Urban-economic geographies beyond production: Nairobi's sociotechnical system and the challenge of generative urbanization

Murphy, James T. Article Urban-economic geographies beyond production: Nairobi's sociotechnical system and the challenge of generative urbanization ZFW - Advances in Economic Geography Provided in Cooperation with: De Gruyter Brill Suggested Citation: Murphy, James T. (2022) : Urban-economic geographies beyond production: Nairobi's sociotechnical system and the challenge of generative urbanization, ZFW - Advances in Economic Geography, ISSN 2748-1964, De Gruyter, Berlin, Vol. 66, Iss. 1, pp. 18-35, https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2022-0003 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/333150 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ZFW– Advances in Economic Geography 2022; 66(1): 18–35 James T. Murphy* Urban-economic geographies beyond production: Nairobi’s sociotechnical system and the challenge of generative urbanization https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2022-0003 Received: January 19, 2022; accepted: March 9, 2022 Abstract: Urban-regional economies are developing in highly variegated, uneven ways globally. In economic geography, studies of urban-regional development emphasize the prospects for innovative, globally-competitive industrial sectors to emerge and enhance a city-region’s exchange value in global markets. This focus reflects a productivist bias that may fail to address issues related to the use-value of, or living conditions associated with urban transitions. Such concerns are particularly significant in the Global South where urbanization has often not led to socioeconomic transformations that benefit the majority of urban residents. To examine the relationships between a city’s exchange and use value, this paper argues for a sociotechnical systems approach that conceptualizes cities as constituted by interdependent or coupled regimes related to production, consumption, and infrastructure that stabilize urban-regional economies and determine development pathways. The framework is deployed empirically to examine the case of Nairobi, Kenya – a rapidly growing urban-regional economy characterized by high rates of inward foreign direct investment, principally in speculative real estate ventures in the consumption regime. Domestic manufacturing industries (the production regime) are stagnating, struggling to compete against imports, and failing to generate widespread formal employment and raise tax revenues for the infrastructure regime. The net result is a city characterized by fragmented or splintered regimes that create highly uneven, exclusionary development outcomes. These dynamics and findings are analyzed in relation to a similar study of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in order to demonstrate the comparative potential of this conceptual approach. The paper concludes with a call for economic geographers to better account for the use-value of urban-regional economies such that development concerns beyond production become more central to our analyses. Keywords: urban-regional development; sociotechnical systems; urban transitions; consumption; infrastructure; East Africa Introduction The world’s population is now predominantly urban with most major cities in the Global South growing at exponential rates. Megacities (those with populations greater than 10 million) are on the rise and by 2035, 26 of the 30 largest urban agglomerations in the world will be in developing or emerging economies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. As this urban transition proceeds, pressing questions are emerging with regard to what it means for development pathways, possibilities, and outcomes. At the same time, mature cities in the Global North are marked increasingly by extremes of inequality as urban-economic growth widens the gaps between haves and have nots. Whether and how cities can develop in ways that generate progressive development outcomes for all residents is arguably the most pressing urban question of the 21st century. Historically, and in the views of neoclassical economists, urbanization is associated with shifts from agrarian or rural-centric economies that facilitate industrialization (Davis and Henderson, 2003; World Bank, 2009; Venables, 2018). Successful transitions occur when cities create agglomeration, urbanization, and specialization economies that generate positive externalities to spur innovation and increase the competitiveness of base industries in tradeable sectors and regional/global markets. When managed effectively, the growth of cities and urbanbased industries raises productivity levels significantly as migrants from rural areas are absorbed into urban labor markets with greater value-added potential (Collier, 2017). Although this ‘recipe’ seems straightforward, it can be increasingly difficult to deliver on given the challenges of aligning development and urbanization processes. Within cities, elites can capture and control land markets through *Corresponding author: James T. Murphy, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610, USA, E-Mail: [email protected], +1 508-793-7687 (phone), +1 508-793-8881 (fax) Open Access. © 2022 James T. Murphy, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production 19 speculative and rent-seeking practices that do little to improve productive sectors or provide for the basic needs of growing populations (Goodfellow, 2018; Venables, 2018). In the Global South, urbanization without industrialization may be the net result as productive sectors – especially manufacturers – are unable to compete against imports and a dynamic of preemptive deindustrialization occurs (De Vries, Timmer, and De Vries, 2015; AfDB, OECD, and UNDP, 2016; Gollin, Jedwab, and Vollrath, 2016; Rodrik, 2016). This then is the pressing question that is accompanying urban-regional development pathways today: How can cities grow in a manner that is generative of distributive, just, and sustainable development outcomes for all residents? A challenge in this regard relates to existing conceptual tools in economic geography; frameworks that are marked by a focus on production and the emergence of new and/or innovative industrial sectors through agglomeration economies. Such dynamics are oft-viewed as the fundamental drivers of successful urban-regional development with quality-of-life concerns such as congestion, pollution, and urban amenities viewed principally as matters of (post-agglomeration) governance, or as factors that can attract the right workers to productive sectors (Florida, 2002; Shapiro, 2006; World Bank, 2009; Glaeser, 2011). While productive concerns are surely important, the primary focus on these can come at the expense of more comprehensive understandings that capture the interactions between production and the quality of life of a