Comparison of Political Intervention Strategies in Informal Settlements in Cities of the Global South

Abstract

Informal urbanization is prevalent in rapidly growing Global South cities, often viewed as a “disease” necessitating intervention. However, such interventions seldom enhance living conditions, with borrowed political tools proving inefficient across diverse local contexts. This study assesses the aftermath of political interventions in informal settlements in Global South cities (Mexico City, São Paulo, Bogotá, Bangkok, Mumbai, Cairo, Nairobi) and gauges their strategic success. The study appraises the scale of informal urbanization and policy success. Primarily, economic resources (availability of local budgets) are more important than institutional opportunities of cities (powers granted to municipalities, constitutional obligations). When working with informal settlements, the local level of problem-solving is most effective, where physical changes follow socio-economic ones. Without prior dialogue with local residents, changes in the physical space of slums and informal settlements are often perceived as hostile by the population. The experience of cities in the Global South shows that the policy which aims at developing social capital (libraries, schools, universities in slums) often is more successful and institutional policies — legalization, censuses, zoning — are not effective on their own. The key to successfully addressing informal settlements lies in the complexity of intervention strategies, their simultaneity, and interconnection. Fragmented policies at any level are not work effectively and may increase the distrust of informal settlement residents. Participatory design and involving people in improvement processes are promising practices, but these are primarily point tools that cannot be fully effective without accompanying changes at the institutional level.