Hubbry Logo
SlumSlumMain
Open search
Slum
Community hub
Slum
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Slum
Slum
from Wikipedia

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-urban-population-living-in-slums?time=latest
Share of urban population living in slums (2022)
Slums in various countries
Nairobi, Kenya
Jakarta, Indonesia
Johannesburg, South Africa
Shanghai, China
Mumbai, India
Caracas, Venezuela
Swakopmund, Namibia

A slum is a derogatory term for a highly populated urban residential area consisting of densely packed housing units of weak build quality and often associated with poverty. The infrastructure in slums is often deteriorated or incomplete, and they are primarily inhabited by impoverished people.[1]

Although slums are usually located in urban areas, they can be located in suburban areas where housing quality is low and living conditions are poor.[2] Slum residences vary from shanty houses to professionally built dwellings which, because of poor-quality construction or lack of basic maintenance, have deteriorated.[3] While slums differ in size and other characteristics, most lack reliable sanitation services, supply of clean water, reliable electricity, law enforcement, and other basic services. The United Nations defines slums as ".... informal settlements lacking one or more of the following conditions: access to improved water, access to improved sanitation, sufficient living area, housing durability, and security of tenure."[4]

Due to increasing urbanization of the general populace, slums became common in the 19th to late 20th centuries in the United States and Europe.[5][page needed][6] Slums are still predominantly found in urban regions of developing countries, but are also still found in developed economies.[7][8] The world's largest slum city is found in Orangi in Karachi, Pakistan.[9][page needed][10][11]

Slums form and grow in different parts of the world for many different reasons. Causes include rapid rural-to-urban migration, economic stagnation and depression, high unemployment, poverty, informal economy, forced or manipulated ghettoization, poor planning, politics, natural disasters, and social conflicts.[1][12][page needed][13] Strategies tried to reduce and transform slums in different countries, with varying degrees of success, include a combination of slum removal, slum relocation, slum upgrading, urban planning with citywide infrastructure development, and public housing.[14][15]

Etymology and nomenclature

[edit]
19th century slum, London

It is thought[16] that slum is a British slang word from the East End of London meaning "room", which evolved to "back slum" around 1845 meaning 'back alley, street of poor people.'

Numerous other non-English terms are often used interchangeably with slum: shanty town, favela, rookery, gecekondu, skid row, barrio, ghetto, banlieue, bidonville, taudis, bandas de miseria, barrio marginal, morro, paragkoupoli, loteamento, barraca, musseque, iskuwater, inner city, tugurio, solares, mudun safi, kawasan kumuh, karyan, medina achouaia, brarek, ishash, galoos, tanake, baladi, trushchoby, chalis, katras, zopadpattis, ftohogeitonia, basti, estero, looban, dagatan, umjondolo, watta, udukku, and chereka bete.[17]

The word slum has negative connotations, and using this label for an area can be seen as an attempt to delegitimize that land use when hoping to repurpose it.[18]

History

[edit]
One of the many New York City slum photographs of Jacob Riis (c. 1890). Filth can be seen on the street, with drying laundry hanging between buildings.
Inside of a slum house, from Jacob Riis photo collection of New York City (ca 1890).
Part of Charles Booth's poverty map showing the Old Nichol, a slum in the East End of London. Published 1889 in Life and Labour of the People in London. The red areas are "middle class, well-to-do", light blue areas are "poor, 18s to 21s a week for a moderate family", dark blue areas are "very poor, casual, chronic want", and black areas are the "lowest class...occasional labourers, street sellers, loafers, criminals and semi-criminals".

Before the 19th century, rich and poor people lived in the same districts, with the wealthy living on the high streets, and the poor in the service streets behind them. But in the 19th century, wealthy and upper-middle-class people began to move out of the central part of rapidly growing cities, leaving poorer residents behind.[19]

Slums were common in the United States and Europe before the early 20th century. London's East End is generally considered the locale where the term originated in the 19th century, where massive and rapid urbanization of the dockside and industrial areas led to intensive overcrowding in a warren of post-medieval streetscape. The suffering of the poor was described in popular fiction by moralist authors such as Charles Dickens – most famously Oliver Twist (1837–1839) and echoed the Christian Socialist values of the time, which soon found legal expression in the Public Health Act 1848. As the slum clearance movement gathered pace, deprived areas such as Old Nichol were fictionalised to raise awareness in the middle classes in the form of moralist novels such as A Child of the Jago (1896) resulting in slum clearance and reconstruction programmes such as the Boundary Estate (1893-1900) and the creation of charitable trusts such as the Peabody Trust founded in 1862 and Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1904) which still operate to provide decent housing today.

Slums are often associated with the British Isles during the Victorian era, particularly in industrial towns. Friedrich Engels described these neighborhoods as "cattle-sheds for human beings".[20] These were generally still inhabited until the 1940s, when the British government started slum clearance and built new council houses.[21] There are still examples left of slum housing in the UK, but many have been removed by government initiative, redesigned and replaced with better public housing. In Europe, slums were common.[22][23] By the 1920s it had become a common slang expression in England, meaning either various taverns and eating houses, "loose talk" or gypsy language, or a room with "low going-ons". In Life in London (1821) Pierce Egan used the word in the context of the "back slums" of Holy Lane or St Giles. A footnote defined slum to mean "low, unfrequent parts of the town". Charles Dickens used the word slum in a similar way in 1840, writing "I mean to take a great, London, back-slum kind walk tonight". Slum began to be used to describe bad housing soon after and was used as alternative expression for rookeries.[24][page needed] In 1850 the Catholic Cardinal Wiseman described the area known as Devil's Acre in Westminster, London as follows:

Close under the Abbey of Westminster there lie concealed labyrinths of lanes and potty and alleys and slums, nests of ignorance, vice, depravity, and crime, as well as of squalor, wretchedness, and disease; whose atmosphere is typhus, whose ventilation is cholera; in which swarms of huge and almost countless population, nominally at least, Catholic; haunts of filth, which no sewage committee can reach – dark corners, which no lighting board can brighten.[25]

This passage was widely quoted in the national press, leading to the popularization of the word slum to describe bad housing.[26][27]

A slum dwelling in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, about 1936.[28][29]

In France as in most industrialised European capitals, slums were widespread in Paris and other urban areas in the 19th century, many of which continued through first half of the 20th century. The first cholera epidemic of 1832 triggered a political debate, and Louis René Villermé study[30] of various arrondissements of Paris demonstrated the differences and connection between slums, poverty and poor health.[31][page needed] Melun Law first passed in 1849 and revised in 1851, followed by establishment of Paris Commission on Unhealthful Dwellings in 1852 began the social process of identifying the worst housing inside slums, but did not remove or replace slums.

After World War II, French people started mass migration from rural to urban areas of France. This demographic and economic trend rapidly raised rents of existing housing as well as expanded slums. French government passed laws to block increase in the rent of housing, which inadvertently made many housing projects unprofitable and increased slums. In 1950, France launched its Habitation à Loyer Modéré[32][33] initiative to finance and build public housing and remove slums, managed by techniciens – urban technocrats.,[34] and financed by Livret A[35] – a tax free savings account for French public. Some slums remain in the early 21st century in France, most of which are dismantled after a few months, the largest being the "Petite Ceinture" slum on the northern Paris decommissioned train tracks.[36]

New York City is believed to have created the United States' first slum, named the Five Points in 1825, as it evolved into a large urban settlement.[6][37] Five Points was named for a lake named Collect.[37][38] which, by the late 1700s, was surrounded by slaughterhouses and tanneries which emptied their waste directly into its waters. Trash piled up as well and by the early 1800s the lake was filled up and dry. On this foundation was built Five Points, the United States' first slum. Five Points was occupied by successive waves of freed slaves, Irish, then Italian, then Chinese, immigrants. It housed the poor, rural people leaving farms for opportunity, and the persecuted people from Europe pouring into New York City. Bars, bordellos, squalid and lightless tenements lined its streets. Violence and crime were commonplace. Politicians and social elite discussed it with derision. Slums like Five Points triggered discussions of affordable housing and slum removal. As of the start of the 21st century, Five Points slum had been transformed into the Little Italy and Chinatown neighborhoods of New York City, through that city's campaign of massive urban renewal.[5][page needed][37]

Five Points was not the only slum in America.[39][page needed][40][page needed] Jacob Riis, Walker Evans, Lewis Hine and others photographed many before World War II. Slums were found in every major urban region of the United States throughout most of the 20th century, long after the Great Depression. Most of these slums had been ignored by the cities and states which encompassed them until the 1960s' War on Poverty was undertaken by the Federal government of the United States.

A type of slum housing, sometimes called poorhouses, crowded Boston Common, later at the fringes of the city.[41]

A 1913 slum dwelling midst squalor in Ivry-sur-Seine, a French commune about 5 kilometers from center of Paris. Slums were scattered around Paris through the 1950s.[42][43] After Loi Vivien was passed in July 1970, France demolished some of its last major bidonvilles (slums) and resettled resident Algerian, Portuguese and other migrant workers by the mid-1970s.[44][45]

Rio de Janeiro documented its first slum in 1920 census. By the 1960s, over 33% of population of Rio lived in slums, 45% of Mexico City and Ankara, 65% of Algiers, 35% of Caracas, 25% of Lima and Santiago, 15% of Singapore. By 1980, in various cities and towns of Latin America alone, there were about 25,000 slums.[46]

Causes that create and expand slums

[edit]

Slums sprout and continue for a combination of demographic, social, economic, and political reasons. Common causes include rapid rural-to-urban migration, poor planning, economic stagnation and depression, poverty, high unemployment, informal economy, colonialism and segregation, politics, natural disasters and social conflicts.

Rural–urban migration

[edit]
Kibera slum in Nairobi, Kenya, the second-largest slum in Africa[47][48][49] and third-largest in the world.[47]

Rural–urban migration is one of the causes attributed to the formation and expansion of slums.[1] Since 1950, world population has increased at a far greater rate than the total amount of arable land, even as agriculture contributes a much smaller percentage of the total economy. For example, in India, agriculture accounted for 52% of its GDP in 1954 and only 19% in 2004;[50] in Brazil, the 2050 GDP contribution of agriculture is one-fifth of its contribution in 1951.[51] Agriculture, meanwhile, has also become higher yielding, less disease prone, less physically harsh and more efficient with tractors and other equipment. The proportion of people working in agriculture has declined by 30% over the last 50 years, while global population has increased by 250%.[1]

Many people move to urban areas primarily because cities promise more jobs, better schools for poor's children, and diverse income opportunities than subsistence farming in rural areas.[52] For example, in 1995, 95.8% of migrants to Surabaya, Indonesia reported that jobs were their primary motivation for moving to the city.[53] However, some rural migrants may not find jobs immediately because of their lack of skills and the increasingly competitive job markets, which leads to their financial shortage.[54] Many cities, on the other hand, do not provide enough low-cost housing for a large number of rural-urban migrant workers. Some rural–urban migrant workers cannot afford housing in cities and eventually settle down in only affordable slums.[55] Further, rural migrants, mainly lured by higher incomes, continue to flood into cities. They thus expand the existing urban slums.[54]

According to Ali and Toran, social networks might also explain rural–urban migration and people's ultimate settlement in slums. In addition to migration for jobs, a portion of people migrate to cities because of their connection with relatives or families. Once their family support in urban areas is in slums, those rural migrants intend to live with them in slums[56]

Urbanization

[edit]
A slum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rocinha favela is next to skyscrapers and wealthier parts of the city, a location that provides jobs and easy commute to those who live in the slums.