city-region’s residents. As Venables (2018, p.99) notes, there is a “need to see the city as a whole” where livability (use value) and productivity (exchange value) co-constitute one another, and where connectivity within and beyond the city shapes development trajectories. Drawing off recent work by Murphy and Carmody (2019) that examined urbanization in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, this paper further advances and illustrates a framework to better account for the city as a whole – as a sociotechnical system constituted by three interdependent, overlapping, and multiscalar regimes related to production, consumption, and infrastructure. The framework strives to capture and compare the key practices, structures, flows, and contingent features that shape urbanization pathways and the development outcomes associated with them. Epistemologically, the approach calls for grounded, qualitative research that focuses on the everyday practices and governance structures through which urban functions are realized, markets operate, and basic services are distributed, managed, and accessed by residents and municipal authorities. A key objective is to more fully understand how the use value of the city for its residents shapes and is shaped by the exchange value of the goods and services it produces. The paper applies the framework to an empirical examination of Nairobi, Kenya, drawing additionally on the Tanzania case to highlight its comparative potential. The paper is organized as follows. First, geographical concepts and theories related to urban-regional development are briefly surveyed and their limitations highlighted. Second, the paper’s conceptual framework – a sociotechnical systems approach – is then explicated. Third, the case of Nairobi is then presented with a focus on its extant production, consumption, and infrastructure regimes and their interrelationships. This analysis draws on findings from the Dar es Salaam case to highlight the comparative utility of the approach. Fourth, the paper concludes with a discussion on the key empirical findings and insights regarding future directions in urban-economic geography research. Economic geographies of the urbanizationdevelopment nexus The role that cities play in shaping the spatial distribution of economic activities, and their unevenness, has long been a central concern of economic geographers. Historically, concepts and theories were built through analyses of the experiences of European and USA city-regions that often essentialized how urbanization proceeds and to what end points developmentally and spatially. More recent interventions have sought to transcend these teleologies by studying Southern cities and deploying postcolonial, assemblage, and grounded theoretical and methodological approaches. Although differences abound between competing views of what shapes prospective development trajectories in city-regions, there are significant complementarities that can be fruitfully integrated into a more unified, yet not totalizing, framework for studying and comparing urbanization pathways. To begin with, it is useful to highlight some of the classical economic perspectives on cities and their development that remain relevant today. These view cities as central places for consumption and production activities whose rational spatial distribution can create efficient, hierarchical distributions of markets and industries within countries (Christaller, 1933; Jacobs, 1969). Within city-regions, land markets – when operating effectively – can help to productively distribute economic activities through location-rent differentials (Alonso, 1960). Agglomeration is, of course, a core reason why cities come into being in 20 James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production the first place – a means to concentrate markets, industries, and workers in place in order to create scale and scope economies (Marshall, 1920; Scott and Storper, 2003; 2015). Positive externalities associated with agglomeration reduce production costs, facilitate information and knowledge spillovers, and lead to pecuniary benefits as cities grow. Importantly, however, scholars have long recognized that agglomeration alone will not necessarily cause progressive development but that effective institutions, strategic planning, and investments in infrastructure are vital for kick-starting and sustaining cumulative causation (Davis and Henderson, 2003; Venables, 2009; 2018; UN-Habitat, 2016). Such concerns are particularly relevant for developing regions – especially Latin America and Africa – where urban primacy/concentration has been found to inhibit growth when insufficient infrastructures and institutions are in place (Castells-Quintana, 2016; Frick and Rodriguez-Pose, 2018). Beyond these established ideas, economic geographers have specified key processes, resources, and relationalities that make city-regions more or less successful. At the intra-urban or regional scale, places can develop innovative, globally competitive industries through the emergence, maintenance, and augmentation of critical, embedded assets able to support learning and knowledge accumulation. Such assets include: “thick” layers of complementary and interrelated institutions in support of industries (Amin and Thrift, 1994); “untraded interdependencies” (conventions, rules, practices) that enable firms to acquire, integrate, and produce new forms of knowledge (Storper, 1995); industrial environments that are “buzzing” with ideas (Bathelt et al., 2004); functional entrepreneurial ecosystems (Iacob et al., 2019); and complementary competencies (i.e., related and unrelated variety) shared between different sectors in the same region (Frenken et al., 2007; Boschma and Iammarino, 2009). At the inter-urban or transnational scale, geographers have also highlighted the importance of positionality in relation to, and/ or couplings with, lead firms, cities, regions, and centers of innovation in the global economy. Such relationalities are manifest in world-city networks (Taylor, 2005), global production networks and value chains (Coe et al., 2004), and the “pipelines” of knowledge and information flow that connect a region’s firms to new/novel ideas (Bathelt et al., 2004; Bucholz and Bathelt, 2021). Other debates and dialogues cover a wide, diverse, and often complementary range of emerging concepts and epistemologies including: planetary or extended urbanization (Brenner and Schmid, 2012), assemblage urbanism (McFarlane, 2011), postcolonial and decolonial urban theory (Lawhon and Truelove, 2020), “late” urbanization (Fox and Goodfellow, 2021), and conjunctural urbanisms (Peck, 2017). A concern of several of these projects is how to frame and conduct robust comparative analyses that will advance urban theory in ways that move it beyond what Robinson (2013, p.659) terms “the inheritance of modernity”; that is, in