CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 SLUMS IN GENERAL

Neglected part of cities where housing and living conditions are appallingly
lacking. Slum ranges from high density squalid central city tenements to
spontaneous squatter settlements without legal recognition or rights sprawling at
the edge of cities some are more than 50 years old some are land invasions just
underway slum may be called by various names Favelas, Kampungs, Tugurias yet
share the same miserable living condition.

2.2 GOI DEFINITION OF “SLUM” SETTLEMENTS

Apparent physical sub-standardness, irrespective of land ownership or tenure
status–legal settlements as Slums.
Unfit for human habitation due to dilapidation, overcrowding, lack of ventilation,
light or sanitation facilities which are water, roads, healthcare, education.
If conditions met, settlements can be regularized as Slums
A slum, as defined by the United Nations agency UN-HABITAT, is a run-down
area of a city characterized by substandard housing and squalor and lacking in
tenure security.
According to the UN one billion people live in slums. The term has traditionally
referred to housing areas that were once respectable but which deteriorated as the
original dwellers moved on to newer and better parts of the city, but has come to
include the vast informal settlements found in cities in the developing world.
2.3 MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF SLUMS
In terms of the social dimension that was questioned before in the definition
recommended by the UN, the commonness of slums being a manifestation of
urban poverty and social inequality is agreed among all organizations. However,
it has been also acknowledged that slums do not accommodate all of the urban
poor, nor are all slum dwellers always poor (UN-HABITAT, 2003b,).
Nevertheless, there are significant differences between slum dwellers and the rest
of the urban population, present in higher rates of unemployment, lower education
opportunities, higher morbidity and mortality, worse environment conditions,
stigmatization, isolation and exclusion from social integration and economic
opportunities.
At the same time they have little if any political voice towards complains or
searching for solutions. The severity of these conditions is often influenced by
gender, age, class, ethnic, and religious identity. Of these, women are often the
more affected and it is they and their children who suffer most from the lack of
basic services and the hazards of life in the slums. (Tannerfeldt & Ljung, 2006,)
In this order of ideas there is a great need to seek for the improvement of the needs
of particularly vulnerable groups like the aged, the handicapped, single mothers
and children.
Another concern is the one referring to the deficiencies in community amenities
and spaces that encourage public social life. Tannerfeldt and Ljung in their book,
More Urban Less Poor (2006, p. 53), argue that the issues of housing in slum areas
are not only a matter of houses and services, but includes the main amenities of a
neighborhood, such as nearby and accessible schools, clinics, religious buildings,
sport grounds, parks , green areas, etc.
In general the different definitions can all be summed up to determine the main
characteristics of slum areas. The Global Report on Human Settlements
“Challenge of the Slums” (UN-HABITAT, 2003, p. 11) based on a review of the
definitions used by national and local governments, statistical offices, institutions
involved in slum issues and public perceptions determined 7 main characteristics
of slum areas: 1. Lack of basic services. 2. Substandard housing or illegal and
inadequate building structures. 3. Overcrowding and high density. 4.
Unhealthy living conditions and hazardous locations. 5. Insecure tenure;
irregular or informal settlements. 6. Minimum settlement size. 7. Poverty and
social exclusion. What makes all these situations more problematic is its negative
self-reinforcing nature. The presence of one or more of this situations influences
directly in other aspects such as health, education, economy, creating a “vicious
cycle of decreasing ability to earn a sustainable livelihood” (UN Millennium
Project, 2005).
On the other hand, there are those that see the positive aspects of slums. Slums
have been the only large scale solution providing housing for low income people
as well as immigrants. In most cities of the world they are the dwelling places for
the labor force. As well, the economic needs of the poor living in slums have
sometimes canalized into small informal entrepreneurs that serve and provide the
formal economy outside the slums in many ways (UN-HABITAT, 2003b, p. VI).
These “informal economical assets”, have already started to be explored in to more
strategic economic systems by both international and local organizations. Slums
have also been recognized as places with vibrant mix of cultures, where there have
emerged different forms of culture, artistic and social expressions and movements
(UN-HABITAT, 2003b, p. XXXI). The situations present in the everyday life of
these areas have inspired musicians, writers, filmmakers and artists all around the
world. More outstanding the levels of solidarity, partnership and community can
be much more significant than in any other areas of the city. However, these
positive attributes do not justify the existence of them. Nevertheless, slums are
increasingly being seen by policy makers as places of opportunity, as “SLUMS OF
HOPE”, instead of “SLUMS OF DESPAIR”. In those areas where appropriate
upgrading programs and policies have been implemented, slums have become
increasingly socially cohesive, offering all kind of new opportunities to the urban
poor (UN-HABITAT, 2003, p. XXVI).

