Download
1 / 30
300 likes | 415 Views
Addressing poverty, inequality and insecurity. Structure of my presentation. Insecurity, poverty and inequality – the scale and the nature Pro-poor politics and achieving safety and security
E N D
Structure of my presentation • Insecurity, poverty and inequality – the scale and the nature • Pro-poor politics and achieving safety and security • Three critical collective capabilities (by collective to include local govt., urban poor communities and interested professionals): vision, knowledge, accountability
1. Understanding the problem • How should we understand the problems of urban poverty and inequality • What is the nature of insecurity? • What are the complexities of urban disadvantage?
What is clear… • Est. 1 billion living in informal settlements • UN Habitat estimates that 62 per cent of urban dwellers in sub-Saharan Africa live in informal settlements • Multiple forms of disadvantage…. In a context in which everything is commodified
Per cent of nations’ non-agricultural employment in informal employment
Lack of access to improved sanitation in urban areas - 1990 to 2010 • Bangladesh 32 per cent 33 per cent • Burkina Faso 57 per cent 50 per cent • Colombia 21 per cent 18 per cent • Ghana 88 per cent 81 per cent • India 49 per cent 42 per cent • Kenya 73 per cent 68 per cent • Nicaragua 41 per cent 37 per cent • Nigeria 61 per cent 65 per cent • Uganda 68 per cent 66 per cent NOTE – definitions of improved and unimproved DO NOT CONSIDER DENSITY World Health Organization and UNICEF (2012)
Problems of low-lying land • the low elevation coastal zone accounts for only about 2 per cent of the world’s land area, • BUT about 10 per cent of the world’s population and 13 per cent of the world’s urban population live in the zone. • In terms of the regional distribution, Asia stands out, as it contains about three-quarters of the population in the zone and two-thirdsof the urban population
2. A pro-poor politics • Challenge clientelistpolitics through universalism • Establish and strengthen public legitimacy for the organized urban poor • Coproduction of services to demonstrate modalities of improvement AND protect autonomy (and address material needs) • Centre the process on women • Build relations with the City (city-wide) and link to national govt. • Strengthen political capabilities (collective and individual) – build institutions of learning (because politics is dynamic …)
Challenge clientelism with universalism • The problems with clientelism are acknowledged – partial, specific, reinforcing existing power relations, creating dependencies • Build city wide networks able to share information - and challenge particularity as a response to resource scarcity (eg. Kitwe ) • Use Funds to establish the principle of universality – support for all with effective networks and alliance building – how to use resources to reach everyone (even in the longer term)
Secure legitimacy for the urban poor and recognition of their citizenship • Through profiles (9000) and 200 plus cities completed • Through enumerations (4000 settlements), maps (1000) and plans • Through savings and self-help • Through representations of partnership and collaboration • Through alliance building • Issues of rights and justice are critical to people’s perspectives but used cautiously. Why? Because they are used to marginalise, and the organized urban poor are cleverer than that – avoid the politics of contention. • Information helps to establish legitimacy • Networks and vision are criticalto the management of information • Same political effect as a demonstration can be realised by a collaborative event – with advantages to the urban poor
Co-production and alternative practice • Co-production used in many ways to refer to many practices • For SDI and ACHR/ACCA processes used to refer to joint planning, financing, implementation and evaluation – also used for joint policy making processes after the project finishes – create alternative practices • Also used to protect community autonomy – the co-productive processes designed to strengthen local organizations and contest individualised approaches eg. Toilet management
The central role of women • How to make a process inclusive ? – take the most disadvantaged and put them in the centre. • Idea is that if it works for this group, then it is more likely to work for others who are disadvantaged • Aspiration is that the relations that women build with each other will help to challenge dominant patterns of relationships. Leaders will be supportive rather than authoritative • Example of savings as an alternative practice
A city-wide vision • Universalism requires more than just a discourse of inclusion at the local level. It also requires a very different way of thinking about a planning process for the city. • How can all settlements be included ? • How can all income groups be included ? • How can landlord and tenants be included ? • How do micro-level actions add up to something that is more than the sum of the parts ? • Kitwe – 70-80,000 hhs in need of sanitation
3. Build political capabilities The anti-thesis of inclusive urban planning • No vision • No learning • No accountability
What does this add to? Reflections on collective capabilities… • New vision – central to a new urban planning and practice is a new vision of urban development. • New learning – reflection matters. Think of networks and federations as learning centres – places in which the urban poor can reflect and consolidate their experiences in new practices. • New accountabilities – not well understood but this does not mean that it is not important.
Which accountabilities (in the shift away from the particular) ? • Local council accountable to citizens for neglect (documented in enumerations and surveys) • Co-productive partners responsible for investments and costs to residents – information about what informal settlement upgrading really costs • Individual organizational leaders accountable to members for participating in network and making case • Network participants accountable to local organizations for sharing information and putting in place citywide plans • Network leaders accountable to local organizations for their communication with politicians • Politicians accountable to informed communities for their decisions
Finally from the global North …. • Agree values of inclusion and scale and support learning processes. Hold agencies accountable for this – taking risks, supporting organizations of the urban poor, metrics around inclusion (of those who are most disadvantage) and scale. • Flexibility is key – predetermine and you determine failure. Inclusive planning and practices require new kinds of political relations between organized low-income communities and the state. • Everything that works takes time.