part, that only the most modern cities “count” for advancing theories. Instead, it is more useful to consider that we live in a world of diverse, complex cities whose study can reveal contingent variegations and differentiations that transcend developmentalist teleologies (Robinson, 2016). While geographers have made significant advancements to our understandings of what constitutes cities and makes urbanization more or less developmental, three challenges persist. The first is the need to think about urban development in a much broader manner, as a process where by residents fundamentally seek to improve their quality of life and experience social mobility for themselves and their families. Successful, progressive forms of urbanization are not simply about the growth and competitiveness of industries but about livelihoods and the material conditions that residents experience in their lifeworlds, a consideration that is often ignored except as it relates to attracting particular types of workers to productive sectors (e.g., creatives). Urban geographers attend more readily to livelihood and quality of life concerns (e.g., see Brenner et al., 2009) but such works often have the opposite problem, an underappreciation or poor accounting for the economic, as it were. Needed are frameworks that bridge these concerns and develop richer accounts of the development dynamics and outcomes accompanying urban transitions. One way to consider development in a broader sense is to bring (back?) questions about consumption into our frameworks – that is how urbanization changes the consumption possibilities available to all urban residents, especially food, housing, wage goods, basic services, and savings possibilities. A second concern is the need to bring a more robust political economy perspective to bear on the approaches we use to examine and compare city-regions. Here I think it is fruitful to draw on urban regime theory (see Stone, 2015), an approach that sought to conceptualize localized power configurations/distributions and the dynamics of coalition building that shape the development of cities. Following the work of Khan (2010; 2018) on political settlements, Goodfellow (2018) notes that governance configurations in cities constitute urban regimes that regulate and guide urban-regional development. Particularly useful in this regard is to consider how regimes are “constructed in different moments in time and in different places”, and how the capitalisms they enable are “regulated through James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production 21 extra-economic relations in particular places”, such as those beyond the production sphere (Hankins, 2015, p.156). A third concern is to capture the relational, multiscalar nature of cities and the role that translocal and transnational relations play in shaping urban transitions. Urban regimes are not simply localized entities containerized in particular places, they are constituted by extraterritorial ties, flows, networks, and linkages (Hankins, 2015). As such, analyses of urban-regional development processes must explicitly incorporate and account for these relations as forces and factors shaping development dynamics. This is, by no means, a new concern as relational economic geographers have long highlighted the importance of transnational ties for innovation (e.g., Bathelt et al., 2004) and urban-regional development processes (Coe et al., 2004; Yeung, 2021). Needed are more integrative approaches that account for the role of extra-regional linkages and non-firm actors in shaping socioeconomic and industrial development processes locally. Drawing off Murphy and Carmody (2019), this paper illustrates a conceptual framework that strives to account for these concerns in order to develop a fuller understanding of the drivers and outcomes of urban-regional development. The approach draws principally on sociotechnical transitions thinking, particularly works associated with the emerging geography of sustainability transitions community (see Coenen and Truffer, 2012; Murphy, 2015). The goal is to bring use and exchange value concerns together as these relate to urbanization, and to provide a conceptual framework or template to examine, identify, and compare urbanisms globally. Cities as sociotechnical systems Sociotechnical systems research emerged in the late 1980s and has since proliferated as a diverse, global epistemic community interested in the evolution of sector-specific infrastructures, innovation systems, and collective goods vital for economies and societies (Hughes, 1987; Coutard, 2002; Geels, 2002; 2004). Sociotechnical systems are configurations of actors, artifacts, rules, knowledge, meanings, resources, and spaces through and within which sector-specific goods and services are produced, distributed, and utilized (Geels, 2004). Social groups or actors – engineers, consumers, planners, financiers, researchers, distributors, universities, workers, suppliers, utilities, and others – carry and reproduce systems, operating through interdependencies and networks that align them to each other thus giving the system stability. Artifacts and infrastructures too embody rules and norms related to their design, construction, and everyday use. While systems reflect the totality of the sector, a core emphasis of sociotechnical systems research is on the sociotechnical regime, what Rip and Kemp (1998) define as a “rule set” (a la Giddens’ [1984] structuration theory) that governs the system and which is manifest in practices, meanings, material artifacts, structures, policies, and knowledges (Geels, 2002). Sociotechnical systems research has evolved significantly over the past two decades with a particular emphasis on sustainability transitions – the prospects for, and processes through which sectoral systems (e.g., energy, water) might become more environmentally friendly and developmentally progressive. Important here has been the increasing engagement between transitions researchers and economic geographers, with the latter bringing a much-needed spatial and scalar sensitivity to transitions research (Coenen et al., 2012; Boschma et al., 2017). Placebased, rather than sector-specific, transitions have been an increasing focus with an emphasis on urban governance and the evolution of cities (Murphy, 2015; Frantzeskaki et al., 2017). As such, the sociotechnical systems approach offers a promising framework within which to situate analyses of urban-regional development. In a recent paper, Murphy and Carmody (2019) conceptualized cities as sociotechnical systems constituted by three overlapping regimes related to production, consumption, and infrastructure (see Figure 1). These regimes capture three governance realms of the urban in a manner that seeks to account for the production of exchange value and the realization of use value by residents. Production regimes govern