The formation of slums is closely linked to urbanization.[57][page needed] In 2008, more than 50% of the world's population lived in urban areas. In China, for example, it is estimated that the population living in urban areas will increase by 10% within a decade according to its current rates of urbanization.[58][page needed] The UN-Habitat reports that 43% of urban population in developing countries and 78% of those in the least developed countries are slum dwellers.[8]

Some scholars suggest that urbanization creates slums because local governments are unable to manage urbanization, and migrant workers without an affordable place to live in, dwell in slums.[59] Rapid urbanization drives economic growth and causes people to seek working and investment opportunities in urban areas.[60][61] However, as evidenced by poor urban infrastructure and insufficient housing, the local governments sometimes are unable to manage this transition.[62][63] This incapacity can be attributed to insufficient funds and inexperience to handle and organize problems brought by migration and urbanization.[61] In some cases, local governments ignore the flux of immigrants during the process of urbanization.[60] Such examples can be found in many African countries. In the early 1950s, many African governments believed that slums would finally disappear with economic growth in urban areas. They neglected rapidly spreading slums due to increased rural-urban migration caused by urbanization.[64][page needed] Some governments, moreover, mapped the land where slums occupied as undeveloped land.[65]

Another type of urbanization does not involve economic growth but economic stagnation or low growth, mainly contributing to slum growth in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. This type of urbanization involves a high rate of unemployment, insufficient financial resources and inconsistent urban planning policy.[66][page needed] In these areas, an increase of 1% in urban population will result in an increase of 1.84% in slum prevalence.[67]

Urbanization might also force some people to live in slums when it influences land use by transforming agricultural land into urban areas and increases land value. During the process of urbanization, some agricultural land is used for additional urban activities. More investment will come into these areas, which increases the land value.[68] Before some land is completely urbanized, there is a period when the land can be used for neither urban activities nor agriculture. The income from the land will decline, which decreases the people's incomes in that area. The gap between people's low income and the high land price forces some people to look for and construct cheap informal settlements, which are known as slums in urban areas.[63] The transformation of agricultural land also provides surplus labour, as peasants have to seek jobs in urban areas as rural-urban migrant workers.[59]

Many slums are part of economies of agglomeration in which there is an emergence of economies of scale at the firm level, transport costs and the mobility of the industrial labour force.[69] The increase in returns of scale will mean that the production of each good will take place in a single location.[69] And even though an agglomerated economy benefits these cities by bringing in specialization and multiple competing suppliers, the conditions of slums continue to lag behind in terms of quality and adequate housing. Alonso-Villar argues that the existence of transport costs implies that the best locations for a firm will be those with easy access to markets, and the best locations for workers, those with easy access to goods. The concentration is the result of a self-reinforcing process of agglomeration.[69] Concentration is a common trend of the distribution of population. Urban growth is dramatically intense in the less developed countries, where a large number of huge cities have started to appear; which means high poverty rates, crime, pollution and congestion.[69]

Poor house planning

[edit]
A large slum pictured behind skyscrapers in a more developed area in La Paz, Bolivia.

Lack of affordable low-cost housing and poor planning encourages the supply side of slums.[70] The Millennium Development Goals proposes that member nations should make a "significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers" by 2020.[71] If member nations succeed in achieving this goal, 90% of the world total slum dwellers may remain in the poorly housed settlements by 2020.[72] Choguill claims that the large number of slum dwellers indicates a deficiency of practical housing policy.[72] Whenever there is a significant gap in growing demand for housing and insufficient supply of affordable housing, this gap is typically met in part by slums.[70] The Economist has observed that "good housing is obviously better than a slum, but a slum is better than none".[73]

Insufficient financial resources [74] and lack of coordination in government bureaucracy [67] are two main causes of poor house planning. Financial deficiency in some governments may explain the lack of affordable public housing for the poor since any improvement of the tenant in slums and expansion of public housing programs involve a great increase in the government expenditure.[74] The problem can also lie on the failure in coordination among different departments in charge of economic development, urban planning, and land allocation. In some cities, governments assume that the housing market will adjust the supply of housing with a change in demand. However, with little economic incentive, the housing market is more likely to develop middle-income housing rather than low-cost housing. The urban poor gradually become marginalized in the housing market where few houses are built to sell to them.[67][75]

Colonialism and segregation

[edit]
An integrated slum dwelling and informal economy inside Dharavi of Mumbai. Dharavi slum started in 1887 with industrial and segregationist policies of the British colonial era. The slum housing, tanneries, pottery and other economy established inside and around Dharavi during the British rule of India.[76][77][78]

Some of the slums in today's world are a product of urbanization brought by colonialism. For instance, the Europeans arrived in Kenya in the nineteenth century and created urban centers such as Nairobi mainly to serve their financial interests. They regarded the Africans as temporary migrants and needed them only for supply of labour. The housing policy aiming to accommodate these workers was not well enforced and the government built settlements in the form of single-occupancy bedspaces. Due to the cost of time and money in their movement back and forth between rural and urban areas, their families gradually migrated to the urban centre. As they could not afford to buy houses, slums were thus formed.[79]

Kowloon Walled City, an exclave of the People's Republic of China located in Hong Kong, was the densest place on Earth in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Others were created because of segregation imposed by the colonialists. For example, Dharavi slum of Mumbai – now one of the largest slums in India, used to be a village referred to as Koliwadas, and Mumbai used to be referred as Bombay. In 1887, the British colonial government expelled all tanneries, other noxious industry and poor natives who worked in the peninsular part of the city and colonial housing area, to what was back then the northern fringe of the city – a settlement now called Dharavi. This settlement attracted no colonial supervision or investment in terms of road infrastructure, sanitation, public services or housing. The poor moved into Dharavi, found work as servants in colonial offices and homes and in the foreign owned tanneries and other polluting industries near Dharavi. To live, the poor built shanty towns within easy commute to work. By 1947, the year India became an independent nation of the commonwealth, Dharavi had blossomed into Bombay's largest slum.[76]

Similarly, some of the slums of Lagos, Nigeria sprouted because of neglect and policies of the colonial era.[80] During apartheid era of South Africa, under the pretext of sanitation and plague epidemic prevention, racial and ethnic group segregation was pursued, people of colour were moved to the fringes of the city, policies that created Soweto and other slums – officially called townships.[81] Large slums started at the fringes of segregation-conscious colonial city centers of Latin America.[82] Marcuse suggests ghettoes in the United States, and elsewhere, have been created and maintained by the segregationist policies of the state and regionally dominant group.[83][84][page needed]

Makoko – One of the oldest slums in Nigeria, was originally a fishing village settlement, built on stilts on a lagoon. It developed into a slum and became home to about a hundred thousand people in Lagos. In 2012, it was partially destroyed by the city government, amidst controversy, to accommodate infrastructure for the city's growing population.[85]

Poor infrastructure, social exclusion and economic stagnation

[edit]

Social exclusion and poor infrastructure forces the poor to adapt to conditions beyond his or her control. Poor families that cannot afford transportation, or those who simply lack any form of affordable public transportation, generally end up in squat settlements within walking distance or close enough to the place of their formal or informal employment.[70] Ben Arimah cites this social exclusion and poor infrastructure as a cause for numerous slums in African cities.[67] Poor quality, unpaved streets encourage slums; a 1% increase in paved all-season roads, claims Arimah, reduces slum incidence rate by about 0.35%. Affordable public transport and economic infrastructure empowers poor people to move and consider housing options other than their current slums.[86][87]

A growing economy that creates jobs at rate faster than population growth, offers people opportunities and incentive to relocate from poor slum to more developed neighborhoods. Economic stagnation, in contrast, creates uncertainties and risks for the poor, encouraging people to stay in the slums. Economic stagnation in a nation with a growing population reduces per capita disposal income in urban and rural areas, increasing urban and rural poverty. Rising rural poverty also encourages migration to urban areas. A poorly performing economy, in other words, increases poverty and rural-to-urban migration, thereby increasing slums.[88][89]

Informal economy

[edit]

Many slums grow because of growing informal economy which creates demand for workers. Informal economy is that part of an economy that is neither registered as a business nor licensed, one that does not pay taxes and is not monitored by local, state, or federal government.[90] Informal economy grows faster than formal economy when government laws and regulations are opaque and excessive, government bureaucracy is corrupt and abusive of entrepreneurs, labour laws are inflexible, or when law enforcement is poor.[91] Urban informal sector is between 20 and 60% of most developing economies' GDP; in Kenya, 78 per cent of non-agricultural employment is in the informal sector making up 42 per cent of GDP.[1] In many cities the informal sector accounts for as much as 60 per cent of employment of the urban population. For example, in Benin, slum dwellers comprise 75 per cent of informal sector workers, while in Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad and Ethiopia, they make up 90 per cent of the informal labour force.[92] Slums thus create an informal alternate economic ecosystem, that demands low paid flexible workers, something impoverished residents of slums deliver. In other words, countries where starting, registering and running a formal business is difficult, tend to encourage informal businesses and slums.[93][94][95] Without a sustainable formal economy that raise incomes and create opportunities, squalid slums are likely to continue.[96]

A slum near Ramos Arizpe in Mexico.

The World Bank and UN Habitat estimate, assuming no major economic reforms are undertaken, more than 80% of additional jobs in urban areas of developing world may be low-paying jobs in the informal sector. Everything else remaining same, this explosive growth in the informal sector is likely to be accompanied by a rapid growth of slums.[1]

Labour, work

[edit]

Research in the latest years based on ethnographic studies, conducted since 2008 about slums, published initially in 2017, has found out the primary importance of labour as the main cause of emergence, rural-urban migration, consolidation and growth of informal settlements.[97][page needed][98] It also showed that work has also a crucial role in the self-construction of houses, alleys and overall informal planning of slums, as well as constituting a central aspect by residents living in slums when their communities suffer upgrading schemes or when they are resettled to formal housing.[97][page needed]

For example, it was recently proved that in a small favela in the northeast of Brazil (Favela Sururu de Capote), the migration of dismissed sugar cane factory workers to the city of Maceió (who initiated the self-construction of the favela), has been driven by the necessity to find a job in the city.[98] The same observation was noticed on the new migrants who contribute to the consolidation and growth of the slum. Also, the choice of the terrain for the construction of the favela (the margins of a lagoon) followed the rationale that it could offer conditions to provide them means of work. Circa 80% of residents living in that community live from the fishery of a mussel which divides the community through gender and age.[98] Alleys and houses were planned to facilitate the working activities, that provided subsistence and livelihood to the community. When resettled, the main reason of changes of formal housing units was due to the lack of possibilities to perform their work in the new houses designed according to formal architecture principles, or even by the distances they had to travel to work in the slum where they originally lived, which was in turn faced by residents by self-constructing spaces to shelter the work originally performed in the slum, in the formal housing units.[97][page needed] Similar observations were made in other slums.[97][page needed] Residents also reported that their work constitutes their dignity, citizenship, and self-esteem in the underprivileged settings in which they live.[97][page needed] The reflection of this recent research was possible due to participatory observations and the fact that the author of the research has lived in a slum to verify the socioeconomic practices which were prone to shape, plan and govern space in slums.[97][page needed]

Poverty

[edit]

Urban poverty encourages the formation and demand for slums.[3] With rapid shift from rural to urban life, poverty migrates to urban areas. The urban poor arrives with hope, and very little of anything else. They typically have no access to shelter, basic urban services and social amenities. Slums are often the only option for the urban poor.[99][page needed]

A woman from a slum is taking a bath in a river.

