Paradoxes of Urban Housing Informality in the Developing World

Abstract

This article addresses a series of paradoxes regarding informal settlements in cities in the developing world and their relation with the legal system. The first paradox regards the penalization of illegal land occupations on the one hand versus the legalization of that same practice on the other. Second, it looks at the relationship between land occupations as systematic violations of property rights, but with the goal of forming new property rights and thus paradoxically supporting private property as a substantive principle. Third, the reasoning behind the fact that the same system that denies legal access to housing for poor sectors simultaneously attempts to incorporate informal settlements in an ad hoc manner through legalization schemes is examined. It is shown that there is a logic to these paradoxes, which, although contradictory from standard legal perspectives, can be accommodated within a theoretical framework that distinguishes an internal normative order operating within informal settlements, from the state legal system, operative outside it. The proposed framework not only settles the paradoxes, but, this article concludes, can also guide attempts to deal with the enormous anticipated growth of informality in the developing world.

Modes of Informal Urban Development

“…The term and concept of informality has a history that still informs its meaning; its form is shaped by the juxtaposition of differing systems of property, often a colonial legacy; its presence commonly arises because of a temporal disjuncture—regulations may be imposed far ahead of any need— or they may lag behind dynamic urban growth. And so informality is always in flux, its growth or decline being generated “passively” by a new regulation or through the actions of the regulated (Castells and Portes 1989, 298–99; Van Gelder 2013, 509). A snapshot misses its causal dynamic.…”

“…As late as 1984, Caroline Moser, who had previously written about squatter settlements in Ecuador, was able to survey the literature on the “informal sector” without reference to the processes of urban development. Because the most striking examples of informality take the form of squatting, initially in Latin America, many still treat the concept as synonymous with the unauthorized settlement of land (e.g., Huchzermeyer and Karam 2006; Van Gelder 2013; cf. Laquian 1964; Mangin 1967; Turner 1963, 1967).…”

“…And so, overwhelmingly, those interested in the global South appear to suppose, or imply, that informality is something that sets that region apart. This is apparent in the surveys of slums and urban development that have been published since the 1960s, none of which have found it useful to draw parallels with the North (Acioly 2010; AlSayyad 2004; Baross and van der Linden 1990; Davis 2006; de Soto 2000; Durand-Lasserve 1990, 1998; Fernandes and Varley 1998; Gilbert 1992; Gilbert and Ward 1985; Huchzermeyer and Karam 2006; Lloyd 1979; Mathey 1997; Payne 1989; Perlman 1976; Potter 1999; Pugh 1997; Rodwin 1987; United Nations - Habitat 2004; Van Gelder 2013; van Vliet 1987). In an influential early text, for example, Abrams (1964, 41) devotes only one page to a comparison of “more and less developed countries,” emphasizing that housing problems in these regions are of a “different order,” in part because of contrasting legal norms regarding land ownership and regulation.…”

“…Everywhere, the lack of capacity may suggest that some state regulations are too exacting. Colonial powers imported building and land use regulations from the home country into settings where they made no sense or were unrealistic (e.g., Van Gelder 2013). For example, Pamuk (2000) notes that cumbersome “land transfer processes,” together with guidelines from the English Town and Country Planning Acts, were imposed on Trinidad.…”

Mobilities and Risks in Coastal Kenya: Jumping Scales Versus Staying Local

“…The terms “informal” or “unauthorized” generally point toward transgression and illegality on the part of settlers, although they almost always worked through existing political system as a means to be a part of that system (Gelder ). It is worth considering the use of the term “nomotropism” (acting in the light of rules) to analyze unauthorized settlements, because while people are often acting illegally, their intention is to not be criminal but to secure tenure through the most formal routes available to them (Chiodelli and Moroni ).…”