the basic and non-basic economic and industrial activities through which firms, workers, and entrepreneurs create, enhance, and capture value through manufacturing and service provisioning activities. Consumption regimes account for the use value of city-regions with an emphasis on the governance, distribution, affordability, and quality of markets for wage goods and basic services (e.g., water, energy, education). Infrastructure regimes are essential for consumption and production, determining the supply, accessibility, quality, and distribution of the collective goods and basic services used by residents and firms alike. Regimes are constituted by institutionalized practices that reflect their governance structures and the multiscalar relations that shape development outcomes (e.g., inequality, upgrading). Each regime is interdependent on the others, coupled together in functional and other ways that create, constrain, and/or enable practices and 22 James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production development outcomes in the others. Following Jones and Murphy (2011), regime analysis should focus on core/general practices associated with production, consumption, and infrastructures. In the Dar es Salaam case, Murphy and Carmody (2019) focused on manufacturing practices (including labor skills, technologies), financing and investment practices in industry, competitive practices, and innovation practices in the production regime. Consumption regimes were examined through consumer practices across a range of market hierarchies (low income to high income), accounting for the ways in which these are shaped by competing household demands. Infrastructure regimes were analyzed through the lens of service-accessing practices (e.g., how residents get, and from whom, water or energy), the practices of firms in response to infrastructure services (e.g., how they adapt to power outages), and generalized assessments of infrastructure-related activities such as commuting and water provisioning. The empirical analysis yielded critical insights into Dar es Salaam’s urbanization pathway at the regime and cityscale, highlighting its tendencies toward extraversion, splintering, and the crowding out of domestic manufacturers by imports (what Murphy and Carmody [2019] term intraversion). Throughout the discussion below, contrasts and comparisons between this and the Nairobi case are made to demonstrate the comparative potential of this conceptual approach. The urban question in Kenya: a sociotechnical systems view on Nairobi’s development Nairobi is East Africa’s largest and most industrially diversified city with a population of about 5.0 million, growing at nearly 3% per annum between 2000 and 2015 (UN Habitat, 2020). The city has grown and transformed significantly in recent years, in large part due to real estate and retail developments that have reshaped the city’s built environment. Despite Nairobi’s growth, 60% of its residents live in slums where there are extreme challenges related to basic services such as water, sanitation, health care, and energy (Bird et al., 2017). In 2015, only 48% of the population had piped, in-household water and 38% of residents had a sewerage connection (UN Habitat, 2022). Poverty rates remain high, the city’s cost-of-living has increased significantly, and there are pressing public safety concerns related to congestion. These conditions are similar to those of Dar es Salaam, an emerging mega-city that is struggling to provide for its rapidly growing population. The analysis presented below is based on three episodes of field research conducted in Nairobi in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Fieldwork entailed 35 interviews with a range of planners, government officials, non-governmental organizations, venture capitalists, bankers, entrepreFigure 1: Cities as sociotechnical systems, a conceptualization (from Murphy and Carmody, 2019) James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production 23 neurs, scholars, donors, investment authorities, and technology-hub administrators based in Nairobi. These interviews, depending on the individual/organization, covered a range of issues related to the city’s development including: manufacturing industries, housing issues, municipal government, foreign direct investment, debt, productivity, new-build cities (e.g., Konza Techno City), planning, markets, and the provisioning of basic services. Further insights into infrastructure and consumption regimes were garnered through my participation in a multi-year project to examine sanitation systems in the city, particularly as they related to informal settlements. Time was also spent in three informal settlement communities – Mathare, Mukuru, and Kahawa Soweto – where I was able to interact with cooperative/self-help groups (e.g., muungano) and residents to discuss the day-to-day realities facing them, particularly as these relate to collective goods provisioning (e.g., water, sanitation, energy). I also conducted direct observations throughout the city, walking through markets, neighborhoods, and downtown areas in order to gather additional data on everyday life. Primary data is complemented, where possible, by scholarly work and relevant reports and media accounts that address Nairobi’s development. The qualitative data that was gathered was compiled and coded in relation to each regime type, specific practices, governance traits, inter-regime couplings, multiscalar relations, and development outcomes. The results presented below focus on the production regime and its couplings to consumption and infrastructure regimes; highlighting key practices, governance features, and development outcomes associated with the evolution of Nairobi’s sociotechnical system. Whenever possible, these are compared briefly with the findings from the Dar es Salaam case (Murphy and Carmody, 2019). Importantly, there are methodological limitations with respect to this approach given the scale and complexity of studying an urban sociotechnical system. It is simply not possible to examine all practices, governance traits, couplings, relations and development outcomes associated with production, consumption, and infrastructure regimes in any city. As such, the focus of the data gathering and analysis is on broad trends, features, and generalized practices associated with regimes, as revealed through the interviews, observations, secondary research, and reports. This was also the case in the Dar es Salaam study and a common set of indicators was focused on in the Nairobi case as well. For the production regime, focus was on basic manufacturing practices, the state’s governance of industry, trade and FDI flows, innovation, and the prospects for industrial upgrading. With respect to the consumption and infrastructure regimes, emphasis was placed on the couplings between these and the production regime