Politics

[edit]

Many local and national governments have, for political interests, subverted efforts to remove, reduce or upgrade slums into better housing options for the poor.[13] Throughout the second half of the 19th century, for example, French political parties relied on votes from slum population and had vested interests in maintaining that voting block. Removal and replacement of slum created a conflict of interest, and politics prevented efforts to remove, relocate or upgrade the slums into housing projects that are better than the slums. Similar dynamics are cited in favelas of Brazil,[100] slums of India,[101][102] and shanty towns of Kenya.[103]

The location of 100 largest "contiguous" mega-slums in the world. Numerous other regions have slums, but those slums are scattered. The numbers show population in millions per mega-slum, the initials are derived from city name. Some of the largest slums of the world are in areas of political or social conflicts.

Scholars[13][104] claim politics also drives rural-urban migration and subsequent settlement patterns. Pre-existing patronage networks, sometimes in the form of gangs and other times in the form of political parties or social activists, inside slums seek to maintain their economic, social and political power. These social and political groups have vested interests to encourage migration by ethnic groups that will help maintain the slums, and reject alternate housing options even if the alternate options are better in every aspect than the slums they seek to replace.[102][105]

Social conflicts

[edit]

Millions of Lebanese people formed slums during the Lebanese Civil War from 1975 to 1990.[106][107] Similarly, in recent years, numerous slums have sprung around Kabul to accommodate rural Afghans escaping Taliban violence.[108]

Natural disasters

[edit]

Major natural disasters in poor nations often lead to migration of disaster-affected families from areas crippled by the disaster to unaffected areas, the creation of temporary tent city and slums, or expansion of existing slums.[109] These slums tend to become permanent because the residents do not want to leave, as in the case of slums near Port-au-Prince after the 2010 Haiti earthquake,[110][111] and slums near Dhaka after 2007 Bangladesh Cyclone Sidr.[112]

Slums in developing countries

[edit]
Slum in Tai Hang, Hong Kong, in the 1990s

Location and growth

[edit]

Slums typically begin at the outskirts of a city. Over time, the city may expand past the original slums, enclosing the slums inside the urban perimeter. New slums sprout at the new boundaries of the expanding city, usually on publicly owned lands, thereby creating an urban sprawl mix of formal settlements, industry, retail zones and slums. This makes the original slums valuable property, densely populated with many conveniences attractive to the poor.[113]

At their start, slums are typically located in the least desirable lands near the town or city, that are state owned, are part of a philanthropic trust, possessed by a religious entity, or have no clear land title. In cities located in mountainous terrain, slums begin on difficult to reach slopes or start at the bottom of flood prone valleys, often hidden from the plain view of downtown but close to some natural water source.[113] In cities located near lagoons, marshlands and rivers, they start on banks or on stilts above water or the dry river bed; in flat terrain, slums begin on lands unsuitable for agriculture, near city trash dumps, next to railway tracks,[114] and other shunned undesirable locations.

These strategies shield slums from the risk of being noticed and removed when they are small and most vulnerable to local government officials. Initial homes tend to be tents and shacks that are quick to install, but as a slum grows, becomes established and newcomers pay the informal association or gang for the right to live in the slum, the construction materials for the slums switches to more durable materials such as bricks and concrete, suitable for slum's topography.[115][page needed][116][page needed]

The original slums, over time, get established next to centers of economic activity, schools, hospitals, and sources of employment, which the poor rely on.[97][page needed] Established old slums, surrounded by the formal city infrastructure, cannot expand horizontally; therefore, they grow vertically by stacking additional rooms, sometimes for a growing family and sometimes as a source of rent from new arrivals in slums.[117] Some slums name themselves after founders of political parties, locally respected historical figures, current politicians or a politician's spouse to garner political backing against eviction.[118][page needed]

Insecure tenure

[edit]

Informality of land tenure is a key characteristic of urban slums.[1] At their start, slums are typically located in undesirable lands near the town or city, that are state owned or philanthropic trust owned or religious entity owned or have no clear land title.[113] Some immigrants regard unoccupied land as land without owners and therefore occupy it.[119] In some cases the local community or the government allots lands to people, which will later develop into slums and over which the dwellers don't have property rights.[61] Informal land tenure also includes occupation of land belonging to someone else.[120] According to Flood,[who?] 51 percent of slums are based on invasion of private land in sub-Saharan Africa, 39 percent in North Africa and West Asia, 10 percent in South Asia, 40 percent in East Asia, and 40 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.[121] In some cases, once the slum has many residents, the early residents form a social group, an informal association or a gang that controls newcomers, charges a fee for the right to live in the slums, and dictates where and how new homes get built within the slum. The newcomers, having paid for the right, feel they have commercial right to the home in that slum.[113][122] The slum dwellings, built as the slum grows, are constructed without checking land ownership rights or building codes, are not registered with the city, and often not recognized by the city or state governments.[123][124]

Secure land tenure is important for slum dwellers as an authentic recognition of their residential status in urban areas. It also encourages them to upgrade their housing facilities, which will give them protection against natural and unnatural hazards.[61] Undocumented ownership with no legal title to the land also prevents slum settlers from applying for mortgage, which might worsen their financial situations. In addition, without registration of the land ownership, the government has difficulty in upgrading basic facilities and improving the living environment.[119] Insecure tenure of the slum, as well as a lack of socially and politically acceptable alternatives to slums, also creates difficulty in citywide infrastructure development such as rapid mass transit, electrical and sewer pipe layout, highways and roads.[125][page needed]

Substandard housing and overcrowding

[edit]
Substandard housing in a slum in Manila, Philippines in the 2000s.

Slum areas are characterized by substandard housing structures.[126][127] Shanty homes are often built hurriedly, on ad hoc basis, with materials unsuitable for housing. Often the construction quality is inadequate to withstand heavy rains, high winds, or other local climate and location. Paper, plastic, earthen floors, mud-and-wattle walls, wood held together by ropes, straw or torn metal pieces as roofs are some of the materials of construction. In some cases, brick and cement is used, but without attention to proper design and structural engineering requirements.[128] Various space, dwelling placement bylaws and local building codes may also be extensively violated.[3][129][page needed]

Overcrowding is another characteristic of slums. Many dwellings are single room units, with high occupancy rates. Each dwelling may be cohabited by multiple families. Five and more persons may share a one-room unit; the room is used for cooking, sleeping and living. Overcrowding is also seen near sources of drinking water, cleaning, and sanitation where one toilet may serve dozens of families.[130][131][132][page needed] In a slum of Kolkata, India, over 10 people sometimes share a 45 m2 room.[133] In Kibera slum of Nairobi, Kenya, population density is estimated at 2,000 people per hectare — or about 500,000 people in one square mile.[134]

However, the density and neighbourhood effects of slum populations may also offer an opportunity to target health interventions.[135]

Inadequate or no infrastructure

[edit]
Slum with tiled roofs and railway, Jakarta railway slum resettlement 1975, Indonesia.

One of the identifying characteristics of slums is the lack of or inadequate public infrastructure.[136][137] From safe drinking water to electricity, from basic health care to police services, from affordable public transport to fire/ambulance services, from sanitation sewer to paved roads, new slums usually lack all of these. Established, old slums sometimes garner official support and get some of these infrastructure such as paved roads and unreliable electricity or water supply.[138] Slums usually lack street addresses, which creates further problems.[139]

Slums often have very narrow alleys that do not allow vehicles (including emergency vehicles) to pass. The lack of services such as routine garbage collection allows rubbish to accumulate in huge quantities.[140] The lack of infrastructure is caused by the informal nature of settlement and no planning for the poor by government officials. Fires are often a serious problem.[141]

In many countries, local and national government often refuse to recognize slums, because the slum are on disputed land, or because of the fear that quick official recognition will encourage more slum formation and seizure of land illegally. Recognizing and notifying slums often triggers a creation of property rights, and requires that the government provide public services and infrastructure to the slum residents.[142][143] With poverty and informal economy, slums do not generate tax revenues for the government and therefore tend to get minimal or slow attention. In other cases, the narrow and haphazard layout of slum streets, houses and substandard shacks, along with persistent threat of crime and violence against infrastructure workers, makes it difficult to layout reliable, safe, cost effective and efficient infrastructure. In yet others, the demand far exceeds the government bureaucracy's ability to deliver.[144][145]

Low socioeconomic status of its residents is another common characteristic attributed to slum residents.[146]

Problems

[edit]

Vulnerability to natural and man-made hazards

[edit]
Slums in the city of Chau Doc, Vietnam over river Hậu (Mekong branch). These slums are on stilts to withstand routine floods which last 3 to 4 months every year.

Slums are often placed in areas vulnerable to natural disasters such as landslides[147] and floods.[148][page needed][149][page needed] In cities located in mountainous terrain, slums begin on slopes difficult to reach or start at the bottom of flood-prone valleys, often hidden from plain view in the city center but close to some natural water source.[113] In cities located near lagoons, marshlands and rivers, they start at banks or on stilts above water or the dry river bed; in flat terrain, slums begin on lands unsuitable for agriculture, near city trash dumps, next to railway tracks,[114] and other shunned, undesirable locations. These strategies shield slums from the risk of being noticed and removed when they are small and most vulnerable to local government officials.[113] However, the ad hoc construction, lack of quality control on building materials used, poor maintenance, and uncoordinated spatial design make them prone to extensive damage during earthquakes as well from decay.[150][page needed][151] These risks will be intensified by climate change.[152]

A slum in Haiti damaged by 2010 earthquake. Slums are vulnerable to extensive damage and human fatalities from landslides, floods, earthquakes, fire, high winds and other severe weather.[153][page needed]

Some slums risk man-made hazards such as toxic industries, traffic congestion and collapsing infrastructure.[57][page needed] Fires are another major risk to slums and its inhabitants,[154][155] with streets often too narrow to allow proper and quick access to fire control trucks.[153][page needed][156]

Unemployment and informal economy

[edit]

Due to lack of skills and education as well as competitive job markets,[157] many slum dwellers face high rates of unemployment.[158] The limit of job opportunities causes many of them to employ themselves in the informal economy, inside the slum or in developed urban areas near the slum. This can sometimes be licit informal economy or illicit informal economy without working contract or any social security. Some of them are seeking jobs at the same time and some of those will eventually find jobs in formal economies after gaining some professional skills in informal sectors.[157]

Examples of licit informal economy include street vending, household enterprises, product assembly and packaging, making garlands and embroideries, domestic work, shoe polishing or repair, driving tuk-tuk or manual rickshaws, construction workers or manually driven logistics, and handicrafts production.[159][160][98] In some slums, people sort and recycle trash of different kinds (from household garbage to electronics) for a living – selling either the odd usable goods or stripping broken goods for parts or raw materials.[98] Typically these licit informal economies require the poor to regularly pay a bribe to local police and government officials.[161]

A propaganda poster linking slum to violence, used by US Housing Authority in the 1940s. City governments in the US created many such[page needed]propaganda posters and launched a media campaign to gain citizen support for slum clearance and planned public housing.[162]

Examples of illicit informal economy include illegal substance and weapons trafficking, drug or moonshine/changaa production, prostitution and gambling – all sources of risks to the individual, families and society.[163][164][165] Recent reports reflecting illicit informal economies include drug trade and distribution in Brazil's favelas, production of fake goods in the colonías of Tijuana, smuggling in katchi abadis and slums of Karachi, or production of synthetic drugs in the townships of Johannesburg.[166]

The slum-dwellers in informal economies run many risks. The informal sector, by its very nature, means income insecurity and lack of social mobility. There is also absence of legal contracts, protection of labour rights, regulations and bargaining power in informal employments.[167][page needed]

Violence

[edit]
From the 1940s to the 1990s, the Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong was controlled by local triads.

