Women are at the heart of African cities. The continent needs urban policies that empower them

Women in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Image: Getty.

An International Women’s Day Special, from Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, Jennifer S. Musisi and Astrid R.N. Haas.

Women have always been essential to the urban fabric of African cities. Their economic, social, and political engagements have been key to driving both productivity and liveability for our cities. As researchers, policymakers, and above all, African women, we are paying tribute to the role that women have in shaping our cities on this International Women’s Day.

Women’s centrality to African cities is not only anecdotal: there is growing evidence to support it. Collectively, we need to target our urban policies so they empower women to continue to be agents of positive change, creating more inclusive African cities in the process.

The economic woman

As the sun rises over Kampala, Nakato, carries her two youngest girls and unlocks her small shop in Naguru Go-Down, one of Kampala’s informal settlements. Her shop is small, but every space is filled with everything from small packets of washing powder to popcorn and stock cubes. She is not alone, all around her many other women are opening their small shops too.

This predominance of women in the informal service sector of the city economy dates back to colonial times. While men were able to find work in the mining and construction sectors, women were excluded from these jobs. They were compelled to earn livelihoods in other ways, many congregating in cities and towns to commercialise their domestic skills.

This feature of African cities still remains today, with women making up the majority of the informal economy. In Kampala, 70 per cent of single-person businesses, like Nakato’s shop, are led by women. Despite this predominance, men are still more likely to have larger business operations, which hire more employees and engage in trade. Our challenge is to harness the dynamism of women-owned businesses and bring them into the formal economy so they can grow and benefit from scale, specialisation, and innovation.

Policies that can be targeted to support these firms include skills training and provision of seed capital. This has been one of the focuses of the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA): since 2011, over 10,000 youth and 65,000 community members have received business skills training and benefitted from start-up capital in the form of loans and agricultural inputs for urban farming projects. KCCA also has targeted programmes for women. For example, they have female adult literacy programmes, as the illiteracy rate for women in Kampala is significantly higher than for men (49 per cent compared to 23 per cent), as well as leadership skills training.


The social woman

Part of building more inclusive cities means addressing social norms that often push women into more traditional roles. This may both confine them to the non-tradeable services sector and increase their time spent on household activities, diverting time and capital away from their businesses. In addition, many women are the primary caregivers within the home, leaving them less time to work in formal jobs, which can result in gender gaps in productivity.

There is growing recognition that women are able to push back against these social norms as they gain bargaining power. Cities themselves can intrinsically support this transition: evidence has shown living in dense, vibrant, and dynamic urban spaces can significantly impact gender inclusion. There are various reasons for this: for one, cities simply expose women and men to alternatives to what may be prevailing norms, and can thus empower them to challenge the status quo. Cities also offer women a more diverse set of opportunities in employment and public services, including, for example, child care options that allow them to work.

The political woman

For cities to play an empowering role, policymakers need to design them to adequately take into account women’s roles and needs, to actively encourage women’s agency and progression. However, to date most cities across the globe have been designed and shaped primarily by and for men. In part this stems from the lack of female political representation: currently, fewer than 5 per cent of city leadership roles globally are actually held by women

In Africa, Sierra Leone is one country that has been progressive on political representation, with a long legacy of having women in leadership positions. For example, Madam Ella Kobolo Gulama, a Paramount Chief in Sierra Leone until her passing in 2006, led the way for female political representation across the continent: she was the first elected female Member of Parliament in all of sub-Saharan Africa. This legacy of female leadership has also been mirrored at the city level with Constance Cummings-John becoming the first female mayor of Freetown in 1966. Cummings-John, who also co-founded Sierra Leone’s Women’s Movement, was instrumental in the country’s struggle for independence. Since then, Freetown has been led by three more female mayors.

Growing evidence suggests that when women serve as political leaders, governments are not only more inclusive but also better at delivering public services. When women are represented in local government, they are also more likely to ensure topics important to women are actively considered. For example, Florence Dillsworth, a previous mayor of Freetown, launched a number of projects both around education and income generation specifically for women.

African cities, like Kampala and Freetown, are currently undergoing immense changes in their economic, social, and political fabric. The positive role women play in Africa’s urbanisation process is clear and evidenced. We need to continue fighting for women’s voices to be heard and ensure that they can reach their fullest potential within our cities.

Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr is the mayor of Freetown, Sierra Leone. Jennifer S. Musisi is city leader in residence at the Bloomberg Harvard City Initiative. Astrid R.N. Haas is manager of Cities that Work at the International Growth Centre.