2.4 CONCEPTUALIZING SLUM UPGRADING

The word upgrading usually refers to an effort to improve living conditions in

particular urban areas characterized by poor-quality housing and inadequate
infrastructure and service delivery (Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite, 2001: 222). The
global emphasis on the upgrading programs and self-help housing emerged
broadly in the 1970s when the World Bank searching for an alternative to
widespread slum clearances and evictions started to stress a new ‘paradigm’ for
the urbanizing world. The Bank’s initiative was considerably affected by John
Turner, the English architect, who advocated slum improvements free of
government intervention to allow their residents to change their living conditions
by themselves (Werlin, 1999). Berner describes the prevailing recognition as
follows:
‘‘In the last four decades it (self-help housing) is increasingly recognized as the
only means available to fulfil the immense demand for mass housing in the cities...
Housing economists declared squatting to be a solution rather than a problem, and
saw it as evidence for the superiority of market-based solutions over ‘distorting’
government interventions” (Berner, 2007: 2).
Influenced by Turner’s work the urban poor have been gradually perceived as the
best developers (or survivors) to secure a shelter for almost nothing.
Aside from upgrading programs sites-and-services schemes were designed to be
executed. ‘Between 1972 and 1990 the Bank helped finance a total of 116 sites-
and-services and/or slum upgrading schemes in 55 nations’ (Pugh in Davis, 2007:
70). Turner ‘stressed a ‘sites-and-services’ (provision of basic ‘wet’ infrastructure
and civil engineering) approach to help rationalize and upgrade self-help housing’
(Davis, 2007: 71). In reality it meant a clearance of land where an illegal settlement
had been located in favor of self-help constructions. The implications were rather
disappointing. Berner reports that one of the failures of sites-and-services schemes
was the quickly increased land prices and the fact that wealthier groups who
purchase and control the land benefited (2007: 9). Access to secure tenure for the
lowest-income households was endangered.
Both, upgrading programs in temporary settlements and sites-and-services
projects face large criticism because of their effects on the most marginalized slum
residents.
A reproof for the self-help loans under the sites-and-services/upgrading schemes
is partly based on the estimation that in the 1980s the bottom 30 to 60 per cent of
the urban population (depending on the country) was unable to meet the financial
obligations (Peattie in Davis, 2007: 73). Obviously, a limited number of low-
income urban households together with lower middle-income households access
the loans more easily than the poorest slum families. An example from Mumbai
shows that only 9 per cent of loan recipients belonged to lowest-income groups
(Davis, 2007: 74). Although many slum dwellers benefited from the programs in
early years, most of them were exposed to greater exploitation and housing related
problems in the long term. Frequently asked full cost recovery affected especially
the poorest through ‘mechanisms include self-selection in group-credit schemes,
incentives for well-endowed people in entrepreneurship development and benefits
for homeowners in upgrading’ (Berner and Phillips, 2005: 22). The early faithful
beliefs in Turner’s idea of ‘development from below’ (Werlin, 1999: 1533) had
been replaced by doubts and disbelief to address increasing urban crisis without
greater government involvement.
Werlin (1999) describes four principal fundamentals for slum improvements
which were not stressed enough in the first programmes between the 1970s and
1980s. Being underestimated, he states, maintenance, land acquisition, tenure and
community participation have contributed to make upgrading a ‘myth’ . First there
has been a clash between quality of improvements and scale of the program while
the instalment was inadequate (for instance not enough water hand pumps for the
total slum population or no provision of improved sanitation) and of poor quality

(Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite,2001, Werlin, 1999). The problem of maintenance

appears to be acute in upgrading programmes providing facilities to be shared (for
example toilets or water hand pumps).
These are used more intensively than if such facilities are provided to each house
and the maintenance has to be institutionalized (Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite,
2001: 222); secondly the everybody/nobody ownership dichotomy constrains
adequate maintenance as well.
Although secure land tenure was recognized as important in the programs, the
early Bank’s loans did not fully integrate it as a pre-condition for an intervention
to be successful (Werlin, 1999: 1524). Unlike Turner, the advocate of a moderate
role for government, his Peruvian counterpart Hernando De Soto argues for
government’s responsibility for stronger engagement. More recently upgrading
programmes have stressed
De Soto’s perception to stimulate people’s activity ensuring secure land tenure
first. In spite of this, much evidence contesting the approach has emerged.Secure
housing as a prerequisite for an informal settlement improvement to be sustainable
and to avoid further erosion of slum dwellers’ assets has been recognized as one
of the pillars of slum upgrading. Payne states that titling became a mainstream
development approach when the World Bank started to run revised upgrading
initiatives in the 1990s: ‘World Bank Housing Policy Paper (1993) recommends
developing marketoriented systems of property rights and allocates priority to
upgrading systems of land titling and regularizing tenure in squatter settlements’
(2001: 420). These recommendations were based on clearly visible profits of the
slum regularization which stimulate slum dwellers’ investments in their ‘capital’
and enhance participation of the urban poorest in theory. ‘However, the titling
approach has already achieved considerable momentum, which recent studies
suggest needs to be challenged’ (Payne, 2001: 421). If the slum residents realize
the value of the land, the higher price of a plot may attract them to sell it and move
to dwell somewhere else. Payne follows that ‘such actions may therefore actually
result in an increase in informal settlements rather than a decrease’ (2005: 136). In
addition the ‘full property’ stimulates unauthorized constructions or improvements
in a settlement. Davis (2007) sums up that titling also impose higher prices and
value of land and building materials in general.
Becoming suddenly ‘legalized’ slum dwellers have to follow ‘new rules’ and pay
proper taxes and services. Payne argues that ‘high standards impose higher costs,
and complex bureaucratic procedures impose delays that require informal
payments to facilitate progress’ (2005:137). New regulations, administrative
processes and bureaucracy make slum residents’ housing and livelihood more
complicated. Slum dwellers have to move from ‘living from one day to another’
to thinking about their future and regular payments and duties. Most of them find
it difficult, more expensive and less convenient than before and are eager to move
to illegality again. In fact, mainstreaming slum legalization has empowered
informal land subdivision to become a widespread phenomenon. Research from
different countries proved that the illegal rent in slums have increased notably for
last two decades and more surprisingly it is even much higher than in the formal
market (Davis, 2007). In other words, social differentiation has become one of the
significant characteristics of an ‘informal’ settlement today. The promotion of
slumlordism have not changed much for the urban poorest to reach appropriate
shelter legally. Davis (2007) simply concludes that the World Bank’s initiatives
generally failed to address the challenging urban crises in the developing and
transitioning countries. Being a little bit more optimistic, the failures have
definitely brought some lessons learnt for seeking alternative solutions.
Since the 1970s the ‘participatory rhetoric’ has appeared in the Bank’s upgrading
programmes. The role of beneficiaries’ participation was recognized, although
mostly it has been much developed on paper rather than in reality lacking donor
and government eagerness (Werlin, 1999, Berner and Phillips, 2005). Apart from
the difficulties for community participation outlined in the previous part, to sustain
political power is often the target. Governments show no real interest in involving
slum dwellers in planning or decision-making processes before a programme or
policy is implemented. Slum dweller participation has been more likely perceived
as a tool to control them and to legitimize a government policy (Botes and
Rensburg, 2000: 45). The odd understandings of ‘participation’ have become the
common practice. The slum population represents an increasingly significant vote
bank (Werlin, 2006, De Wit, 1996 and 1997, Baken, 2003). The large scale
upgrading implementation was influenced by the recognition of slum dwellers as
an important electoral base for a politician to be (re) elected (Hardoy, Mitlin,
Satterthwaite, 2001: 221). Interest about urban poor had increased while they had
been eligible to vote for a candidate in return for food, more secure housing or
service provision. Davis concludes that upgrading and site-and-services
schemes are attractive to governments for simple reasons: promise of
stability, votes and taxes (2007: 81). In many cases slum dwellers are easily
seen as a tool instead of a target for policies.
In India those living in ‘irregular’ settlements lobbied hard to be labelled as
‘slums’ to ensure the ‘advantages’ of an upgrading programme (Mitlin, Patel,
2004: 219). Moreover, politicians themselves were keen to support a formation of
an informal settlement to enlarge their vote banks (Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite,
2001: 222).
In a simplified way, slum upgrading has been perceived advantageous for both
local government and slum dwellers. Globally ‘a fifth of the study households
(involved in upgrading) reported that their economic circumstances have
improved’ (Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite, 2001: 220). Increased housing stability,
regular electricity and the basic sanitation enabled slum dwellers to generate an
income through home-based and self-employment activities.