Some scholars suggest that crime is one of the main concerns in slums.[168] Empirical data suggest crime rates are higher in some slums than in non-slums, with slum homicides alone reducing life expectancy of a resident in a Brazil slum by 7 years than for a resident in nearby non-slum.[8][169] In some countries like Venezuela, officials have sent in the military to control slum criminal violence involved with drugs and weapons.[170] Rape is another serious issue related to crime in slums. In Nairobi slums, for example, one-fourth of all teenage girls are raped each year.[171]

On the other hand, while UN-Habitat reports some slums are more exposed to crimes with higher crime rates (for instance, the traditional inner-city slums), crime is not the direct resultant of block layout in many slums. Rather crime is one of the symptoms of slum dwelling; thus slums consist of more victims than criminals.[8] Consequently, slums do not always have consistently high crime rates, as the worst crime rates exist in sectors maintaining influence of illicit economy—such as drug trafficking, brewing, prostitution, and gambling. Often in such circumstances, multiple gangs fight for control over revenue.[172][173]

Slum crime rate correlates with insufficient law enforcement and inadequate public policing. In main cities of developing countries, law enforcement lags behind urban growth and slum expansion. Often police can not reduce crime because, due to ineffective city planning and governance, slums set inefficient crime prevention system. Such problems is not primarily due to community indifference. Leads and information intelligence from slums are rare, streets are narrow and a potential death traps to patrol, and many in the slum community have an inherent distrust of authorities from fear ranging from eviction to collection on unpaid utility bills to general law and order.[174] Lack of formal recognition by the governments also leads to few formal policing and public justice institutions in slums.[8]

Women in slums are at greater risk of physical and sexual violence.[175] Factors such as unemployment that lead to insufficient resources in the household can increase marital stress and therefore exacerbate domestic violence.[176]

Slums are often non-secured areas and women often risk sexual violence when they walk alone in slums late at night. Violence against women and women's security in slums emerge as recurrent issues.[177][page needed]

Another prevalent form of violence in slums is armed violence (gun violence), mostly existing in African and Latin American slums. It leads to homicide and the emergence of criminal gangs.[178] Typical victims are male slum residents.[179][180] Violence often leads to retaliatory and vigilante violence within the slum.[181] Gang and drug wars are endemic in some slums, predominantly between male residents of slums.[182][183] The police sometimes participate in gender-based violence against men as well by picking up some men, beating them and putting them in jail. Domestic violence against men also exists in slums, including verbal abuses and even physical violence from households.[183]

Cohen as well as Merton theorized that the cycle of slum violence does not mean slums are inevitably criminogenic, rather in some cases it is frustration against life in slum, and a consequence of denial of opportunity to slum residents to leave the slum.[184][185][page needed][186]

A young boy sits over an open sewer in the Kibera slum, Nairobi.

Infectious diseases and epidemics

[edit]

Slum dwellers usually experience a high rate of disease.[187][135] Diseases that have been reported in slums include cholera,[188][189] HIV/AIDS,[190][191] measles,[192] malaria,[193] dengue,[194] typhoid,[195] drug resistant tuberculosis,[196][197] and other epidemics.[198][199] Studies focus on children's health in slums address that cholera and diarrhea are especially common among young children.[200][201] Besides children's vulnerability to diseases, many scholars also focus on high HIV/AIDS prevalence in slums among women.[202][203] Throughout slum areas in various parts of the world, infectious diseases are a significant contributor to high mortality rates.[204] For example, according to a study in Nairobi's slums, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis attributed to about 50% of the mortality burden.[205]

Factors that have been attributed to a higher rate of disease transmission in slums include high population densities, poor living conditions, low vaccination rates, insufficient health-related data and inadequate health service.[206] Overcrowding leads to faster and wider spread of diseases due to the limited space in slum housing.[187][135] Poor living conditions also make slum dwellers more vulnerable to certain diseases. Poor water quality, a manifest example, is a cause of many major illnesses including malaria, diarrhea and trachoma.[207][page needed] Improving living conditions such as introduction of better sanitation and access to basic facilities can ameliorate the effects of diseases, such as cholera.[200][208]

Slums have been historically linked to epidemics, and this trend has continued in modern times.[209][210][211] For example, the slums of West African nations such as Liberia were crippled by as well as contributed to the outbreak and spread of Ebola in 2014.[212][213] Slums are considered a major public health concern and potential breeding grounds of drug resistant diseases for the entire city, the nation, as well as the global community.[214][215]

Child malnutrition

[edit]

Child malnutrition is more common in slums than in non-slum areas.[216] In Mumbai and New Delhi, 47% and 51% of slum children under the age of five are stunted and 35% and 36% of them are underweight. These children all suffer from third-degree malnutrition, the most severe level, according to WHO standards.[217] A study conducted by Tada et al. in Bangkok slums illustrates that in terms of weight-forage, 25.4% of the children who participated in the survey suffered from malnutrition, compared to around 8% national malnutrition prevalence in Thailand.[218] In Ethiopia and the Niger, rates of child malnutrition in urban slums are around 40%.[219][page needed]

The major nutritional problems in slums are protein-energy malnutrition (PEM), vitamin A deficiency (VAD), iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and iodine deficiency disorders (IDD).[216] Malnutrition can sometimes lead to death among children.[220] Dr. Abhay Bang's report shows that malnutrition kills 56,000 children annually in urban slums in India.[221]

Widespread child malnutrition in slums is closely related to family income, mothers' food practice, mothers' educational level, and maternal employment or housewifery.[218] Poverty may result in inadequate food intake when people cannot afford to buy and store enough food, which leads to malnutrition.[222] Another common cause is mothers' faulty feeding practices, including inadequate breastfeeding and wrongly preparation of food for children.[216] Tada et al.'s study in Bangkok slums shows that around 64% of the mothers sometimes fed their children instant food instead of a normal meal. And about 70% of the mothers did not provide their children three meals every day. Mothers' lack of education leads to their faulty feeding practices. Many mothers in slums don't have knowledge on food nutrition for children.[218] Maternal employment also influences children's nutritional status. For the mothers who work outside, their children are prone to be malnourished. These children are likely to be neglected by their mothers or sometimes not carefully looked after by their female relatives.[216]

Other non-communicable diseases

[edit]

A multitude of non-contagious diseases also impact health for slum residents. Examples of prevalent non-infectious diseases include: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, neurological disorders, and mental illness.[223] In some slum areas of India, diarrhea is a significant health problem among children. Factors like poor sanitation, low literacy rates, and limited awareness make diarrhea and other dangerous diseases extremely prevalent and burdensome on the community.[224]

Lack of reliable data also has a negative impact on slum dwellers' health. A number of slum families do not report cases or seek professional medical care, which results in insufficient data.[225] This might prevent appropriate allocation of health care resources in slum areas since many countries base their health care plans on data from clinic, hospital, or national mortality registry.[226] Moreover, health service is insufficient or inadequate in most of the world's slums.[226] Emergency ambulance service and urgent care services are typically unavailable, as health service providers sometimes avoid servicing slums.[227][226] A study shows that more than half of slum dwellers are prone to visit private practitioners or seek self-medication with medicines available in the home.[228] Private practitioners in slums are usually those who are unlicensed or poorly trained and they run clinics and pharmacies mainly for the sake of money.[226] The categorization of slum health by the government and census data also has an effect on the distribution and allocation of health resources in inner city areas. A significant portion of city populations face challenges with access to health care but do not live in locations that are described as within the "slum" area.[229]

Overall, a complex network of physical, social, and environmental factors contribute to the health threats faced by slum residents.[230]

Countermeasures

[edit]
Villa 31, one of the largest slums of Argentina, located near the center of Buenos Aires

Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in the number of slums as urban populations have increased in developing countries.[231] Nearly a billion people worldwide live in slums, and some project the figure may grow to 2 billion by 2030 if governments and the global community ignore slums and continue current urban policies. United Nations Habitat group believes change is possible.[14]

Some NGO's are focused at addressing local problems (i.e. sanitation issues, health, ...), through the mapping out of the slums and its health services,[232] creation of latrines,[233] creation of local food production projects, and even microcredit projects.[234] In one project (in Rio de Janeiro), the government even employed slum residents for the reforestation of a nearby location.[235][236]

To achieve the goal of "cities without slums", the UN claims that governments must undertake vigorous urban planning, city management, infrastructure development, slum upgrading and poverty reduction.[14]

Slum removal

[edit]
A slum dwelling in Borgergade in central Copenhagen, Denmark, about 1940. The Danish government passed The Slum Clearance Act in 1939, demolished many slums including Borgergade, replacing it with modern buildings by the early 1950s.[237][238]

Some city and state officials have simply sought to remove slums.[239][240] This strategy for dealing with slums is rooted in the fact that slums typically start illegally on someone else's land property, and they are not recognized by the state. As the slum started by violating another's property rights, the residents have no legal claim to the land.[241][242][page needed]

Critics argue that slum removal by force tend to ignore the social problems that cause slums. The poor children as well as working adults of a city's informal economy need a place to live. Slum clearance removes the slum, but it does not remove the causes that create and maintain the slum.[243][244] Policymakers, urban planners, and politicians need to take the factors that cause people to live in informal housing into consideration while tackling the issue of slums.[245][page needed]

Slum relocation

[edit]

Slum relocation strategies rely on removing the slums and relocating the slum poor to free semi-rural peripheries of cities, sometimes in free housing. An example of this is the governmental program in Morocco called Cities without Shantytowns (sometimes referred to as Cities without Slums or, in French, Villes Sans Bidonvilles), which was launched to put an end to informal housing and resettle the communities in slums into apartments.[245][page needed]