 
 
 
 

Why is it acceptable to kill someone? On the mysterious history of Britain’s road death toll

A London speed camera, 2004. Image: Getty.

A decade ago I became fascinated by a graph. This one:

I had been tracking the underlining data for years. The figures were easy to remember. Every year it was 3,500, plus or minus a percentage point or two.

Yet when the 2008 data was released, it had fallen to 2,538. This was 1,000 less than the figure in 2003. I plotted the above graph, and as I said, I became fascinated.

Because this is a really important graph. This is a plot of the number of people killed on Britain’s roads each year.

In Great Britain, collectively, we used to kill nearly 3,500 people on our roads every year. Consistently or, dare I say it, boringly: 3,500 deaths a year, 10 a day. It was accepted, in a, “Well yes it’s bad, but what can you do about it” kind of way. There was no clamour for change. Newspapers weren’t running headlines about the deaths mounting up, as they do with knife crime.

Meanwhile a train crash would be front page news for a week. Take the train that derailed at Hatfield on 17 October 2000, a tragedy in which 4 people died. That led to huge media interest, massive upheaval on the railways, and, ultimately, as the re-nationalisation of Railtrack, whose failings had caused the crash. Yet more than twice as many people will have died on the roads that day. Nothing was written about those deaths. Nothing changed.

In 2000, four people died in train crashes, while 3,409 died on the roads.

Here are those figures again.

1997 – 3,599 people killed on our roads

1998 – 3,422

1999 – 3,423

2000 – 3,409

2001 – 3,450

2002 – 3,431

2003 – 3508

But, in 2004 the figure dropped below 3,400 for the first time, to 3,221. Then in 2005 to 3,201.

2006 – 3,172

2007 – 2,946

Below 3,000! This was change. Significant change: 500 lives a year were not being lost. If you use Britain’s roads, your life may have been one of them.

2008 – 2,538

2009 – 2,222

When the 2010 figures came out I was amazed by the headline figure: 1,857.

That’s still far too high, of course, but it was 1,701 lower than seven years earlier.

This was a major story that deserved a ton of coverage, which it failed to get. Having shown no concern for when we were killing 3,500 people, it wasn’t overly surprising that the fact we were now killing 1,700 fewer wasn’t celebrated.

At any rate, the graph had flat-lined for years, then, in half a dozen years, it halved. Why?

The lack of media coverage resulted in an absence of answers. One commentator, Christian Woolmar, observed that there was no clear answer to why this had happened. But he went on to point out that there had been a fall in the average road speed over this period.

My anticipation of the 2011 figures troubled me, because I expected them to go up. Obviously I didn’t want them to: I desperately want zero deaths on our roads. But something happened in 2010 that I was sure would lead to more fatalities and bring a halt to the falling trend.

I was right. In 2011 we killed 1,901.

Sometimes, being right is shit.

The news was better in 2012. The fatality rate was 1,754. So was the 2011 figure just a blip, due to some significant snowfalls that year? No: the trend was over.

The number of people killed on our roads has remained stuck in the 17 hundreds. 

2013 – 1,713

2014 – 1,775

2015 – 1,732

2016 – 1,792

2017 – 1,793

2018 – 1,782

We have returned to a flatline on the graph – and if anything, I’m more fascinated now than I was before. Road deaths flatlined at 3,500 for years, then fell sharply, then flatlined again at half the rate.

This can’t have happened by accident. I wished I could explain it. I wish we could repeat it. No: I wish the second flatline hadn’t happened, and the fall had continued. If the rate of fall had continued, we’d have reached zero deaths on the road by now. You’d be right to question whether this is possible – but if you can half the number in a few years, why can’t we eradicate them altogether? The railways are an example of what is possible. The last time a passenger died in a train crash on Britain’s railways was in 2007.

It was time to figure out the answers to two questions. Why did the death toll fall? And why did it stop falling?

The obvious reason for a reduction in deaths on the road is the improvement in car safety features. This could create a gradual fall in the death toll as new, safer cars replaced older ones. But I’m not sure it can explain a 40 per cent fall over a 4 year period.

There’s a way to check whether cars on the road became almost twice as safe between 2003 and 2010: you can compare the figures with the rest of the EU. Car safety features are international, and any new feature would have appeared around the same time across the continent.

So I found the EU figures for 2000 to 2017, indexed for 2000 and plotted the graph for multiple countries. It was a busy graph. For clarity the following graph only includes Britain, Germany, France, Spain and Italy along with a straight line drop for comparison.

