial rights authority. Fare revenue was collected by the authorities themselves. They then paid the operators based on the quality and quantity of services provided.
This change allowed the city to introduce reforms like the bilhete único, one ticket valid for the entire network. In other words, short trips subsidize long trips. This allows for more equitable access regardless of where you live. In addition, large and small carriers are now integrated into one system, making revenue more predictable and allowing planning to prioritize the benefits of the entire network.
In contrast, Johannesburg led with a ‘technology-first’ approach. Rea Vaya, a bus rapid transit (BRT) system, emerged in the early 2000s. However, minibus taxi operators, the backbone of the existing transport system, were largely excluded from the planning process.
Given Johannesburg’s spatial fragmentation, the economics of BRT were difficult from the start. If the operating companies were to withdraw from the taxi business, they would be offered shares in a newly established bus company. However, this arrangement relied on an untested revenue model.
Institutional complexity (lack of cohesion) exacerbated the problem. Operating licenses and capital improvements were administered at the state level rather than the city level. Most importantly, the lack of embeddedness meant that resistance from local operators was almost inevitable.
A comparison of the transport sector highlights recurring themes. In São Paulo, a slower, more cumbersome process facilitated retention. It treated redistribution through collective transport as a political project rather than a technocratic practice. Johannesburg pursued a faster, technology-driven route that avoided negotiations that could make the system more sustainable.
Hygiene: Building Responsibility
If housing is a residential public good and transportation is a networked public good, sanitation is somewhere in the middle. Deliveries are made to individual homes but rely on city-wide infrastructure.
Bradlaugh highlights how the São Paulo city government has succeeded in creating accountability (solidarity) downward from the national sanitation company. This brought decision-making authority closer to the local level. This has ensured that service priorities better reflect the daily realities of cities rather than distant state-level agendas.
The new arrangements make it possible to extend services to informal settlements without the need for formal tenure. This is an important flexibility that has long been a barrier to inclusivity. At the same time, urban planning and coordination capacity was also strengthened. Service delivery has become more firmly integrated into the city’s own governance structure.
In contrast, in Johannesburg, housing projects were often implemented without corresponding sanitary infrastructure, with weak cohesion reflected in a lack of planning integration. Reforms separated sanitation from broader spatial planning and promoted fragmented governance.
The city also adopted a model formed on private sector principles. Examples include self-financing, performance-based contracting, and competition. In practice, these led to service cuts in poorer areas where cost recovery was impossible.
This comparison shows how the same broad national reform agenda can play out very differently depending on local government capacity and institutional linkages (cohesion).
Why comparisons are important
Comparisons across contexts reveal patterns and possibilities that may be missed in single-city studies. Bradlaugh’s book reveals how rapid urbanization, deep inequality, and financial constraints intersect. These insights have implications far beyond these cases.
His book calls for starting urban theory in the Global South, making it a foundation rather than an afterthought. Urban studies expert Jane Jacobs says:
Cities have the ability to provide something for everyone because they were created by everyone.
Bradlow’s book shows exactly what it will take, politically and institutionally, to realize that vision.
For anyone interested in the politics of making cities more just, this book is a must-read.