This strategy ignores several dimensions of a slum life. The strategy sees slum as merely a place where the poor lives. In reality, slums are often integrated with every aspect of a slum resident's life, including sources of employment, distance from work, and social life.[246] Slum relocation that displaces the poor from opportunities to earn a livelihood, generates economic insecurity in the poor.[247] In some cases, the slum residents oppose relocation even if the replacement land and housing to the outskirts of cities is of better quality than their current house. Examples include Zone One Tondo Organization of Manila, Philippines, and Abahlali base Mjondolo of Durban, South Africa.[248] In other cases, such as Ennakhil slum relocation project in Morocco, systematic social mediation has worked. The slum residents have been convinced that their current location is a health hazard, prone to natural disaster, or that the alternative location is well connected to employment opportunities.[249]

Slum upgrading

[edit]

Some governments have begun to approach slums as a possible opportunity to urban development by slum upgrading. This approach was inspired in part by the theoretical writings of John Turner in 1972.[250][page needed][251] The approach seeks to upgrade the slum with basic infrastructure such as sanitation, safe drinking water, safe electricity distribution, paved roads, rain water drainage system, and bus/metro stops.[252] The assumption behind this approach is that if slums are given basic services and tenure security – that is, the slum will not be destroyed and slum residents will not be evicted, then the residents will rebuild their own housing, engage their slum community to live better, and over time attract investment from government organizations and businesses. Turner argued not to demolish the housing, but to improve the environment: if governments can clear existing slums of unsanitary human waste, polluted water and litter, and from muddy unlit lanes, they do not have to worry about the shanty housing.[253] "Squatters" have shown great organizational skills in terms of land management, and they will maintain the infrastructure that is provided.[253]

In Mexico City for example, the government attempted to upgrade and urbanize settled slums in the periphery during the 1970s and 1980s by including basic amenities such as concrete roads, parks, illumination and sewage. Currently, most slums in Mexico City face basic characteristics of traditional slums, characterized to some extent in housing, population density, crime and poverty, however, the vast majority of its inhabitants have access to basic amenities and most areas are connected to major roads and completely urbanized. Nevertheless, smaller settlements lacking these can still be found in the periphery of the city and its inhabitants are known as "paracaidistas". A more recent example of slum-upgrading approach is PRIMED initiative in Medellín, Colombia, where streets, Metrocable transportation and other public infrastructure has been added. These slum infrastructure upgrades were combined with city infrastructure upgrade such as addition of metro, paved roads and highways to empower all city residents including the poor with reliable access throughout city.[254]

Most slum upgrading projects, however, have produced mixed results. While initial evaluations were promising and success stories widely reported by media, evaluations done 5 to 10 years after a project completion have been disappointing. Herbert Werlin[253] notes that the initial benefits of slum upgrading efforts have been ephemeral. The slum upgrading projects in kampungs of Jakarta, Indonesia, for example, looked promising in first few years after upgrade, but thereafter returned to a condition worse than before, particularly in terms of sanitation, environmental problems and safety of drinking water. Communal toilets provided under slum upgrading effort were poorly maintained, and abandoned by slum residents of Jakarta.[255] Similarly slum upgrading efforts in Philippines,[256][257][page needed] India[258] and Brazil[259][260] have proven to be excessively more expensive than initially estimated, and the condition of the slums 10 years after completion of slum upgrading has been slum like. The anticipated benefits of slum upgrading, claims Werlin, have proven to be a myth.[253] There is limited but consistent evidence that slums upgrading may prevent diarrhoeal diseases and water-related expenditure.[261]

Slum upgrading is largely a government controlled, funded and run process, rather than a competitive market driven process. Krueckeberg and Paulsen note[262] conflicting politics, government corruption and street violence in slum regularization process is part of the reality. Slum upgrading and tenure regularization also upgrade and regularize the slum bosses and political agendas, while threatening the influence and power of municipal officials and ministries. Slum upgrading does not address poverty, low paying jobs from informal economy, and other characteristics of slums.[97][page needed] Recent research shows that the lack of these options make residents to undertake measures to assure their working needs.[98] One example in the northeast of Brazil, Vila S. Pedro, was mischaracterized by informal self-constructions by residents to restore working opportunities originally employed in the informal settlement.[97][page needed] It is unclear whether slum upgrading can lead to long-term sustainable improvement to slums.[263][page needed]

Urban infrastructure development and public housing

[edit]
Housing projects in Chalco, Mexico
Housing projects in Bahia, Brazil

Urban infrastructure such as reliable high speed mass transit systems, motorways/interstates, and public housing projects have been cited[264][265] as responsible for the disappearance of major slums in the United States and Europe from the 1960s through 1970s. Charles Pearson argued in UK Parliament that mass transit would enable London to reduce slums and relocate slum dwellers. His proposal was initially rejected for lack of land and other reasons; but Pearson and others persisted with creative proposals such as building the mass transit under the major roads already in use and owned by the city. London Underground was born, and its expansion has been credited to reducing slums in respective cities[266] (and to an extent, the New York City Subway's smaller expansion).[267]

As cities expanded and business parks scattered due to cost ineffectiveness, people moved to live in the suburbs; thus retail, logistics, house maintenance and other businesses followed demand patterns. City governments used infrastructure investments and urban planning to distribute work, housing, green areas, retail, schools and population densities. Affordable public mass transit in cities such as New York City, London and Paris allowed the poor to reach areas where they could earn a livelihood. Public and council housing projects cleared slums and provided more sanitary housing options than what existed before the 1950s.[268]

Slum clearance became a priority policy in Europe between 1950–1970s, and one of the biggest state-led programs. In the UK, the slum clearance effort was bigger in scale than the formation of British Railways, the National Health Service and other state programs. UK Government data suggests the clearances that took place after 1955 demolished about 1.5 million slum properties, resettling about 15% of UK's population out of these properties.[269] Similarly, after 1950, Denmark and others pursued parallel initiatives to clear slums and resettle the slum residents.[237]

The US and European governments additionally created a procedure by which the poor could directly apply to the government for housing assistance, thus becoming a partner to identifying and meeting the housing needs of its citizens.[270][271] One historically effective approach to reduce and prevent slums has been citywide infrastructure development combined with affordable, reliable public mass transport and public housing projects.[272]

However, slum relocation in the name of urban development is criticized for uprooting communities without consultation or consideration of ongoing livelihood. For example, the Sabarmati Riverfront Project, a recreational development in Ahmedabad, India, forcefully relocated over 19,000 families from shacks along the river to 13 public housing complexes that were an average of 9 km away from the family's original dwelling.[273]

Prevalence

[edit]
Percent urban population of a country living in slums (UN Habitat, 2005)
Urban population living in slums, 2014.[274]

Slums exist in many countries and have become a global phenomenon.[275] A UN-Habitat report states that in 2006 there were nearly 1 billion people settling in slum settlements in most cities of Central America, Asia, South America and Africa, and a smaller number in the cities of Europe and North America.[276][page needed]

In 2012, according to UN-Habitat, about 863 million people in the developing world lived in slums. Of these, the urban slum population at mid-year was around 213 million in Sub-Saharan Africa, 207 million in East Asia, 201 million in South Asia, 113 million in Latin America and Caribbean, 80 million in Southeast Asia, 36 million in West Asia, and 13 million in North Africa.[277]: 127  Among individual countries, the proportion of urban residents living in slum areas in 2009 was highest in the Central African Republic (95.9%), Chad (89.3%), Niger (81.7%), and Mozambique (80.5%).[277]

The distribution of slums within a city varies throughout the world. In most of the developed countries, it is easier to distinguish the slum-areas and non-slum areas. In the United States, slum dwellers are usually in city neighborhoods and inner suburbs, while in Europe, they are more common in high rise housing on the urban outskirts. In many developing countries, slums are prevalent as distributed pockets or as urban orbits of densely constructed informal settlements.[275]

In some cities, especially in countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, slums are not just marginalized neighborhoods holding a small population; slums are widespread, and are home to a large part of urban population. These are sometimes called slum cities.[278][page needed]

The percentage of developing world's urban population living in slums has been dropping with economic development, even while total urban population has been increasing. In 1990, 46 percent of the urban population lived in slums; by 2000, the percentage had dropped to 39%; which further dropped to 32% by 2010.[279]

See also

[edit]

Variations of impoverished settlements

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

A slum is a group of individuals living under the same roof in an who lack one or more of the following conditions: access to , access to facilities, sufficient living area, durable structures, or secure tenure. These settlements typically feature overcrowded, makeshift constructed from informal materials, inadequate , and vulnerability to environmental hazards such as flooding or outbreaks due to poor and . As of 2022, approximately 1.12 billion people resided in slums worldwide, representing a reversal from prior declines and driven by rapid urban population growth outpacing and service provision in developing regions. Slums predominantly emerge in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in , , and , where rural-urban migration for economic opportunities exceeds the supply of affordable, formal , often exacerbated by regulatory barriers, land scarcity, and insufficient investment in . While slums harbor informal economic activities that sustain livelihoods, they are characterized by elevated risks of perpetuation, health epidemics, and social instability, underscoring failures in and market responses to demand.

Etymology and Definition

Historical Terminology

The term "slum" first appeared in early 19th-century British slang, with records from 1812 denoting a back room or compartment in a house, evolving to describe narrow, squalid alleyways by 1819. By 1825, "back slum" specifically referred to dirty back alleys in urban settings like London, inhabited by the poor and associated with vice. The word's origin remains uncertain, potentially linked to "slum" meaning sludge or mud, reflecting filthy conditions, or to "slumber" for sleeping places, though no definitive etymology exists. In the mid-19th century, amid London's industrial expansion, "slum" shifted to encompass overcrowded, rundown districts such as those in the East End, marking a turn toward denoting dangerous, impoverished neighborhoods. Contemporary synonyms included "," an 18th- and 19th-century term for labyrinthine tenements teeming with the poor, criminals, and prostitutes—evoking the dense nesting of rooks—and applied to notorious sites like the St. Giles rookery. "" emerged around the same period in North American contexts, describing makeshift shacks for transient laborers, often tied to economic booms or depressions, contrasting with the more entrenched European usage. The saw "slum" gain global traction through British colonial reports documenting urban poverty in empires, extending its application to non-European settings like Indian cities and African ports. This terminology persisted post-independence, with international bodies adopting "slum" to label durable, substandard settlements, distinguishing them from temporary squatter camps in analyses of housing deficits.