The good news is that things are improving across Europe – but no country had quite the same trajectory as Britain. They all have a fall much closer to a straight line of the sort you’d expect a general improvement in car safety would produce.

One thing I did notice is that, from 2013, these five countries stop falling. The technology based solutions of recent years, such as automatic emergency braking, don’t appear to be saving lives as of yet.

So, yes, cars are safer – but that doesn’t seem to explain why British roads suddenly became 40 per cent safer between 2006 and 2010.


In 1999, the New Labour government announced that it was going to reduce deaths on our roads. The target was a 50 per cent reduction by 2010. As you now know, it succeeded. This was a major achievement for a government. The kind of thing you would bang on about all the time. “Deaths on our roads halved by Labour!” But the party wasn’t in government when the 2010 figures were released – and it’s hard to take credit for your achievements from the opposition benches.

That it was government policy is not a full explanation, and how this happened is a little opaque. From what I can gather there was a wide ranging approach. The fire and rescue service changed their practices: because they recognised that survival rates were directly dependent on how quickly people got to hospital, this became the priority. Disturbing a police crime scene was allowed if it saved a life. Accident black spots were located, highlighted and safety measures implemented. Throughout that period road safety campaigns focused on speed, with “Speed Kills” being the dominate message for that decade. The government also changed the laws on speed cameras.

RoSPA, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has a lot to say about speeding and speed cameras. Its “Speed Camera Factsheet” states that, “Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured.” It reports that an independent review published by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2005 said that “cameras significantly reduce speeding and collisions, and cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites”, adding that cameras sites were delivering 100 fewer deaths per year.

Cameras first appeared in 1991, and revenue from court fines and fixed penalties went to the Exchequer. However in 2000 a trial scheme saw local councils keep the fines to pay for the cost of speed and red-light cameras. The pilot was so successful that, in 2001, legislation enabled this to happen across the country. The cost of providing and operating cameras moved from the local authority to the law breaking motorist.

The golden age of the speed camera had begun.

There was a tweak to this legislation in 2007. Fines reverted back to the Exchequer’s piggy bank. The DfT switched to funding cameras through a road safety grant. The intention was to create a greater mix of road safety measures agreed between local authorities and the police.

The number of people killed on British roads in 2007: 2,946

The number of people killed on British roads in 2010: 1,857

So perhaps the creation of the Road Safety Grant had a significant impact.

The second question: why did the death toll stop falling?

In 2010 I was unaware of Labour’s target to halve deaths on the roads. But, the change in government was enough for me to predict that the fall was over.

When the Tory/Lib Dem government negotiated its way into power in May 2010, the press declared that it was the end of the horrible nanny state – a return to personal freedom, liberty and the rule of common sense.

The way that this was to play out in real practical terms was on our roads. The evil speed camera was in the firing line. The narrative was that these cameras were just there so councils could extract cash from the poor public. Completely ignored were the facts that the fines were only handed down to dangerous, law-breaking drivers, and that councils no longer got the cash from fines.

Soon after the election the coalition government said that “Labour's 13-year war on the motorist is over” and pledged to scrap public funding for speed cameras. The Road Safety Grant to local authorities was cut from £95m to £57m. This meant that the government was now receiving an estimated £40m more raised in fines than it was spending on road safety. The cut to the grant reduced the camera maintenance budget by 27 per cent. It removed all the funding for new cameras, speed humps and other safety measures.

And the golden age ended.

Councils across the country announced their change of policy. Oxfordshire County Council switched off its speed cameras on 1 August 2010. Money was saved; lives were lost.

Eight months later, on 1 April, Oxfordshire’s cameras snapped back into life when the council reversed its decision because deaths on the county’s roads had immediately increased.

Turning off speed cameras sent out the message that we were no longer taking speeding seriously. The road safety campaigns changed their focus. The message that Speed Kills fell away and was replaced by drink- and drug-driving messages. It’s easy to miss that these campaigns move from encompassing virtually every driver to targeting a minority. A switch from confronting a socially acceptable behaviour to re-enforcing something already unacceptable. The state is no longer challenging everyone to be safe – only the small minority of bad people.

Yet speed still kills. The World Health Organisation states that an increase in average speed of 1 km[h typically results in a 3 per cent higher risk of a crash involving injury, with a 4–5 per cent increase for crashes that result in fatalities.
The majority of safety measures installed before 2010 remain in place and are saving lives. But with the funding gone councils are no longer installing new measures and the death toll is no longer falling.

So you can make a strong case that the pattern of road deaths was the result of government policy.

Which begs the question of our government: why has it accepted that it’s OK to kill, or be killed, on our roads?