Why Making Sense of Informality in Cities Matters: Perspectives from an Urbanizing Asia
In traditional accounts of state and governments, informality evokes boundaries—between formal and informal, developed and developing, legal and illegal, and state and society. Yet, scholarship tells us that it is much more than that. If we get it right, informality helps to make sense of how urban planning, governance, and politics clash and converge to shape cities, be they in developed or developing countries. This is equally true in an urbanizing Asia, where despite many cities being the hubs of global finance and production, informality is a persistent theme.
Absent an understanding of informality, efforts towards sustainable futures in the age of climate change, resource scarcity, and increasing urbanization are bound to fall short. In a conversation at the Institute of Future Initiatives, University of Tokyo, I discussed these concerns with Dr. Yue Zhang (University of Illinois at Chicago), Dr. Wataru Kusaka (Nagoya University), and Dr. Tamaki Endo (Saitama University).
Before discussing how informality is part and parcel of urban living, or how it relates to cities in Asia, one has to identify what it means in the first place.
In traditional accounts, informal is whatever is “not-formal”, and thus, outside the purview of the law. Such institutions and practices are often associated with developing countries where state capacities may be low. E.g., going to a local politician, community leader, or a tough guy for basic services, like access to water, or an electricity connection etc. because the government is not there to do so. This understanding of formal-informal seems self-explanatory. In places, this is even true— any of these people may represent the everyday face of the state.
But, reality is never straightforward, it zigs and zags. Consider separating informal from the formal in a place where a government official is state representative, tough guy, community leader, and part of the political machinery, all rolled into one. Or, where the state may endorse one type of informality over the other—e.g., government officials may sell state land on below-market rates to favored individuals and (or) corporations for financial and political gains. At the same time, urban poor may be evicted on the charge of encroaching public land, while that very land is parceled out to corporations so high-rise condominiums or shopping malls can be built.
Scholarship on informality shifts the target on its head. It suggests that the “informal” cannot be separated from the “formal”. Instead, informality presents a lens to make sense of dynamic ground realities in cities.
Essentially, it is about politics since questions at the heart of informality have to do with the rights of people (who gets to live where and in what conditions? whom does one reach out to for justice, equal rights, and a dignified life? who and what is criminalized, by whom, and why? who benefits from development and who pays?). It is about responsibilities of governments (outsourcing governance to others; gaps between visions for world-class cities and ground realities; challenges for governance; diminished popular support). And lastly, it is about capital flows (processes that are considered more than merely market forces) contributing to inequality and wider state-society interactions.
Cities in Asia have much to contribute to discussions on informality. Between 2018 and 2050, Africa and Asia will be home to 88 per cent of all new urban inhabitants in the world. The two regions are also home to the majority of informal settlements in the world (Eastern and South-Eastern Asia-332 million; Central and Southern Asia-197 million; and sub-Saharan Africa (189 million). In addition to these trends, how risks related to climate change, market flows, and government policies shape urban spaces present concerns for theory and policy. Notwithstanding its experiences with globalization and neoliberal projects (see for instance here and here), urbanization in Asia presents concerns about livable and equitable spaces.
Bengaluru, India (Photo by Nischal Masand on Unsplash)
In my conversation with the three scholars, despite that each city’s narrative varies, common themes of links of informality with state policies, urban planning, and market forces were evident. Significant sections of urban populations are at the receiving end of unforgiving economic, social, and political policies. They are also liable to be criminalized, punished, and pushed into further vulnerability.
For instance, in urban villages in Guangzhou (China) and squatter settlements in Mumbai (India), Dr. Zhang identified the critical role played by the state in contributing to informality through intended and unintended means. As a product of the Chinese local government’s selective land expropriation, urban villages are rural enclaves encircled by urban expansion. The majority of residents in the villages are migrant workers without local household status (hukou). Squatter settlements are self-built housing on illegally occupied public or private land. Political parties provide basic services and protection to these communities in exchange of popular support. Thus, these communities become “vote banks” for political parties. Guangzhou and Mumbai launched projects to redevelop informal settlements in recent decades. While their mechanisms of redevelopment are different, the processes of redevelopment in both cities are contentious and face challenges. On the one hand, informality is the unintended consequence of certain state policies. On the other hand, the state actively negotiates with and uses the informal sector for governing purposes. Without real efforts of inclusive development, the state intervention to redevelop and formalize informal settlements only produces new spatial and social inequalities.
In Metro Manila (Philippines), Dr. Kusaka’s research suggests that informality, as illustrated by the precarity of the urban poor, is a result of reform-oriented governance, neoliberal policies, and President Duterte’s discourse of “discipline”. Rapid economic growth in Metro Manila has come at the expense of demolishing informal urban spaces and resettlement of urban poor in suburbs, far away from jobs and social networks. This planning and development of the city has coincided with the state-led war against drugs that increasingly targets poor peddlers who may be living in informal settlements. Together, these developments have created a narrative of disciplined versus undisciplined citizens. This ethos has led to the support of the doctrine of “discipline” in the urban poor, when and as it is employed to justify excesses in the drug war, and more recently, the harsh quarantine against COVID-19.
In Bangkok (Thailand) and Bangkok Mega Region (BMR), Dr. Endo’s work illustrates gaps between realities and visions of world class cities. Despite becoming a center of finance, production and consumption, the city continues to rely significantly on informal workers and informal economy while informal settlements continue to expand as well. Informality, be it in the form of housing or occupation enables the urban poor to absorb risks related to daily survival. Inequality has been widening since the 2010s. Adding to that, recent private-led development is drastically changing the city’s landscape thereby accelerating this phenomenon. Led by the private sector, urban redevelopment projects are rapidly contributing to further vulnerability of the urban poor by destroying slum communities and fresh markets. These efforts of creating a “modern beautiful city” are supported by the middle class that supports a harsh attitude towards informality. Thus, although the economy heavily depends on the labor of urban poor, yet, programs of urban development punish them. These contrasting processes illustrate tensions that lie at the heart of neoliberal processes, government policies, and urbanization.
This is not the story of four cities in Asia alone; one can see similar patterns in other regions. The development of a city comes at a heavy price, and the urban poor are those paying it through the nose. In parts of a city, the state may indeed be absent, as per traditional understandings of the institution. Yet, the state has an active role in shaping insecure spaces, contributing to more vulnerability, and criminalizing easier targets, i.e., poor populations. In the name of profit, development, and world class cities, the dynamics of markets are active participants in these conversations as well.
In an increasingly urban world, informality is on the rise (if it could be identified by one recognizable phenomenon, it is that of informal settlements. According to UN estimates, over 1 billion people live in informal settlements, and by 2030, 3 billion will require adequate housing). All the more reason to look through the lens of informality to understand how governance is changing; how and why political players (including governments) compete over political, social, and economic resources; who becomes a part of disadvantaged groups; and maybe even stumble into destructive life paths (getting recruited into crime and terror groups, militias etc.). Unless we have answers to local questions, addressing larger concerns about potential conflict or sustainable development in cities is like embarking on a journey without a map. Making sense of how ordinary people live, and how their lives become more insecure is the need of the hour.
