Presentation on theme: "Addressing poverty, inequality and insecurity. Structure of my presentation Insecurity, poverty and inequality – the scale and the nature Pro-poor politics."— Presentation transcript:
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 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?
The urban challenge
Urban poverty Nation Poverty line as a multiple of ‘minimum food basket’ costs Percent of the urban population below the poverty line Democratic Rep. of Congo (2006) Cambodia (2004) Phnom Penh 1.32; Other urban (PP); 21 (other urban) Mozambique (2003) Zambia (2004) Cameroon (2001) (10.9 for Douala; 13.3 for Yaounde) Nepal (2003/4) Malawi (2007) Ethiopia (2005) Kenya (2005/6) Dominican Republic (2004) Haiti (2001) (Port au Prince), 76 (other urban areas) Liberia (2007) Kenya (1997) Brazil (2002/3)** Costa Rica (2004)
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 Countries Above 70 per cent Bolivia, Honduras, India, Madagascar, Mali, Paraguay, Peru, Zambia per cent Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Liberia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Uganda, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, Zimbabwe per cent Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Lesotho, Namibia, Panama, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela Below 30 per cent Armenia, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia,
Lack of access to improved sanitation in urban areas to 2010 Bangladesh 32 per cent 33 per cent Burkina Faso 57 per cent 50 per cent Colombia 21 per cent18 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 cent65 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-thirds of the urban population
2. A pro-poor politics Challenge clientelist politics 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 critical to 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.