2.5 PARTICIPATION AND SELF-HELP: THEORY IN PRACTICE

It aims to conceptualize the nature of participatory development and its challenges,

specifically to assess pre-conditions, barriers and stimuli for community
participation in slums in particular. Then, the limits of both upgrading and sites-
and-services programs in the global context are described carrying out a critical
overview of their impacts on slum residents’ assets. The topic presents the basis
for the subsequent analysis of participation in slums.

2.5.1 DEFINITIONS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT PARTICIPATION

To research participation in a context of slum upgrading projects it is first essential
to define the term participation. In this study I chose to talk about citizen
participation, this can also be seen especially in slum context as community
participation. In my opinion participation in the planning process is the ability to
influence the design and extent of the plan. John Rainbow who been SPARCs
coordinator for the “Yerwada project” means that “participation is when the
beneficiaries have the influence during the whole process from planning start to
implementation, construction and monitoring”.
Aneeta Benninger who is professor and director at CDSA (Center for
Developments Studies and Activities) means that “participation can be described
as taking part in events that take place in a community or larger area, she also
means that there are both active and passive forms of participation”. This is a view
that is very well compatible with Sherry R Arnstein´s theories about the ladder of
participation.
Arjun Appadurai has a view that “participation is more or less meaningful in
relation with other concepts. He writes about the importance that the participants
are informed but also the importance to enable people to get their voices heard”
(www.airroots.org,).

2.5.2 UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

There are a variety of explanations for how to understand the term participation.
In principle, ‘dichotomized means/ends’ rhetoric prevails in the debate about
participatory approaches. Cleaver describes the distinction between ‘participation
as a tool’ to achieve satisfactory program /project outcomes and ‘participation as
a process which enhances the capacity of individuals to improve their own lives
and facilitates social changes for the advantage of disadvantaged or marginalized
groups’ (1999: 598). Participation as a means should ensure quality and
sustainability of achievements through beneficiaries’ ownership and increase
efficiency through their contributions (Berner and Philips, 2005: 18). A lack of
emphasis on one or another approach faces vast criticism in development practice.
The necessity of both, efficiency and empowerment arguments is less articulated.
Beneficiaries need to see outcomes of their effort as well as to be encouraged to
invest their energy in the long term process of change. This suggests searching for
synergy rather than selecting either a ‘tool’ or a ‘process’. A programme or project
by its nature is defined as a ‘package’ filled by activities to be achieved within a
time-limited framework and cost-effective budget (Cleaver, 1999, Botes and
Rensburg, 2000). Empowerment itself stays in the shadow in reality. ‘The process
(participation) is not an attempt to ascertain the outcome and priorities, but rather
to gain acceptance for an already assembled (project) package’ (Botes and
Rensburg, 2000: 43). Community participation in many upgrading programs has
been observed to follow this direction. More deeply understanding the complexity
of people’s lives is crucial for an intended intervention to avoid repetition of
failures in participatory development such as promotion of patronage or exclusion
of economically and/or socially marginalized groups and other vulnerable ‘non-
participants’. Commonly the term community more likely identifies a homogenous
entity bounded by natural, social and administrative boundaries.
The definition is desirable to outcomes-oriented intervention based on less
pragmatic ‘solidarity’ models of a community finding difficult evidence of social
tension or conflicts (Cleaver, 1999: 604). If so, there is a threat to define
heterogeneous social structure through simple categorization of a social or
occupational role such as women, leaders, poor etc. (Cleaver, 1999: 605). An
oversimplified perception of the nature of community tends to target failures and
exploit those in a ‘wrong’ category or not involved at all. The pune slum policies
present an example for all.
The debate about appropriate methods in participatory development imposes
‘technique-based participatory orthodoxy’ which fails to address inter-linkages in
social reality (individual and institutional – both horizontal and vertical) and
distribution of power, information and other resources in a community (Cleaver,
1999: 600). Starting from here, the next part aims to demonstrate difficulties which
have to be taken into consideration speaking about more efficient community
participation in slums.