but with an emphasis on how consumption and infrastructure regimes impact or reflect residents’ quality of life through markets, costs of living, basic services, and collective goods distributions. All told, the study can be replicated methodologically to examine and compare the evolution and governance of regimes in these and other cities in order to assess the factors shaping the exchange and use value of urban-regional economies. This is significant for economic geography in two ways. First, it provides a template for systematic comparative analyses of cities and their variegated economies and welfare distributions. Second, it moves such analyses beyond agglomeration and production by explicitly considering the interrelationships between production (exchange value) and the use value or quality of life of urban residents, not simply those of the workers thought to matter most (e.g., creatives). The framework thus views quality of life concerns not as negative externalities to be managed post-hoc and separately from industry but as co-constitutive of production regimes and the exchange value associated with them. In other words, and for better or worse, a city’s (in)ability to develop innovative agglomeration economies and globally competitive value-added industries is a function of the life worlds its residents occupy and the everyday challenges they face to meet their basic needs. Nairobi’s production regime This section examines Nairobi’s production regime in order to assess the degree to which agglomeration economies, strategic transnational couplings, and other competitive assets are developing in ways that can facilitate industrial upgrading and widespread employment generation in the city-region. Focus here is on key practices and policies of domestic manufacturing firms, foreign investors, importers, and Kenyan state actors charged with enabling industrial development. As is the case of Dar es Salaam, Nairobi is one of the largest manufacturing centers in Kenya with its firms historically playing an important role in supplying consumer and other goods to the East African region. Many of the larger manufacturing firms, traditionally located in the industrial zone near to the city center, were established by members of the city’s South Asian community. More recent FDI and other investments in industry have focused on industrial parks, special economic zones (SEZ), and new-build cities in peri-urban areas as means to develop manufacturing further. Informal or small/micro- 24 James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production scale enterprises operate throughout the city, producing goods for the consumer market. A few key, generalized practices are indicative of Nairobi’s production regime today. The first is the shift of manufacturing firms from production to the commercial trade of imported goods. Emblematic of this practice is the Yana Tyre company which closed down its Nairobi factory in 2016 and shifted toward commercial ventures such as the wholesale import of goods from China and India (Business Daily Africa, 2016). Other manufacturers, e.g., Eveready batteries, have followed suit citing, in part, the challenge of trying to compete with imports. Inward foreign investment (FDI) practices are exacerbating the situation with Chinese firms (in particular) increasingly present in mature industries, particularly in the building materials sector where Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure and real estate development projects are creating high demand (Xia, 2019; see Figure 2). As of 2018, there were 106 Chinese companies operating in Kenya, employing 50,000 workers in a diverse range of industries including aluminum and ceramic building materials, furnishings, batteries, automotive and machinery assembly, and diapers (Otieno, 2019; Xia, 2019). As such, they are increasingly fulfilling the basic needs of Kenyan consumers, marking a significant coupling to the consumption regime. The government has, as part of Kenya’s Vision 2030 and President Kenyatta’s “Big 4” policy program, sought to support manufacturing through subsidies for industrial parks, special economic zones (SEZ), export processing zones (EPZ), and content requirements that mandate that 40% of inputs to FDI-related manufacturing or construction activities be sourced from Kenyan firms.1 Although the policies make sense on paper, their implementation has been by-and-large ineffective in stimulating long-term growth in domestic manufacturing value added. There are a few reasons for this. First, several respondents noted that there are bureaucratic inefficiencies and challenges in implementing industrial policy given the poor coordination among the multiple agencies tasked with supporting economic development. Case in point is the continued operation of both an older EPZ policy and a more recently 1 Poverty alleviation and affordable housing concerns are also part of the Big 4 agenda but here the focus is on its relevance for production regimes in Nairobi. Affordable housing and general poverty concerns are addressed in the sections on production-consumption and production-infrastructure couplings. Figure 2: China’s presence in Nairobi: building material companies, real estate developments, and a new China Town (author’s photos) James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production 25 (2015) devised SEZ policy, a circumstance that has created redundancies and tax loopholes. As Laryea et al. (2020) and respondents noted, businesses will shift between EPZ and SEZ to gain tax benefits and other subsidies but often leave once the window closes on these, sometimes even reinventing themselves as “new” companies in order to restart the benefits in new ways.2 Such practices mark an inefficient use of fiscal resources that are considered by many to not be worth the cost. As for the local content regulations that are associated with inward FDI, these have been in place for several years with Kenyan law stipulating that 40% of all inputs and/ or labour be sourced from Kenyan firms or Kenyans. The challenge here is that “politically connected oligarchs” in Kenya hold significant control over these supply chains and most of the locally sourced goods, services, and labor are of low value (e.g., sand, stone for construction), unskilled, and/or have limited upgrading potential (e.g., trucking) (Wang and Wissenbach, 2019). Most manufacturers in EPZ and SEZ opt instead to import higher-value intermediate goods given lack of availability or poor quality of locally sourced inputs. Financing practices reflect domestic industries that have stagnated in recent years. As a commercial banker noted, there is little demand or need for capital to invest in fixed assets (e.g., factory expansion) given the fact that Nairobi’s domestic manufacturing sector is already over capacity. In this context, commercial loans are often used to address working capital needs, rather than long-term development. Other commercial loans, when available, often focus on non-productive, speculative investments in property although most bankers view these as high-risk given the glut of high-end real estate in the city. As such, these investments are often made with cash or through other financial arrangements. 