1 Where’s the Informality? Theorising Urban Politics in the Global South:Laurence Piper 13th National SAAPS Conference, UWC 31 August – 02 September

2 Why the urban matters… In % of world was urban, by 2050 estimated 66% (UN ROWUP 2014) rate of growth dramatic: from 746 million in 1950 to 3.9 billion in 2014 (5 x bigger) 2014: 28 mega-cities (10 million or more), up from 10 in 1990 but most growth in smaller cities (500,000) of the global south, especially Africa 2050, 90% or the urban will live in Africa & Asia (37% in India, China & Nigeria) Key social challenges associated with urbanisation Informal settlements: down globally since 1990 but still 25% of the urban globally, and 62% in Africa (UN Habitat 2015); Environmental, overburdened public services, weakened social relations, Pace of change vs slowness of policy response

3 Why urban politics mattersThe urban is where the political action is: social movements, political parties, government, media, banks etc. Urban events drive political change: food riots in Africa, popular insurgencies, terrorism Cities as global actors; articulating a distinct policy agenda, especially in economic terms (Attwell 2014) Human well-being: “Managing urban areas has become one of the most important development challenges of the 21st century. Our success or failure in building sustainable cities will be a major factor in the success of the post UN development agenda” - John Wilmoth, Director of UN DESA’s Population Division

4 Key Claims 1. Urban politics neglected field in mainstream Political Science since 1960s. Three key developments in last 50 years: Elite Theory vs Pluralist debate of the 1960s Urban regime theory (Clarence Stone 1989) Urban governance theory (2000s) 2. Deserves greater attention as the world becomes more urban, and the city more important as a political actor 3. This will require the development of urban governance theory to speak better to the experience of informality in the global south

5 Elite Theory vs PluralismKnown as the ‘community power’ debate Does a ‘power elite’ control American cities, or do contending groups competing for power with varying success? The latter view, defended by Robert Dalh, more influential in Political Science as it foregrounded a behavioural methodology hegemonic today. (Hypotheses can be tested using observable evidence) Also a metaphor for American democracy more widely, so very influential. Impacted key theories of power, and was the inspiration for Steven Luke’s (1974). Power: A Radical View. Study of urban politics never returned to this central position in Politics Science.

6 Urban Regime Theory Clarence Stone Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta Key Idea: The city not able to govern on its own as power is divided between the political and economic. Local government has legitimacy & policy-making ability, and business has capital that generates jobs, tax revenues, and project financing. Need both to make decisions and to get them done. Regimes = alliances between key local political and business leaders, generated through the distribution of selective incentives (contracts, jobs, facilities for a particular neighbourhood, civil rights etc). This = social production model of power. Sits between elite and pluralist views sees neither economic nor political actors as capable of ruling on their own. Government has ‘power over’ policy-making, but not the ‘power to’ act without business (Mossberger & Stoker 2001).

7 Urban Governance TheoryUrban regime theory not popular in Europe, as the same power relations between local government and business do not apply to ‘post-industrial economies’ (Davies 2003, Le Gales 2002, Pierre 2011, 2014). Key here is that where US cities declined in power vis-à-vis federal in 1970s and 1980s, most European cities grew in power. Tax collected locally & increasing local autonomy (Pierre 2014). Also, less competition for business between European cities than in the US, as national policy environment is key. Urban governance ‘refers to the process through which a city is governed without making any prejudgments about the locus of power or the relative significance of political and societal actors in that process’ (Pierre 2014).