2.5.3 ASSESSMENT OF PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT IN SLUMS

If participation is translated into ‘managerial exercise based on ‘toolboxes’ of
procedures and techniques’, a risk of oversimplified solutions ignoring inclusion
of different social groups becomes real (Cleaver, 1999: 608). A scale of barriers
to community participation has been identified in development literature. For the
purpose of the study, a division between the external and internal obstacles is
helpful; however, none of them stands alone being interconnected with each other.
External impediments are included rather implicitly in conceptualizing slum
improvements in the next section. It often demonstrates targeting problems and
external interference likely to be ‘top-down dictate’ or ‘political strategy of
control’. In addition, upgrading programmes are mistakenly more oriented on
‘hard’ projects (development of infrastructure, housing, facilities) than on ‘soft’
ones (economic empowerment, education,social protection etc.) (Botes and
Rensburg, 2000). Participation may also be weakened through non-understanding
of the different institutional structures of a community by an intervening
organization.
Internal obstacles present the main issues in the assessment of pre-conditions for
slum dwellers’ participation. The three factors that challenge community
participation in slums,follow:
Heterogenity: whose interests count?
An informal settlement consists of diverse interest groups and individuals of
various social, cultural or religious status, political interest, livelihood activities
and needs to be fulfilled. Their perceptions of a community action and ‘common
good’ differ in hand with their role in the community. In a ‘slum’ new comers live
together with old timers, tenants with owners, unemployed with employed, these
legally working with informally self-employed, residents of different age, sex or
level of education, etc. It is reported that ‘people (community members) are often
less likely to participate due to divisions of language, tenure, income, gender, age
or politics, than in less diverse communities’ (Botes and Rensburg, 2000: 48).
Those may have even opposing desires which affect their motivation to be or not
to be engaged.
Patronage and exclusion
‘There is always the danger that decision-making at the community-level may fall
into the hands of a small and self-perpetuating clique, which may act in its own
interests with disregard for the wider community. In this regard, Friedman (1993:
29) has used the term ‘positioning for patronage’ (Botes and Rensburg, 2000: 48).
Local elites, gatekeepers, slum leaders or brokers wish to attract outsiders’ interest
and to speak out for the community needs. Then, no recognition of exploitation
and marginalization inside the settlement is observed (Berner and Phillips, 2005:
24). The poorest, disabled, in-debt or similarly disregarded slum dwellers benefit
the least, if ever. The so-called ‘community leaders’ are often deliberately
controlling information channels from the intervening agency towards the
community to prevent losing power or to ensure more support from the ‘bottom’
to address those ‘above’. Lacking appropriate information or commonly having
odd news, slum dwellers may be hesitant to participate. Local politicians play
sometimes the role of brokers or middlemen (slum leaders may also be members
of a supportive political party) to spread opportunistic information and
announcements. The gradual role of political interest in slum population is further
described in examination of slum improvement programs and in Chennai’s case in
particular.
Selective slum memory
As De Wit shows political representatives ‘may influence officials to implement a
program in a particular slum just before an election, so making it clear that the
slum people should be grateful to him, and that he expects them to vote for him’
(1997: 19). These promises are rarely fulfilled and fleeting politicians’ willingness
threatens slum dweller participation. Rarely satisfied expectations decrease a
readiness to participate (Botes and Rensburg, 2000: 51). Slum dwellers’ memories
count and as noted before, the synergy between participation as a ‘tool’ and an
‘empowerment’ is needed. Remembering ‘process without product (that) leaves
communities feeling that nothing is really happening other than a lot of talking,
and that time, money and social energy is lost’ .