Modern Definitions and Criteria

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) employs an operational definition of slums centered on five key deprivations experienced by households in urban settings: lack of access to improved water sources (defined as water from a piped supply, borehole, protected dug well, or packaged/rainwater sources); lack of access to improved sanitation facilities (such as flush toilets connected to sewers, septic tanks, or pit latrines with slabs); insufficient living area, measured as more than three persons sharing the same habitable room; non-durable housing structures (e.g., walls or roofs made of flimsy materials like metal sheets, plastic, or rudimentary wood lacking protection from elements); and insecure tenure (absence of legal protection against eviction or recognition of occupancy rights). This framework, formalized for tracking Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 11.1.1 since 2015, prioritizes empirical indicators of physical and service deficits over subjective assessments of poverty or aesthetics, allowing for quantifiable measurement via household surveys and censuses. National criteria often adapt these metrics but incorporate local legal or administrative thresholds, leading to variations. In , the 2011 defines slums as contiguous settlements notified by government authorities as such, or unauthorized/older habitations with substandard structures and inadequate basic services (e.g., , drainage, roads), or areas where at least 40% of households reside in poorly built dwellings lacking amenities like or toilets; this approach emphasizes gazetted status alongside exceeding three persons per room in some regional assessments. In , the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) classifies favelas as subnormal agglomerations—irregularly occupied urban clusters with precarious, self-constructed (e.g., non-durable materials), high often surpassing three persons per room, and deficient such as unpaved streets or shared points—distinct from legal but low-quality by their origins in illegal land invasions. These definitions highlight measurable standards like material durability (e.g., absence of or ) and overcrowding ratios, though they diverge on whether illegality or mere informality constitutes a core criterion. Debates persist regarding the scope of slum designations, particularly the tension between service-based informality and explicit illegality. UN-Habitat's criteria, while verifiable through deprivation counts, have been critiqued for overbreadth by including settlements with partial improvements or community-driven upgrades, potentially conflating transient service gaps with entrenched and inflating global estimates (e.g., from 827 million in 2018 to projections exceeding 1 billion by 2030) to support international aid frameworks without rigorous validation of permanence or causality. Slums are distinctly urban phenomena, requiring proximity to city centers for economic viability, unlike rural poverty's dispersed agrarian deprivations or temporary camps (e.g., or sites), which lack enduring settlement patterns despite overlapping infrastructural shortfalls; this urban specificity underscores criteria focused on density-driven overcrowding and tenure insecurity amid rapid migration, excluding non-permanent or non-integrated habitations.

Historical Development

Pre-Industrial and Early Urban Slums

In ancient Rome, the Subura district, located between the Esquiline and Viminal hills, served as a densely populated area for the urban poor, featuring multi-story insulae—apartment blocks up to five or six floors high—that housed multiple families in narrow, poorly ventilated rooms lacking running water or adequate sanitation. These structures, often constructed with timber and mudbrick, were prone to fires and collapses, contributing to hazardous living conditions amid narrow alleys congested with workshops, taverns, and markets. Archaeological excavations, including those revealing sewer systems overwhelmed by waste, confirm the prevalence of overcrowding and filth, with population densities estimated at over 100,000 residents in a compact area by the 1st century BCE. Medieval European cities exhibited similar slum-like enclaves within fortified walls that constrained expansion, exacerbated by guild monopolies on crafts and trades that limited housing construction to approved materials and locations, thereby inflating costs and densities for lower classes. In Paris, areas akin to the later-documented Cour des Miracles—squalid courtyards housing beggars, thieves, and vagrants in makeshift hovels—emerged as early as the 12th century, characterized by open sewers, thatched roofs susceptible to plague, and social outcasts feigning disabilities for alms. Guild controls, such as those enforced by the Hanseatic League in northern cities or Parisian craft associations, restricted non-guild members from building or settling freely, funneling the impoverished into peripheral or interstitial zones with rudimentary infrastructure. Historical accounts from chroniclers like Froissart describe these districts as rife with mud-churned streets and overcrowding, where up to 20% of urban dwellers in cities like London or Florence lived in substandard timber-framed tenements by the 14th century. In contrast, pre-colonial urban centers in Africa and Asia, such as (peaking around 1450 CE) or (12th–15th centuries), showed limited evidence of concentrated slums due to communal systems that allowed flexible settlement patterns and organic expansion beyond rigid enclosures. Decentralized governance and tribal land customs in , for instance, enabled migrants to claim peripheral plots for self-built dwellings, avoiding the density traps of European feudal restrictions. Asian examples like medieval featured dispersed artisan quarters with access to rice paddy commons, mitigating large-scale urban pauperization until colonial disruptions. The precursors to industrial slums appeared in 18th-century Britain, where parliamentary acts—over 3,000 passed between 1760 and 1820—privatized roughly 21% of , displacing an estimated 250,000 smallholders and laborers from common fields they had used for subsistence. This rural exodus, driven by landlords consolidating holdings for sheep farming amid rising wool demand, funneled proletarianized peasants into nascent urban centers like and Birmingham, where makeshift housing clusters formed amid proto-industrial workshops. By 1801, urban population shares had risen to 20% from 13% in 1700, straining rudimentary town planning inherited from guild-era constraints.

Industrial Era and 20th-Century Expansion

The Industrial Revolution, beginning in the late 18th century, accelerated rural-to-urban migration in Europe as workers sought factory employment, leading to the rapid formation of slums in burgeoning industrial centers like Manchester and London. In Manchester, the population surged from approximately 25,000 in 1773 to over 300,000 by 1851, driven by textile mills and cotton processing, resulting in overcrowded housing such as back-to-back terraces lacking sanitation and ventilation. Friedrich Engels documented these conditions in 1845, describing Manchester's slums as labyrinthine districts with fever-ridden cellars and courts where multiple families shared inadequate facilities, fostering disease and poverty. Similar patterns emerged in London, where rapid industrialization concentrated working-class populations in areas like Bethnal Green and Whitechapel, characterized by high densities—often exceeding 150 persons per acre in court dwellings—and unsanitary conditions that contributed to cholera outbreaks in the 1830s and 1840s. Charles Booth's comprehensive survey, Life and Labour of the People in London (published 1889–1903), quantified poverty across 442 square miles, classifying 30.7% of the population as living in , with slums linked to structural factors including vagrancy laws under the Poor Law system that penalized and transiency, trapping the destitute in substandard . Booth's color-coded maps highlighted "black" poverty zones in , where casual labor and irregular work perpetuated slum persistence despite industrial wages. In the United States, parallel developments occurred with mass and industrialization; by the late , New York City's tenements housed millions in squalid conditions, as exposed by Jacob Riis in How the Other Half Lives (1890), depicting overcrowding in areas like with up to 20 people per room and rampant . Hell's Kitchen in Manhattan, a notorious Irish immigrant enclave, exemplified early 20th-century American slums with dilapidated wooden tenements, gang violence, and poverty persisting into the 1930s amid the Great Depression. Precursor urban renewal efforts in the 1930s–1950s, including New Deal public housing initiatives and the 1949 Housing Act, aimed to clear such slums but often displaced residents without sufficient relocation support; in New York, projects razed blocks in Hell's Kitchen and adjacent areas, scattering low-income families into peripheral zones while failing to address root migration drivers. Post-World War II, slum expansion extended globally through decolonization and economic reconstruction, as rural migrants flooded cities in Asia and Latin America seeking industrial jobs. In Mumbai, textile mills drew laborers from the 1920s onward, but post-1947 independence intensified influxes, overwhelming chawl housing and spawning unauthorized settlements by the 1950s, where mill workers and families endured makeshift dwellings amid booming urban populations. This era's slum growth reflected universal patterns of industrialization-induced urbanization, independent of colonial legacies, with cities like Bombay mirroring European trajectories of density and deprivation.

Post-Colonial and Contemporary Growth

Following decolonization, slum proliferation intensified in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa during the 1970s and 1980s, driven by the unraveling of import-substitution industrialization (ISI) models that prioritized urban manufacturing but neglected housing provision amid rising rural-urban migration. ISI policies, implemented post-World War II, fostered urban job growth in protected industries, yet economic inefficiencies and the 1973 and 1979 oil crises triggered debt accumulation and policy shifts, accelerating informal settlement expansion as migrants sought informal employment without corresponding infrastructure. In , urban bias in agricultural pricing and subsidies—evident from the 1970s onward—artificially depressed rural incomes, incentivizing mass exodus to cities where urban populations swelled under slum conditions, with over 60% of urban residents in such areas by 2005. These endogenous policy distortions, rather than mere colonial legacies, compounded during the 1980s programs under , which curtailed public investments while migration persisted due to persistent rural stagnation. Into the 2000s, witnessed analogous surges tied to export-led industrialization outstripping housing supply; in , , the urban population expanded from roughly 10 million in to over 15 million by 2010, propelled by garment sector booms that drew rural labor amid regulatory barriers to formal development. This pattern exemplified how rapid economic pull factors, unchecked by proactive land and building policies, perpetuated slum growth in liberalizing economies. Contemporary divergences highlight varying trajectories: China's state-orchestrated post-1990s reforms formalized migrant housing, drastically reducing informal settlements, whereas India's regulatory rigidities have sustained slum shares at approximately 30% of the urban population into the 2020s. World Bank assessments indicate these outcomes stem from differences in institutional capacity to align housing supply with endogenous migration pressures, with reversals in slum reduction evident in regulatory-heavy contexts.

Primary Causes

Rural-Urban Migration and Economic Pull Factors


Rural-urban migration constitutes a key mechanism fueling slum expansion, as individuals pursue higher expected earnings in cities despite the prospect of informal settlements. Migrants, often from surplus rural labor pools characterized by subsistence farming and stagnant incomes, are drawn by urban wage premiums that, even in unregulated sectors, exceed rural alternatives by factors of 2 to 3 times in developing economies. This voluntary movement reflects rational decision-making based on perceived net gains in income and consumption potential, rather than coerced displacement.
In Kenya's Kibera slum, for example, rural migrants cite low agricultural productivity and limited rural opportunities as primary push factors, while urban job availability acts as the dominant pull, with surveys indicating economic motivations drive the majority of inflows. This dynamic echoes the Lewis dual-sector model, wherein unlimited rural labor supply migrates to urban areas to capitalize on higher productivity, initially filling informal roles when formal absorption lags, thereby sustaining urban growth amid housing shortages. Remittances from these migrants, often comprising 10-20% of urban earnings, bolster rural household welfare through investments in farming and education, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates migration flows. Empirical analyses confirm that such migration yields net reductions for entrants, as slum-based informal earnings enable escape from absolute rural deprivation, evidenced by improved caloric intake and asset accumulation relative to origins, though long-term urban risks arise from mismatches. In Ghanaian cases, slum migrants reported household consumption gains of up to 50% post-relocation, underscoring the initial adaptive value of these moves despite substandard conditions.

Government Regulations and Property Rights Barriers

Government regulations, including zoning restrictions, building codes, and rent controls, often inflate housing costs and stifle supply, compelling low-income migrants to erect informal dwellings rather than invest in legal structures. Strict zoning laws mandating large lot sizes or prohibiting multi-story incremental building prevent the poor from constructing affordable, expandable homes on peripheral land, effectively reserving urban space for higher-end developments. Similarly, excessive labor and material regulations raise construction expenses beyond what informal workers can afford, as evidenced by econometric analyses showing that overregulation correlates with persistent housing shortages in developing cities. Insecure property rights exacerbate this by rendering vast informal assets "dead capital," unable to serve as collateral for loans or formal business expansion. Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto estimates this globally immobilized value at $9.3 trillion, primarily in extralegal real estate held by the poor, which cannot enter productive markets without legal titles. In Peru, de Soto's advocacy for simplifying registration processes facilitated the formalization of informal properties and businesses, enabling access to credit and reportedly lifting hundreds of thousands from poverty by integrating assets into the formal economy, though critics note mixed long-term social impacts. Rent controls provide a stark example, as in , where legacy laws covering older urban stock have induced landlords to withhold units from the market, resulting in vacancy rates up to 10-15% in controlled areas amid acute shortages. Empirical studies attribute this to insecure tenure, estimating that reforming such controls could reduce India's overall deficit by 7.5% through increased supply incentives. Comparatively, jurisdictions with robust property rights and minimal regulatory barriers exhibit fewer slums; Hong Kong, with market-driven high-density development and secure titling, maintains negligible informal settlements despite population pressures, in contrast to Lagos, Nigeria, where over 70% of residents inhabit slums amid convoluted land regulations and titling failures that lock assets in informality.