8 Urban Governance Theory #2Urban Governance = processes of societal coordination and steering toward collective objectives for the city. Like Urban Regime theory it assumes that local government has insufficient capabilities to perform key roles in governing, and that urban coalition power is the result of entrepreneurship – not about formal authority but is manifest in results (the social production model of power – ‘power to’) Unlike Regime theory: There is not a strict divide between political decision and private implementation, exchanges across the public–private distinction characterize all stages of the policy process makes no stipulation about always teaming with business. It is expected that local authorities will team up with different social partners in different issue areas or sector of public service delivery Urban governance theory linked to Post-industrialisation in Europe, and Decline of national urban policy and growing urban and regional compteition

9 Urban Governance Theory #3For Pierre (2014), four issues central to urban governance: 1. Civil Society, the Market, and Service Delivery. Boundaries between local business and civil society more blurred at local level; greater role of CSOs in service delivery of late. Some businesses vertically integrated into national and international corporates vs local service sector. 2. Local Autonomy and Capabilities. Formal institutional powers important consideration (decentralisation); these are key resources that can be traded in any coalition; extent of local powers = horizontal vs vertical autonomy (freedom from local interests vs freedom from central state). 3. Liberal and Coordinated Economies. In a Liberal economy firms are strategic and selective in engaging govt. In a co-ordinated economy more about social norms, rules & culture. US the former, EU the latter. 4. Globalization, Rescaling, and Corporate Hierarchies. Globalisation re-scales state by redefining roles of local govt; weakens loyalty of some business to local place; some cities try to ‘internationalise’. Inward internationalisation brings new groups to the city; outward = partnerships with cities overseas. Outward tends to pro-growth coalitions over local redistributive regimes.

10 But what about informality?In the (2004) Politics of the Governed, Partha Chatterjee argues that the majority in the global south live outside civil society (the rule of civil and political rights) because: the developmental bureaucracy treats them as populations to be governed rather than as citizens bearing rights, but also they often live and work because living in conditions of illegality from which makes it difficult to assert democratic rights. They thus tend to access the state clientelistically through political parties. Many authors point to the groups who live to a significant extent, outside the rule of the formal system in cities of the south. Thus: other actors may rule in a place, at least in part. Eg. paramilitary militia in favelas of Rio, Drug gangs in Manenburg, or residents might just live illegally by occupying private land to live, or trading in prohibited places (Bayat 1997)

11 Four kinds of informal ruleThere are two axes of comparison. First does the informal rule address the legitimacy of the formal ruler or policy, or the capacity to implement the policy? Second, do the informal leaders attempt to conceal their identity or act openly? As illustrated in the table below, this yields the four categories of informal rule.

12 Informal rule often spatialisedInformality is about inability or unwillingness to live by formal rules in the city, hence usually about poor or marginalised groups (eg too poor to rent, eg no papers to open a bank account) Thus informal rule usually associated with the places where poor and marginalised groups live (are exceptions, criminality can occur anywhere) Best understood not as binary (formal versus informal), but in terms of Yitachel’s ‘grey spaces’ between the white/black of formal/informal and legal/illegal. Generally speaking the poorer the area the more grey, but no area fully formal nor informal

13 Informality often bad for democracyGrey spaces are ones in which formal rule is partial or weaker, hence sovereignty of the local state (already diluted by coalition) is weaker Weaker rule allows for forms of informal practice that might include other actors (gangs, vigilantes) exercising de facto sovereignty Thus voting and lobbying local government will not affect how those spaces are ruled. A disconnect with formal rule = a disconnect with formal democracy Nevertheless, informal rule might be democratic practice. Eg places where the poor are powerful (Pithouse 2008), and advance a politics that spatialises the demand for justice or the right to the city (Kuriakose 2014 But often not. In extreme cases, informal rule = a ‘tates of exception’ (Agambden) where human rights are not recognised and democratic rule is mediated by coercive or rent-seeking actors (von Lieres & Piper 2014)

14 Conclusion: informality = incomplete controlRapid urbanisation, associated social challenges, and the rise of the megacity as a global actor means that studying urban politics is of growing importance In the global south urban politics is not just local government (urban regime theory), but also not just government and business (urban governance theory), as it also involves significant degree of informal rule (popular practices outside of formal rules, sometimes governed by other social actors liked drug gangs) Informal rule is linked to poverty and marginality as people cannot live by the formal rules, and this tends to be spatialised. It is more where the poor live, but everywhere (hence grey spaces, some more formal, some less formal) Informal rule reflects limited sovereignty of local state, therefore limited reach local democracy, and incomplete control by formal coalitions