2 As Laryea et al. (2020) document, 60% of all firms left the EPZ scheme just before the end of the 10-year tax holiday, ensuring that the government’s up-front tax giveaway did not translate into longterm revenues. Support is more coherent and significant for large, greenfield projects such as industrial estates, SEZ, and new-build, satellite cities. Two of the more high-profile projects in the Nairobi area, Tatu City and Konza Techno City (see Figure 2), seek to facilitate Nairobi’s industrial development by kick-starting industries in peri-urban enclaves developed through private investors or public-private partnerships (Splinter and Van Leynseele, 2019). Utopian urban visions such as these have become common throughout Africa (see Watson, 2014), seen by their developers and planners as modern means to upgrade urban livelihoods, infrastructures, and industries without having to deal with the messiness, costs, and complexities associated with cities like Nairobi or Dar es Salaam. However, these planned cities, more often than not, fail to come to their promised fruition, often never being built, and are poorly aligned the realities of extant production, consumption, and infrastructure regimes; reflecting a form of splintered urbanism in East Africa today. With respect to innovative capabilities and practices, there are several innovation hubs in Nairobi where entrepreneurs are developing manufactured products and services such as mobile phone applications (apps). Hubs (e.g., Gearbox, the I-Hub, see Figure 4), show some promise with respect to ideas/innovations to service domestic markets particularly in sectors such as FinTech where mobile money apps have become essential, everyday technologies for consumers in East Africa (Chitavi et al., 2021). However, innovative hubs are limited in two significant ways. First, they are often dependent on on-going financing relationships to venture capitalists or non-profit organizations, thus unlikely to be self-sustaining given limited domestic market formation thus far. Second, even when innovations have scaling-up potential, there is often insufficient manufacturing capacity or capability in Nairobi to support domestic production. Instead, innovators choose to work with Chinese or other international companies in order to shift from prototypes to marketable products, and/or to scale-up production Figure 3: Konza Techno City headquarters in Nairobi with future design plan (author’s photos) 32 James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production growth but without making substantive changes to the internal workings of the everyday/ordinary city, particularly those associated with the inequalities that have reproduced generations of slum dwellers. In short, splintered urbanization is the dominant development pattern in these East African cities as reflected in the contrasts evident in Figure 9, an everyday sight on the streets of Nairobi. The singular focus on transforming urban sociotechnical systems into modernized growth machines in some ways (metaphorically) reflects economic geography’s focus on production and the exchange value of city-regions. What constitutes regional development success stories is generally measured on the basis of whether region-specific economic externalities – e.g., untraded interdependencies, buzz, institutional thickness, and/or relational assets – can emerge to establish and sustain comparative or competitive advantages in the global economy. Missing here is a more holistic conceptualization of place-based development as manifest in the living conditions of residents, considerations of inequality, collective goods provisioning systems, and the prospects for the least well-off to experience social upgrading. Recent work in the field has considered the implications of uneven development at the national scale – see, for example, Rodriguez-Pose (2018) – but what about within city-regions? Such concerns have historically been the focus of urban geographers but why not economic geographers as well? The approach presented and illustrated here and in the case of Dar es Salaam (Murphy and Carmody, 2019) is one that seeks to address this gap – that is to integrate concerns about the use-value of city-regions with analyses of their ability to create exchange value through productive activities. Such an integration captures the development process in a more comprehensive manner by moving beyond firms, industries, and clusters and into the streets and communities that constitute the city as place. Such considerations may strike as peripheral to some but I would suggest that if agglomeration, localization, and urbanization economies in fact produce cities marked by extremes of haves and have-nots, homelessness, poverty, and/or inadequate, maldistributed collective goods and services, then perhaps our understandings of what successful regional development is need to be rethought. The cases of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi speak for themselves but it is critical to note that such development outcomes are visible in cities worldwide, even those (e.g., San Francisco, London, Seoul) characterized as winners Figure 9: Splintered urbanization in Nairobi (author’s photo) James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production 33 in the so-called “spiky” world of the 21st century (Florida, 2005). While economic geographers have been attentive to the uneven development of cities within national economies, we have paid far too little attention to intra-urban/ regional inequalities that often accompany creative, innovative urban success stories. For example, Lee et al. (2016) show that wage inequality is highest in the wealthiest of UK cities, especially London, an issue that speaks to the exclusions and disarticulations associated with urbanization pathways today. That is, productivist success stories often come with dark sides such as inequality, poverty, and livelihood precarity for many, exclusions that can serve to subsidize the globalized development of innovative milieu yet which simultaneously make everyday living a struggle for many residents. The goal of this paper has been to further advance and illustrate a framework for examining and comparing urban-regional development pathways such that wider considerations of place-based development can be accounted for and assessed. The focus on East African cases is not intended to signal that this is a “Southern” framework, it is not. It is instead a mid-level conceptualization of how cities function through the creation