Institutional and Cultural Contributors

High rates prevalent in many slum communities, particularly in , impose significant resource constraints on households already facing limited space and income. Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data reveal total fertility rates often exceeding 4 children per woman in urban slum settings, with some studies reporting averages approaching 5.2 in comparable low-income urban areas, resulting in household sizes of 4-6 children or more that overwhelm rudimentary and infrastructure. This pattern persists due to limited access to contraception, low levels among women, and cultural valuations of large families as sources of labor and old-age security, though individual decisions to forgo contribute directly to the cycle. Cultural norms favoring structures further intensify overcrowding in slums, contrasting with models observed in households achieving upward mobility. In regions like and , traditions of multigenerational —rooted in communal support systems—lead to dwellings 10-15 people, amplifying risks and impeding investments in durable . These norms, while providing social safety nets in informal economies, hinder spatial efficiency and privacy, sustaining slum persistence even as remittances or informal earnings could enable relocation; escapes from slums correlate with shifts toward smaller, nuclear units prioritizing child over familial expansion. Clientelist political practices exacerbate institutional tolerance of slum growth, as seen in Brazil's where politicians under populist regimes have exchanged leniency or basic services for votes from informal . From the mid-20th century onward, such vote-buying dynamics—evident in rapid proliferation during periods of machine politics—prioritized short-term electoral gains over enforcement of property norms, embedding that discourages formal development. This non-state institutional weakness, intertwined with cultural deference to networks, reinforces dependency without absolving residents' agency in participating or resisting such arrangements.

Policy-Induced Stagnation and Overregulation

In , extensive oil-funded subsidies and welfare programs during the Chávez (1999–2013) and Maduro eras created dependency traps that exacerbated urban stagnation, with rates rising from 23.9% in 1998 to over 50% by 2017 amid and , sustaining and expanding informal barrios housing millions in precarious conditions. These policies, reliant on state redistribution rather than market incentives, distorted labor participation by providing handouts that reduced incentives for formal , contributing to a brain drain and persistent slum growth in cities like where over 25% of residents lived in such settlements by the . In contrast, Chile's market-oriented reforms in the 1980s under the Pinochet regime, including privatization of housing finance and deregulation of land markets, facilitated a sharp decline in informal settlements, reducing the number of slums from 972 (affecting 105,888 households) to 533 (28,600 households) and cutting the associated housing deficit by 75% through subsidized yet market-driven homeownership programs that enabled over one million low-income residents to exit slums. This approach prioritized property rights and private sector involvement over direct state provisioning, fostering upward mobility and integrating former slum dwellers into formal economies, unlike subsidy-heavy models that entrench stagnation. Overregulation, such as aggressive minimum wage increases, further compounds these issues by pricing low-skill workers out of formal jobs in developing countries, leading to modest negative employment effects and shifts to informal sectors that perpetuate urban underemployment and slum reliance, as evidenced by World Bank analyses of high-informality economies where such policies elevate formal wages but displace vulnerable labor. In contexts with weak enforcement, these hikes amplify informal employment without commensurate productivity gains, trapping workers in low-value activities characteristic of slums. Foreign aid routed through NGOs often inflates non-market bureaucracies in urban poor areas, crowding out private initiatives and fostering dependency, as shown in studies from India where aid inflows to slum-focused organizations reduced government accountability for services and hindered sustainable local entrepreneurship, per evidence on aid displacement effects. Randomized evaluations indicate that such interventions, while providing short-term relief, distort incentives against self-reliance by prioritizing NGO intermediation over direct market access for slum residents.

Physical and Social Characteristics

Housing Conditions and Overcrowding

Slum housing typically consists of self-constructed structures using readily available, low-cost materials such as corrugated metal sheets or tin for roofs and walls made from mud bricks, adobe, or salvaged wood, which allow for rapid assembly but offer limited durability against weather elements. These dwellings are often built incrementally, with residents expanding or upgrading rooms over time as resources permit, reflecting adaptive responses to economic constraints rather than planned design. Overcrowding is prevalent due to high population densities, frequently exceeding those in adjacent formal urban areas, where multiple families may share single-room units or sleeping spaces, exacerbating space constraints in areas lacking zoning enforcement. In many informal settlements, residents demonstrate resourcefulness through community-led improvements, such as the Orangi Pilot Project in Karachi, Pakistan, where households progressively constructed internal sewer lines and reinforced housing foundations using local labor and materials, achieving coverage in over 90% of lanes by the early 2010s. Tenure insecurity affects a substantial portion of slum occupants, with large numbers lacking formal legal title to , leading to persistent risks of displacement despite long-term . However, in some jurisdictions, prolonged habitation enables claims through , allowing informal settlers to secure after years of unchallenged use, as seen in various Latin American regularization efforts. This dynamic underscores how self-built persists amid regulatory gaps, balancing with practical resilience.

Infrastructure Deficiencies

Infrastructure deficiencies in slums arise primarily from the rapid pace of informal urbanization overwhelming the capacity of formal systems to extend services, creating mismatches between population growth and planned provisioning rather than deliberate neglect. In these settlements, basic utilities like water, electricity, and sanitation lag behind formal urban areas due to high connection costs, regulatory hurdles for unauthorized structures, and insufficient investment scaled to explosive demographic influxes. Residents often develop informal coping mechanisms, such as vendor networks or unauthorized extensions, to bridge these gaps at elevated risks and expenses. Water access exemplifies these challenges, with piped connections in Sub-Saharan African slums typically ranging from 20% to 50%, far below the 90% or higher in adjacent formal neighborhoods. This scarcity drives reliance on informal markets, where vendors supply water at 10 to 20 times the cost of official piped rates, exacerbating economic burdens while ensuring minimal availability through carted or borehole sources. Electricity provision follows a similar pattern of informal adaptation amid formal shortfalls; in Mumbai's Dharavi slum, for instance, while legal household connections remain limited to a fraction of residents, approximately 80% achieve access via unauthorized tapping or extensions from nearby grids. These makeshift systems, characterized by substandard wiring without grounding or circuit protection, heighten fire hazards, contributing to nearly 70% of Mumbai's reported fire incidents stemming from electrical failures in such dense, improvised networks. Sanitation infrastructure lags critically, with prevalent in around 40% of global urban slum areas, often due to insufficient coverage and maintenance in high-density settings. This practice correlates with elevated levels, as fecal matter seeps into shallow aquifers, per WHO assessments linking inadequate containment to widespread subsurface contamination in underserved locales. Coping strategies include shared or community-built toilets, though these frequently overload and fail to prevent environmental leakage.

Demographic and Community Dynamics

Slum populations are characterized by high densities and a pronounced youth bulge, with estimates indicating that 50 to 60 percent of residents in many urban slums are under 25 years old. This demographic structure stems from elevated fertility rates combined with selective migration of younger individuals from rural areas, as documented in sub-Saharan African and South Asian contexts where slums house a disproportionate share of the urban youth cohort. Such compositions foster potential for innovation through adaptive problem-solving but also heighten risks of social friction due to unmet aspirations among job-seeking youth. Ethnic and kinship-based enclaves commonly emerge within slums, enabling that builds trust and reciprocal support systems amid institutional distrust. For instance, Somali migrant clusters in Nairobi's area exemplify how co-ethnic networks provide informal and resource pooling, reducing reliance on unreliable state services. These formations prioritize familial and tribal bonds over broader integration, reflecting causal preferences for verifiable reciprocity in high-risk environments where broader is scarce. Female-headed households represent 20 to 30 percent of slum dwellings in numerous developing regions, often resulting from male out-migration, labor hazards, or familial disruptions. Women in these units leverage extended kin and neighborhood ties for childcare and , cultivating resilience through matrilineal support structures that emphasize communal vigilance over individual autonomy. Religious and savings associations further reinforce these dynamics, as evidenced in community-led initiatives across Asian and African slums that prioritize collective safeguarding of vulnerable members.

Economic Dimensions

Informal Economy and Entrepreneurship

In urban slums of developing countries, the informal economy dominates employment, often comprising 40-60% or more of urban jobs, serving as a primary source of livelihood for residents excluded from formal markets. This sector encompasses street vending, small-scale manufacturing, and service provision, enabling rapid entry with minimal capital barriers. Globally, informal employment accounts for over 60% of total employment in emerging and developing economies, with rates exceeding 80% in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa, the informal economy contributes 25-65% of GDP, underscoring its productive role beyond mere subsistence. Entrepreneurship thrives in this environment, with informal activities functioning as incubators for . Street vending, for instance, allows individuals to test market demand and accumulate savings for expansion, often transitioning into formal enterprises. from Indonesia reveals annual transition rates from informal to formal around 7%, indicating pathways for upward mobility through accumulated experience and capital. Similarly, in , retrospective surveys show workers frequently shift between informal and formal roles, with informal starts providing essential skills and networks. Recycling exemplifies entrepreneurial innovation, where informal workers in cities like Manila handle substantial portions of urban waste, diverting 15-30% of recyclables from landfills and generating income through value recovery. In developing countries, informal recyclers recover materials that formal systems often overlook, contributing to environmental services while sustaining livelihoods for millions. This sector's adaptability counters narratives of pure deficit by demonstrating self-organized efficiency and economic value creation.

Labor Markets and Unemployment Traps

In urban slums of developing countries, youth unemployment rates frequently exceed 30 percent, with rates reaching 40-50 percent or higher among less-educated populations in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, where youth comprise up to 80 percent of the total unemployed. These elevated figures stem primarily from skill mismatches, where formal education systems emphasize theoretical knowledge over practical vocational training aligned with local labor demands, leaving slum dwellers unprepared for available entry-level roles in manufacturing, construction, or services. Apprenticeships in trades such as plumbing or electrical work offer a pathway to bridge these gaps by providing hands-on experience, yet uptake remains low due to limited formal programs and cultural preferences for academic credentials over technical skills. Regulatory barriers exacerbate entry into formal labor markets, creating unemployment traps by favoring incumbents and excluding low-skilled slum residents through occupational licensing and compliance costs. In India, small informal enterprises face stringent requirements under the Shops and Establishments Act, including multiple registrations, inspections, and fees that deter formalization and trap workers in unregulated, low-productivity gigs. Similarly, rigid labor laws imposing high firing costs and minimum wages above marginal productivity levels discourage employers from hiring inexperienced youth from slums, perpetuating cycles of informal employment with minimal advancement. Gig economy platforms partially circumvent these traps by lowering entry barriers, enabling slum-based workers to access flexible income streams without extensive licensing. In , , ride-hailing drivers often earn ₦50,000-100,000 monthly net (approximately $30-60 USD at 2025 exchange rates), surpassing typical rural subsistence incomes of under $1 daily, though earnings vary with hours driven and fuel costs. However, such work reinforces traps by lacking scalability, benefits, or pathways to formal skills, as platforms prioritize volume over training amid oversupply of drivers.

