LIVELIHOODS & URBAN FORM:MUMBAI IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

REFLECTIONS MARTY CHEN

LECTURER IN PUBLIC POLICY, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOLAFFILIATED PROFESSOR, HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN

INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR, WIEGO NETWORK

REFLECTION # 1

What have we learned about

informal workers

& their livelihoods in Mumbai?

Total Employment in Mumbai by Industry Group & Employment Type (% distribution) 2011-12

Industry Group

Male Female

Formal Informal Formal Informal

Agriculture 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3

Manufacturing 5.3 19.2 2.5 21.4

Home-Based 0.0 10.9 0.0 54.6

Construction 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.3

Trade 1.1 19.7 0.0 9.0

Street Vending 0.0 21.0 0.0 16.2

Non-Trade Services 15.0 33.7 12.4 54.0

Transport 29.2 29.6 0.5 1.7

Domestic Workers 0.0 12.1 0.0 55.4

Waste Pickers 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.9

Total Employed 22.1 77.9 14.9 85.1

Source: G. Raveendran for WIEGO Network

INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT IN MUMBAI 2011-12

(% distribution)

Construction (5%) Trade (22%)

street-vending (4%) informal trading (18%) – in stalls, kiosks, built markets

Manufacturing (25%) home-based (10%) workshop or factory-based (15%)

Non-Trade Services (48%) waste picking (13%) transport (10%) domestic work (1%) other (24%) – what might this include?

KEY VARIABLES TO CONSIDER IN URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Construction Workers status of workers:

resident status: local vs. migrants (seasonal vs. daily) skills status: manual vs. skilled vs. specialized trades Employment status: causal laborer (daily or seasonal contract) vs. permanent worker

recruitment corners: in relation to residence & construction site type of construction: residential vs. commercial, low vs. high type of construction firm: formal vs. informal, large vs. small

Home-Based Workers home-as-workplace

housing tenure: de facto vs. de jure vs. on renthousing size/qualityhousing location: in relation to customers, contractors, suppliers

sector: manufacturing, trade, non-trade services status in employment: self-employed vs. sub-contracted

Street Vending legal status:

vending in designated areas or natural markets and/or with licensesvending without designated spot or licenses: different degrees of “squatting”

products: perishables vs. non-perishables location of vending site: in relation to customers & wholesale market

Waste Picking employment status:

self-employedemployed as street cleaners by municipalityemployed to sort waste by recycling dealer or unit

collection routes & sorting sites: at source, from city bins, at waste depots, at landfills – designated /recognized? different types of recyclable materials: plastic, cardboard/paper, metal, glass

RELECTION # 2

What have we learned about

policy responses to informal livelihoods?

integral to the economy: contribute to overall level of economic activity and to the provision of goods and services

basic human right: have right to choose occupation and engage in entrepreneurial activities

source of government tax: actually or potentially contribute – licensing fees, sales and value-added taxes, taxes on themselves and their dependents (consumption, income or property taxes)

alternative to unemployment: sustain themselves and their dependents

laboratory: able to pursue entrepreneurship, family business and social interaction

source of goods and services: at convenient locations & low prices vitality & culture: bring life to dull streets,

ARGUMENTS FOR INFORMAL LIVELIHOODS

(Bromley 2009)

congestion: over-concentrated in certain areas of the city traffic congestion and accidents: impede flow of motor, emergency and

delivery vehicles; cause traffic accidents; block exit routes from crowded buildings

public health problems: those who sell food and drink unfair competition to formal businesses lack of regulation and taxation: do not keep accounts, give receipts, pay

taxes or charge sales/VAT taxes to customers ability to cheat: leave or relocate businesses to avoid customers or officials trade in illegal goods or services: some engage in ticket-touting, pimping,

prostitution, sale of narcotics contribute to underground economy: do not document cash transactions,

pay bribes to police and municipal inspectors; epitome of surplus labor and underemployment: dysfunctional to the

economy

ARGUMENTS AGAINSTINFORMAL LIVELIHOODS

(Bromley 2009)

Current Reality = Complex Coexistence of… Persecution & Regulation

moving them to off-street locations: to public or private markets imposing regulations & taxes on street vending abuse of authority: bribes, confiscations

Tolerance & Promotion financial services + business development services reforms of commercial or sector-specific regulations

Alternative Response: basic infrastructure services: at homes & other work places accessible & affordable transport integration into local plans (urban and economic development) inclusive joint management of public space, including

“natural markets” of street vendors “natural routes” of waste pickers “natural recruitment corners” of construction workers

ALTERNATIVE POLICY RESPONSES TO INFORMAL LIVELIHOODS

REFLECTION # 3

What have we learned about

planning/planners and

informal livelihoods?