and distribution of exchange and use value. By explicitly considering “other” urban regimes – namely consumption and infrastructure – the approach demands a more comprehensive perspective on what cities do and how collective goods, amenities, and the quality of life available to their residents shape the prospects for sustainable, just, and distributive forms of regional development. In application, it calls for grounded, place-based research that goes beyond the firms, industries, and clusters in order to understand the life-worlds and everyday experiences of residents that reflect the city’s use-value. The quality of these experiences and the prospects for social upgrading, improved livelihoods, and welfare distribution should be what marks a successful urbanization pathway, not simply whether agglomerative externalities materialize. Funder Name: Regional Studies Association Funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008048 Grant Number: MERSA Grant 2017 References AfDB, OECD & UNDP (2016)African Economic Outlook 2016: Sustainable Cities and Structural Transformation. Paris: OECD Publishing. Alonso, W. (1960) A Theory Of The Urban Land Market. Papers in Regional Science, 6(1): 149–157. Amin, A., & Thrift, N.J. (1994) Globalization, institutional thickness and local prospects. Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine, 3: 405–427. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P. (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1): 31–56. Bird, J., Montebruno, P. & Regan, T. (2017) Life in a slum: Understanding living conditions in Nairobi’s slums across time and space. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(3): 496–520. Boschma, R., Coenen, L., Frenken, K. & Truffer, B. (2017) Towards a theory of regional diversification: combining insights from Evolutionary Economic Geography and Transition Studies. Regional Studies, 51(1): 31–45. Boschma, R. & Iammarino, S. (2009) Related variety, trade linkages, and regional growth in Italy. Economic Geography, 85(3): 289–311. Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., & Mayer, M. (2009) Cities for people, not for profit. City, 13(2–3): 176–184. Brenner, N. & Schmid, C. (2012) “Planetary urbanization,” In: Gandy, M. (ed.), Urban Constellations. (pp.10–13). Berlin: Jovis. Buchholz, M., & Bathelt, H. (2021) Models of regional economic development: Illustrations using US data. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 65(1): 28–42. Business Daily Africa (2016) “Sameer shuts down Nairobi tyre plant in favour of imports,” 1 September. Available at: https://www. businessdailyafrica.com/bd/economy/sameer-shuts-downnairobi-tyre-plant-in-favour-of-imports-2125104. Chitavi, M., Cohen, L.C., & Hagist, S.C.N. (2021) “Kenya Is Becoming a Global Hub of FinTech Innovation,” Harvard Business Review 21 February. Available at: https://hbr.org/2021/02/kenya-isbecoming-a-global-hub-of-fintech-innovation Christaller, W. (1966 [1933]) Central Places in Southern Germany, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Castells-Quintana, D. (2017) Malthus living in a slum: Urban concentration, infrastructure and economic growth. Journal of Urban Economics, 98: 158–173. Coe, N.M., Hess, M., Yeung, H.W.C., Dicken, P. & Henderson, J. (2004) ‘Globalizing’regional development: A global production networks perspective. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(4): 468–484. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P. & Truffer, B. (2012) Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6): 968–979. Collier, P. (2017) Africa’s prospective urban transition. Journal of Demographic Economics, 83(1): 3–11. Coutard, O. (Ed.) (2002) The Governance of Large Technical Systems. London: Routledge. Davis, J.C. & Henderson, J.V. (2003) Evidence on the political economy of the urbanization process. Journal of Urban Economics, 53(1): 98–125. De Vries, G., Timmer, M. & De Vries, K. (2015) Structural transformation in Africa: Static gains, dynamic losses. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(6): 674–688. Florida, R. (2002) The Economic Geography of Talent, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(4): 743–755. Florida, R. (2005) The World is Spiky. The Atlantic Monthly, 296(3): 48–51. 34 James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production Fox, S. & Goodfellow, T. (2021) On the conditions of ‘late urbanisation’. Urban Studies, in press, DOI: 00420980211032654. Frantzeskaki, N., Broto, V.C., Coenen, L. & Loorbach, D. (Eds.) (2017) Urban sustainability Transitions. Oxford: Taylor & Francis. Frenken, K., Van Oort, F. & Verburg, T. (2007) Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5): 685–697. Frick, S.A., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018) Change in urban concentration and economic growth. World Development, 105: 156–170. Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9): 1257–1274. Geels, F.W. (2004) Understanding system innovations: A critical literature review and a conceptual synthesis. In: Elzen, B., Geels, F., & Green, K. (eds.), System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy (pp.19–47). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Structuration Theory. Cambridge: Polity. Glaeser, E. (2011) Cities, productivity, and quality of life. Science, 333(6042): 592–594. Gollin, D., Jedwab, R. & Vollrath, D. (2016) Urbanization with and without industrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21(1): 35–70. Goodfellow, T. (2017) Urban fortunes and skeleton cityscapes: real estate and late urbanization in Kigali and Addis Ababa. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(5): 786–803. Goodfellow, T. (2018) Seeing political settlements through the city: A framework for comparative analysis of urban transformation. Development and Change, 49(1): 199–222. Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Oxford: Psychology Press. Gulyani, S. & Talukdar, D. (2008) Slum real estate: The low-quality high-price puzzle in Nairobi’s slum rental market and its implications for theory and practice. World Development, 36(10): 1916–1937. Hankins, K.B. (2015) Regime politics in geography. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1): 150–160. Honan, E. (2016) “Nairobi looks to Africa’s first bike-share scheme to tackle congestion”. Financial Times, 5 August. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/6133a0f0-5a5b-11e6-8d054eaa66292c32. Hughes, T.P. (1987) The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. & Pinch, T.J. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. (pp.51–82). Cambridge: MIT Press. Hvidt, M. (2009) The Dubai model: An outline of key development-process elements in Dubai. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 41(3): 397–418. Iacob, N., Friederici, N., & Lachenmayer, J. (2019) Operationalising relational theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems at city-level in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 63(2–4): 79–102. Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. New York: Random House. Jones, A. & Murphy, J.T. (2011) Theorizing practice in economic geography: Foundations, challenges, and possibilities. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3): 366–392. Kamau, P., Thomsen, L. & McCormick, D. (2019) Identifying entry barriers for food processors to supermarkets in Kenya. Scientific African, 6: e00189. Kelley, K. (2018) “East Africa: US gives three countries ultimatum to reverse mitumba ban,” The East African, 15 February. Available at: https://agoa.info/news/article/15367-east-africa-us-givesthree-countries-ultimatum-to-reverse-mitumba-ban.html. Khan, M.H.H, (2010) Political settlements and the governance of growth-enhancing institutions, mimeo. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mushtaq-Khan-8/ publication/265567069_Political_Settlements_and_ the_Governance_of_Growth-Enhancing_Institutions/ links/55f0b96a08ae0af8ee1d2e05/Political-Settlements-andthe-Governance-of-Growth-Enhancing-Institutions.pdf Khan, M.H. (2018) Political settlements and the analysis of institutions. African Affairs, 117(469): 636–655. Laryea, E., Ndonga, D. & Nyamori, B. (2020) Kenya’s experience with Special Economic Zones: Legal and policy imperatives. African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 28(2): 171–194. Lawhon, M. & Truelove, Y. (2020) Disambiguating the southern urban critique: Propositions, pathways and possibilities for a more global urban studies. Urban Studies, 57(1): 3–20. Lee, N., Sissons, P. & Jones, K. (2016) The geography of wage inequality in British cities. Regional Studies, 50(10): 1714–1727. Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of Economics, 8th ed. London: Macmillan Marx, B., Stoker, T. & Suri, T. (2013) The economics of slums in the developing world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(4): 187–210. McFarlane, C. (2011) Assemblage and critical urbanism. City, 15(2): 204–224. Molotch, H. (1976) The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2): 309–332. Murphy, J.T. (2015) Human geography and socio-technical transition studies: Promising intersections. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17: 73–91. Murphy, J.T. & Carmody, P.R. (2019) Generative urbanization in Africa? a sociotechnical view of Tanzania’s urban transition, Urban Geography, 40(1): 128–157. Myers, G. (2015) A world-class city-region? Envisioning the Nairobi of 2030. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(3): 328–346. Otieno, B. (2019) “Chinese companies say employing 50,000 in Kenya,” Business Daily Africa, 28 August. Available at: https:// www.businessdailyafrica.com/bd/news/chinese-companiessay-employing-50-000-in-kenya-2262686. Peck, J. (2017) Transatlantic city, part 1: Conjunctural urbanism. Urban Studies, 54(1): 4–30. Rajé, F., Tight, M. & Pope, F.D. (2018) Traffic pollution: A search for solutions for a city like Nairobi. Cities, 82: 100–107. Ram, E. (2021) “How Nairobi’s ‘road for the rich’ resulted in thousands of homes reduced to rubble,” The Guardian, 8 December. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ global-development/2021/dec/08/how-nairobis-road-for-therich-resulted-in-thousands-of-homes-reduced-to-rubble James T. Murphy: Urban-economic geographies beyond production 35 Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998) Technological change. Human choice and Climate Change, 2(2): 327–399. Robinson, J. (2013) The urban now: Theorising cities beyond the new. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(6): 659–677. Robinson, J. (2016) Comparative urbanism: New geographies and cultures of theorizing the urban. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1): 187–199. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018) The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1): 189–209. Scott, A.J. & Storper, M. (2003) Regions, globalization, development. Regional Studies, 37(6–7): 579–593. Scott, A.J., & Storper, M. (2015) The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory. International journal of urban and regional research, 39(1): 1–15. Shapiro, J.M. (2006) Smart cities: quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2): 324–335. Splinter, E. & Van Leynseele, Y. (2019) The conditional city: emerging properties of Kenya’s satellite cities. International Planning Studies, 24(3–4): 308–324. Stone, C.N. (2015) Reflections on regime politics: From governing coalition to urban political order. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1): 101–137. Storper, M. (1995) The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3): 191–221. Talukdar, D. (2018) Cost of being a slum dweller in Nairobi: Living under dismal conditions but still paying a housing rent premium. World Development, 109: 42–56. Taylor, P.J. (2005) New political geographies: Global civil society and global governance through world city networks. Political Geography, 24(6): 703–730. UN Comtrade (2021) Global trade data: 1992–2020, Available at: http://comtrade.un.org/data/. UN Habitat (2016) World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN Habitat (2020) World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN Habitat (2022) Data on access to basic services in urban areas. Available at: https://data.unhabitat.org/pages/access-tobasic-services-in-cities-and-urban-areas Upadhyaya, R. (2020) ‘Dubai’ in the Savannah. In: Jones, E. (ed.), The Political Economy of Bank Regulation in Developing Countries: Risk and Reputation, (pp.218–238), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Venables, A.J. (2009) Rethinking economic growth in a globalizing world: An economic geography lens. African Development Review, 21(2): 331–351. Venables, A.J. (2018) Urbanisation in developing economies: Building cities that work. Region, 5(1): 91–100. Van Welie, M.J., Cherunya, P.C., Truffer, B. & Murphy, J.T. (2018) Analysing transition pathways in developing cities: The case of Nairobi’s splintered sanitation regime. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137: 259–271. Wang, Y. & Wissenbach, U. (2019) Clientelism at work? A case study of Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway project. Economic History of Developing Regions 34(3): 280–299. Watson, V. (2014). African urban fantasies: dreams or nightmares? Environment and Urbanization, 26(1): 215–231. World Bank (2009) World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington: World Bank. Xia, Y. (2019) Assessing Chinese Manufacturing Investments in East Africa: Drivers, Challenges, and Opportunities. China Africa Research Initiative, Briefing Paper No.2, Johns Hopkins University. Yeung, H.W.C. (2021) Regional worlds: From related variety in regional diversification to strategic coupling in global production networks. Regional Studies, 55(6): 989–1010.