Mayors ruling the world? No thanks

Mayors gather at a planning session for the Global Parliament of Mayors. Image: GPM.

In September, the first planning session of the Global Parliament of Mayors took place in Amsterdam: a conference about mayors, for mayors, attended by mayors, moderated by mayors and hosted by a mayor, all triggered by a book about mayors: If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities by Benjamin Barber.

In this book, the current political system and its leaders are dismissed as dysfunctional. Defined by borders and with an inevitable focus on national interests, they are not an effective vehicle to govern a world defined by interdependence. Mayors, presiding over cities with their more open, networked structure and cosmopolitan demographics could do it better – or so the book argues.

Yet it's difficult imagine how a world governed by cities could be a viable alternative to a world governed by nations. The current generation of mayors may well be successful precisely because they do not rule the world; because they can focus on smaller, more immediate, more local responsibilities, which means that their efforts generate quicker and more visible results. It seems unwise to remove that focus by giving them global responsibilities.

Giving mayors a greater slice of world governance also raises democratic concerns. Just over half the world’s population lives in cities. That's an impressive proportion, but it also means that the other half does not live in cities – so if a mayoral parliament did have extensive powers, who would represent the other half? 

Another problem is that, in some countries, the mayor is not an elected figure. In the Netherlands, mayors are appointed by the national government, while in Ukraine, the mayor is simply the most highly-ranking politician in the municipality. In most countries, voter turnouts for local elections are still significantly lower than those for national elections.   

It has been claimed that cities are a more effective vehicle to deal with global problems like climate change and migration, but I fail to see how an escalation of world problems can ever be addressed through a de-escalation (from nation to city) of the scale of governance. Mayors aren't well-placed to reimagine large-scale energy strategies or tackled the root source of global migration: a fundamental global disparity of wealth.    

 

The global political system should clearly recognise which decisions should be taken at which level

The idea of a Global Parliament of Mayors raises questions, not answers.. What is the exact nature of this proposition? Historically, the idea of the parliament was invented as a dialectical instrument to control power once the necessity to separate powers had been recognized: to pass, modify or reject laws proposed by Kings or governments. So which power does the parliament of mayors control? Whose laws does or doesn’t it pass? To whom does it direct its difficult questions? Without an answer to the above questions, the proposition that mayors would rule the world through a global parliament of mayors feels like little more than a combination of recklessness and naiveté.   

In such a context, I would not advocate to replace national governments with a parliament of mayors. I would prefer to give a new relevance to the notion of subsidiary, in which the increased importance of cities is recognized and actively crafted, but where they are integrated in a global political system that clearly recognizes which decisions should be taken at which level.   

Reinier de Graaf is a partner of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture. He directs the work of AMO, the research and design studio established as a counterpart to OMA’s architectural practice. Over the last several years, he has overseen OMA's planning work in several emerging cities and led AMO's research on the Megacity.

 
 
 
 

Two east London boroughs are planning to tax nightlife to fund the clean up. Will it work?

A Shoreditch rave, 2013. Image: Getty.

No-one likes cleaning up after a party, but someone’s got to do it. On a city-wide scale, that job falls to the local authority. But that still leaves the question: who pays?

In east London, the number of bars and clubs has increased dramatically in recent years. The thriving club scene has come with benefits – but also a price tag for the morning clean-up and cost of policing. The boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets are now looking to nightlife venues to cover these costs.

Back in 2012, councils were given powers to introduce ‘late night levies’: essentially a tax on all the licensed venues that open between midnight and 6am. The amount venues are expected to pay is based on the premises’ rateable value. Seventy per cent of any money raised goes to the police and the council keeps the rest.

Few councils took up the offer. Four years after the legislation was introduced, only eight local authorities had introduced a levy, including Southampton, Nottingham, and Cheltenham. Three of the levies were in the capital, including Camden and Islington. The most lucrative was in the City of London, where £420,000 was raised in the 2015-16 financial year.

Even in places where levies have been introduced, they haven’t always had the desired effect. Nottingham adopted a late night levy in November 2014. Last year, it emerged that the tax had raised £150,000 less than expected in its first year. Only a few months before, Cheltenham scrapped its levy after it similarly failed to meet expectations.


Last year, the House of Lords committee published its review of the 2003 Licensing Act. The committee found that “hardly any respondents believed that late night levies were currently working as they should be” – and councils reported that the obligation to pass revenues from the levy to the police had made the tax unappealing. Concluding its findings on the late night levy, the committee said: “We believe on balance that it has failed to achieve its objectives, and should be abolished.”

As might be expected of a nightlife tax, late night levies are also vociferously opposed by the hospitality industry. Commenting on the proposed levy in Tower Hamlets, Brigid Simmonds, chief executive at the British Beer and Pub Association, said: “A levy would represent a damaging new tax – it is the wrong approach. The focus should be on partnership working, with the police and local business, to address any issues in the night time economy.”

Nevertheless, boroughs in east London are pressing ahead with their plans. Tower Hamlets was recently forced to restart a consultation on its late night levy after a first attempt was the subject of a successful legal challenge by the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR). Kate Nicholls, chief executive at the ALMR, said:

“We will continue to oppose these measures wherever they are considered in any part of the UK and will urge local authorities’ to work with businesses, not against them, to find solutions to any issues they may have.”

Meanwhile, Hackney council intends to introduce a levy after a consultation which revealed 52 per cents of respondents were in favour of the plans. Announcing the consultation in February, licensing chair Emma Plouviez said:

“With ever-shrinking budgets, we need to find a way to ensure the our nightlife can continue to operate safely, so we’re considering looking to these businesses for a contribution towards making sure their customers can enjoy a safe night out and their neighbours and surrounding community doesn’t suffer.”

With budgets stretched, it’s inevitable that councils will seek to take advantage of any source of income they can. Nevertheless, earlier examples of the late night levy suggest this nightlife tax is unlikely to prove as lucrative as is hoped. Even if it does, should we expect nightlife venues to plug the gap left by public sector cuts?