n early 2020, when the world became exceedingly conscious of COVID-19's rapid spread, the world’s governments implemented various responses in order to mitigate the pandemic's initial impacts. For the most part, direct government action was critical in stemming the spread of the pandemic. Like most other nations, Latin American governments instituted nationwide lockdowns, closed their borders, and prepared their health infrastructure for the unknown.
The establishment of nationwide policies was often interconnected with city mayors' response goals and their own local governments. Yet, compared to their countries’ general population, the highly condensed Latin American cities were hit hardest by national lockdowns and the establishment of further containment policies. LATAM leaders had to swiftly adapt to the looming crisis and evaluate their cities' ability to respond to the combination of economic inequality, a besieged health infrastructure system, and sociopolitical unrest over quarantine policies.
A common theme within Latin American cities is the contrast between superficial economic stability and widespread inequality. LATAM urban centers hold a majority of the continent's populations. In 2015, around 80% of the region's population lived in urban centers, comparably higher than the general world's 52%. Yet, even among other countries with high levels of urbanization and greater levels of capital and economic infrastructure, LATAM countries underperform in these respective fields, as well as in their labor productivity.
In 2019, on average throughout the region, 30.8% of the general population lived under the poverty line, and 11.5% in situations of extreme poverty. The combination of poverty and high urbanization provides the basis for Latin America's stratified and unequal cities.
Throughout 2020, a nuanced economic foundation, or lack of, set Latin American countries and their cities in a precarious yet interesting situation. COVID-19's spread pushed many Latin American cities to institute preventive measures. Citywide policies enhanced the distribution of pandemic-related information, data programs quickly identified vulnerable populations, and the subject communities/neighborhoods were addressed accordingly. These urban governments were especially aware of their citizens' socioeconomic diversity and spatial differences, and in return, established information programs curated to their vulnerable communities.
By April 2020, Latin American cities and nations, banned public social gatherings, closed their borders, and ordered, or began preparing, for a nationwide lockdown. Although central and urban governments were able to institute strong preventions against the spread of the virus, Latin America's trend of deepening urban inequality across the continent enhanced the pandemic's disproportional impact on these marginalized populations.
Evidently, along with managing the ineptness of weakened and besieged health systems, central governments faced a complex situation balancing the sovereignty of urban governments with the need to protect rural and other communities on the periphery. These governments were forced to choose a middle ground between civil liberties, political autonomy, and maintaining an effective response to COVID-19.
In contrast to other nations where central, municipal, and urban governments fell into disputes over sovereignty and the adequate responses to the pandemic, Latin American countries with decentralized governments were able to institute local preventative measures in combination with overarching central responses to the pandemic.
However, the response to COVID-19 by urban and rural governments, and their citizens, was not fully cooperative. At times citizens were apprehensive to the imposed curfews and, at times, central national governments overreached. This dispute between the populace and the local, urban and central governments led certain Latin American countries to increase the government's presence and force. In Venezuela and Nicaragua, COVID-19 served as a rationale for authoritarian governments to increase their efforts to further limit society and control political debates.
The COVID-19 pandemic showcased the lack of infrastructure to combat such extensive crises and the prevalent socioeconomic inequality present in urban centers through Latin America. Not to mention political division, frustration, and the developing challenges towards democracy. As these countries receive and implement vaccines in the coming years, cities across the continent require rebuilding and restructuring their economic and social foundation. Yet, the pandemic and cities' responses have proven that Latin American cities and their governments are learning to become more adept at instituting functional policy and providing strong responses to critical problems.
a global affairs media network
Decentralization and Latin America's Urban Responses to COVID-19
Photo by Guilherme Madal via Unsplash.
March 16, 2021
I
n early 2020, when the world became exceedingly conscious of COVID-19's rapid spread, the world’s governments implemented various responses in order to mitigate the pandemic's initial impacts. For the most part, direct government action was critical in stemming the spread of the pandemic. Like most other nations, Latin American governments instituted nationwide lockdowns, closed their borders, and prepared their health infrastructure for the unknown.
The establishment of nationwide policies was often interconnected with city mayors' response goals and their own local governments. Yet, compared to their countries’ general population, the highly condensed Latin American cities were hit hardest by national lockdowns and the establishment of further containment policies. LATAM leaders had to swiftly adapt to the looming crisis and evaluate their cities' ability to respond to the combination of economic inequality, a besieged health infrastructure system, and sociopolitical unrest over quarantine policies.
A common theme within Latin American cities is the contrast between superficial economic stability and widespread inequality. LATAM urban centers hold a majority of the continent's populations. In 2015, around 80% of the region's population lived in urban centers, comparably higher than the general world's 52%. Yet, even among other countries with high levels of urbanization and greater levels of capital and economic infrastructure, LATAM countries underperform in these respective fields, as well as in their labor productivity.
In 2019, on average throughout the region, 30.8% of the general population lived under the poverty line, and 11.5% in situations of extreme poverty. The combination of poverty and high urbanization provides the basis for Latin America's stratified and unequal cities.
Throughout 2020, a nuanced economic foundation, or lack of, set Latin American countries and their cities in a precarious yet interesting situation. COVID-19's spread pushed many Latin American cities to institute preventive measures. Citywide policies enhanced the distribution of pandemic-related information, data programs quickly identified vulnerable populations, and the subject communities/neighborhoods were addressed accordingly. These urban governments were especially aware of their citizens' socioeconomic diversity and spatial differences, and in return, established information programs curated to their vulnerable communities.
By April 2020, Latin American cities and nations, banned public social gatherings, closed their borders, and ordered, or began preparing, for a nationwide lockdown. Although central and urban governments were able to institute strong preventions against the spread of the virus, Latin America's trend of deepening urban inequality across the continent enhanced the pandemic's disproportional impact on these marginalized populations.
Evidently, along with managing the ineptness of weakened and besieged health systems, central governments faced a complex situation balancing the sovereignty of urban governments with the need to protect rural and other communities on the periphery. These governments were forced to choose a middle ground between civil liberties, political autonomy, and maintaining an effective response to COVID-19.
In contrast to other nations where central, municipal, and urban governments fell into disputes over sovereignty and the adequate responses to the pandemic, Latin American countries with decentralized governments were able to institute local preventative measures in combination with overarching central responses to the pandemic.
However, the response to COVID-19 by urban and rural governments, and their citizens, was not fully cooperative. At times citizens were apprehensive to the imposed curfews and, at times, central national governments overreached. This dispute between the populace and the local, urban and central governments led certain Latin American countries to increase the government's presence and force. In Venezuela and Nicaragua, COVID-19 served as a rationale for authoritarian governments to increase their efforts to further limit society and control political debates.
The COVID-19 pandemic showcased the lack of infrastructure to combat such extensive crises and the prevalent socioeconomic inequality present in urban centers through Latin America. Not to mention political division, frustration, and the developing challenges towards democracy. As these countries receive and implement vaccines in the coming years, cities across the continent require rebuilding and restructuring their economic and social foundation. Yet, the pandemic and cities' responses have proven that Latin American cities and their governments are learning to become more adept at instituting functional policy and providing strong responses to critical problems.