PLANNERS RECOGNIZEINHERENT TENSIONS OR CLASHES

planned city vs. unplanned economy (flexible, mobile, impermanent) planned administrative grid vs. uncentralized movement (Scott

1995) normative projections vs. lived reality (Simone 2004) techno-managerial & market-driven planning vs. marginalized urban

populations surviving largely under conditions of informality (Watson 2009)

competing uses/users of public space empowering pro-poor ideology VS. neo-liberal anti-state ideology

(Van Ballegoijen & Rocco 2013)

PLANNERS RECOGNIZE NEED FOR ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

TO PLANNING

complex intersections of persons, spaces, objects = infrastructure for providing livelihoods and reproducing life in African cities (Simone 2004)

need for shift in planning theory and practice that recognizes and addresses informality (Watson 2009)

need for inclusive definition of the scope of planning beyond spatial planning to include economic and social planning (Davidoff 1965)

Key Question of This Course: Is there scope for new, less simplified

and standardized, approaches to the complex reality of urban informal

livelihoods?

REFLECTION # 4

What did we learn from the good practice examples: from Ahmedabad,

Durban & Bogota?

INCLUSIONARY URBAN POLICIES:SUPPORT TO LIVELIHOODS

Construction Workers: ID cards + registries/proof of work + occupational health & safety regulations + skills training

Home-Based Workers: quality housing + de facto tenure + basic infrastructure services

Street Vendors: legal access to public space in natural markets + basic infrastructure services at natural markets

Waste Pickers: inclusion in solid waste management + infrastructure for sorting, processing & storing waste

All: recognition of contributions + representation in planning + affordable/accessible transport

KEY LESSONS FOR URBAN PLANNINGFROM GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES

That it is both desirable and feasible to: Involve organizations of informal workers into the

planning process Build current livelihood systems – activities, sites, routes -

into plans Provide physical space & infrastructure services in support

of different livelihood systems Figure out how to articulate-integrate micro realities &

perspectives into macro planning at the city scale Reform legal frameworks to ensure sustainability beyond

locally-elected governments which change over time

REFLECTION # 5

What did we learn about

different visions of the city?

DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF CITIES

World City – focus on power (Peter Hall et al) Mega City – focus on human beings (World Bank et al)

population growth & carrying capacity of cities Global City – focus on capital (Saskia Sassen et al)

shining high rises in Shanghai downtown = manifestation of capital World Class City – hybrid of the above

pandering to middle class aspirations for efficiency & stability pandering to global investors

Alternative Concepts: from this course

Kinetic City (Mehrotra) – focus on fluid, dynamic, impermanent intersections between the

formal & informal

Inclusive City (Chen/WIEGO) - focus on the urban poor and their informal livelihoods

FUTURE VISION:HYBRID ECONOMIES & ECONOMIC DIVERSITY

“The challenge is to convince the policy makers to promote and encourage hybrid economies in which micro-businesses can co-exist alongside small, medium, and large businesses: in which the street vendors can co-exist alongside the kiosks, retail shops, and large malls. Just as the policy makers encourage bio diversity, they should encourage economic diversity. Also, they should try to promote a level playing field in which all sizes of businesses and all categories of workers can compete on equal and fair terms.“

Ela Bhatt

Founder, SEWA

Founding Chair, WIEGO

FINAL REFLECTION:ON THIS COURSE

Designed to investigate: from a comparative inter-disciplinary and cross-country perspective

different sectors of urban informal livelihoods different urban planning and design approaches to urban informal

livelihoods promising examples of inclusive urban planning and design in support of

urban informal livelihoods

I think we have done so quite effectively. Thanks to you, the students, for your active engagement on the

issues! Thanks to Rahul for inviting me to co-teach this pioneering

cross-disciplinary course! Thanks to Nupoor for effectively coordinating all of us!