Poverty Cycles and Human Capital Gaps

Poverty cycles in slums perpetuate through intergenerational transmission of low human capital, where parental socioeconomic status strongly predicts children's educational attainment and earnings potential. Econometric analyses from field surveys in Jakarta slums reveal that while intergenerational educational mobility has improved modestly across three generations, with children's years of schooling averaging 1-2 years more than parents', persistent gaps remain, as slum-born individuals earn 20-30% less than non-slum urban peers due to limited skill acquisition. This transmission is exacerbated by household decisions prioritizing immediate survival over long-term investments, such as allocating resources to child labor rather than schooling, which econometric models link to reduced human capital formation and trapped low productivity equilibria. Child labor, prevalent in many slum environments, directly undermines human capital by displacing education; surveys in Dhaka slums indicate that up to 40% of children aged 10-14 engage in paid work, often leading to school dropout rates exceeding 50% among working youth. Returns-to-education studies in developing contexts estimate that each additional year of schooling boosts adult earnings by 8-12%, implying that child labor's opportunity cost—typically 1-3 lost years—can reduce lifetime earnings by 15-30%, as evidenced by longitudinal data controlling for family background and local labor markets. Similarly, early marriage and dropout among adolescent girls in slums, driven by economic pressures, curtail skill development; panel data from urban Peru show such choices correlate with 20% lower female labor participation and wages in adulthood, perpetuating cycles via smaller, less educated subsequent generations. Remittances from urban slum migrants, totaling around $800 billion globally in recent estimates with significant portions from low-skilled internal migrants, provide temporary relief but often dilute investments due to intra-family sharing across extended networks. In slum , these funds—averaging $200-500 annually per recipient family in contexts like —are frequently split among multiple dependents, reducing per-child allocations for to under 20% of inflows, as household surveys demonstrate preferences for consumption over schooling amid constraints. Despite these barriers, surveys of slum youth reveal resilient aspirations focused on skill-building over dependency on aid; in Nairobi slums, over 70% of adolescents prioritize vocational training and formal education for upward mobility, viewing self-acquired skills as key to breaking cycles, though structural limits like work demands hinder realization. This emphasis on personal agency aligns with econometric findings that higher individual aspirations correlate with increased study hours and reduced dropout risk, independent of aid receipt, underscoring human capital gaps as partly behavioral amid causal constraints.

Health and Security Challenges

Infectious Diseases and Sanitation Risks

Slums' inadequate sanitation infrastructure, including open defecation, shared or contaminated water sources, and improper waste disposal, facilitates the fecal-oral transmission of waterborne pathogens, elevating risks of infectious diseases such as cholera, typhoid, and diarrheal illnesses. Overcrowding exacerbates this by increasing pathogen exposure through close proximity and limited hygiene practices, independent of broader socioeconomic interventions. Epidemiological data indicate that diarrheal diseases, primarily transmitted via contaminated water, account for a disproportionate burden in these environments, with urban slum residents facing 2-3 times higher incidence rates compared to formal settlements due to persistent environmental contamination. The 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti exemplifies these dynamics, originating from introduction but propagating rapidly through slums' poor sanitation, resulting in over 10,000 deaths by 2011 as the bacterium spread via untreated water and fecal matter in densely populated areas like Cité Soleil.02482-5.pdf) Similarly, (Salmonella Typhi) outbreaks recur in urban slums, with prospective surveillance in , , documenting an incidence of 3.9 bacteremic cases per 1,000 person-years among children, linked to environmental reservoirs in sewage-flooded streets and inadequate . In Kenyan slums, spatial mapping revealed typhoid clustering around contaminated drains, underscoring how amplifies transmission from carriers via direct contact or vectors like flies. High population density in slums also intensified transmission through respiratory droplets in confined spaces, where proved infeasible; in Rio de Janeiro, slum residents—22% of the city's population—accounted for 30% of deaths, reflecting accelerated spread in shared indoor environments despite varying infection fatality rates. Seroprevalence studies in further showed antibodies 2-3 times higher in slums than non-slum areas, attributing this to rather than differential virulence.30467-8/fulltext) Empirical trials demonstrate that targeted chlorination at water points can interrupt these cycles: a randomized intervention in Dhaka slums reduced child diarrhea incidence by 38% through automated chlorinators at shared taps, directly addressing fecal contamination without relying on behavioral shifts alone. Systematic reviews of point-of-use chlorination confirm consistent reductions in diarrheal episodes by 20-50% across similar low-resource settings, highlighting the causal role of residual disinfectants in neutralizing pathogens amid persistent infrastructure deficits.

Non-Communicable Health Issues and Malnutrition

In urban slums, child stunting remains prevalent, with rates often ranging from 30% to 50% among children under five, as evidenced by studies in regions like and where micronutrient deficiencies in iron, , , and iodine—rather than caloric deficits alone—contribute to impaired linear growth and . These deficiencies arise from diets lacking diversity, compounded by poor from contaminated and recurrent subclinical infections, leading to a "stunting syndrome" that persists into adulthood with lasting effects on productivity. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension are increasingly burdensome in slums, mirroring trends in broader urban poor populations but exacerbated by rapid dietary shifts toward affordable processed foods high in sugars, salts, and trans fats, alongside limited physical activity due to overcrowded living conditions. Prevalence estimates indicate diabetes affecting 0.9% to 25% of adults and hypertension 4.2% to 52.5%, with higher figures in studies from India (e.g., 34.8% for hypertension) and Latin America, where awareness and control remain low due to inaccessible screening and treatment. This epidemiological transition reflects causal pathways from undernutrition in early life to metabolic disorders later, with obesity co-occurring in 5-10% of cases as a double burden. Mental health challenges in slums include elevated rates of depression (up to 29% in adolescents) and anxiety, stemming from chronic stressors like economic and , which disrupt and social functioning. However, informal networks and familial support often mitigate severity, as social cohesion correlates with lower perceived powerlessness and better coping mechanisms compared to isolated urban dwellers. Access to formal services remains minimal, perpetuating cycles of untreated distress that impair daily productivity.

Crime, Violence, and Social Instability

Slums frequently exhibit homicide rates substantially exceeding those in surrounding formal urban areas, driven by localized factors including territorial disputes and limited state presence. In Brazilian favelas, rates have been documented as high as 150 per 100,000 inhabitants, contrasting with the national average of 19.28 per 100,000 in 2023 according to UNODC data. Similar disparities appear in other Latin American contexts, where slum-adjacent areas report elevated lethality compared to city-wide figures of 5-10 per 100,000 in less affected zones, underscoring concentrations of risk rather than uniform chaos. Gang activity, particularly tied to the drug trade, permeates a significant share of Latin American slums, with organized crime groups exerting de facto control over territories in major cities like Rio de Janeiro and Caracas. UNODC analyses link such dynamics to disproportionate homicide shares attributed to organized crime in high-violence regions, though interpersonal and domestic motives—encompassing family disputes and acquaintance conflicts—constitute the majority of global homicides even in these settings. Youth idleness exacerbates involvement, as high unemployment among young males in urban slums correlates with recruitment into gangs and elevated petty crime participation, per studies from Kenyan settlements like Mathare. In the absence of effective formal policing, slum communities often resort to self-policing and vigilantism, which can curb opportunistic crimes through informal surveillance and deterrence. Ethnographic accounts from South African townships and Indian slums describe resident-led moral policing reducing everyday theft and disputes, though such mechanisms risk escalating into extrajudicial excesses without oversight. Comparative data tempers media portrayals of unrelenting anarchy, revealing that while slum violence rates surpass urban norms—often 2-3 times higher in targeted evaluations—most incidents cluster in specific hotspots, leaving substantial resident populations unvictimized annually.

Global Prevalence and Regional Patterns

As of 2022, the estimates the global slum population at 1.1 billion people, comprising approximately one-quarter of the total urban population. This figure reflects an absolute increase of about 130 million slum dwellers since 2015, even as the proportional share of urban residents in slums declined modestly from 28% in 2000 to 24% by 2018 due to overall urban expansion outpacing slum growth in relative terms. From 2000 to 2020, global slum proportions trended downward amid and targeted interventions in select regions, though absolute numbers continued rising with and rural-to-urban migration. Post-2020, the exacerbated vulnerabilities, with economic disruptions and halted upgrading projects contributing to a reversal in prior declines, as informal settlements absorbed displaced workers and saw stalled improvements in services. Without accelerated policy measures, projections indicate the slum population could swell to 3 billion by 2050, driven by unchecked adding billions to dwellers. Estimates face methodological challenges, including the United Nations' broad definition of slums—which encompasses households lacking improved water, sanitation, durable structures, sufficient living space, or secure tenure—potentially leading to overcounts by classifying marginally substandard areas as slums rather than transitional urban . Conversely, and gridded often undercount actual slum residents due to incomplete mapping of informal settlements and exclusion of floating populations. Notable successes, such as Indonesia's Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) from the onward, which upgraded and formalized tenure for millions, demonstrate potential for reductions; extensions of such titling efforts have correlated with up to 20% drops in slum designations in participating areas by enabling private investment and consolidation. ![Share of urban population in slums, 1990-2020](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-urban-population-living-in-slums?time=latest](./assets/Sl2022.png)

Variations by Continent and Country

Sub-Saharan Africa exhibits the highest slum prevalence globally, with approximately 55-62% of the urban population residing in slum conditions as of recent estimates. In cities like , Democratic Republic of Congo, up to 75% of urban dwellers live in informal settlements, exacerbated by rapid outpacing development and persistent . This contrasts sharply with lower rates in regions experiencing sustained growth, where governance and policy reforms have facilitated transitions to formal housing. In , slum proportions average around 25% of the urban population, though absolute numbers remain vast, particularly in . hosts an estimated 65 million slum residents, comprising about 17% of its urban populace based on 2011 census data with limited subsequent decline. , however, shows markedly lower rates, under 5% in countries like following post-1978 economic reforms that integrated rural migrants through controlled and , preventing large-scale slum formation. These disparities highlight how rapid industrial growth and state-directed housing policies in reduced informal settlements, unlike slower progress in amid weaker enforcement of . Latin America reports slum rates of 20-24% among urban populations, with notable variations by country. In Brazil, favelas house about 8.1% of the national population, or roughly 16.4 million people as per the 2022 census, concentrated in cities like Rio de Janeiro where they constitute 23-24% of residents. Declines in some areas stem from partial formalization efforts, yet persistent inequality sustains higher densities compared to developed regions. Empirical analyses indicate that stronger governance quality, including effective rule of law and regulatory enforcement, correlates negatively with slum prevalence across countries, underscoring causal links between institutional capacity and urban informality reduction.

Policy Interventions and Outcomes

Historical Slum Clearance Efforts and Their Failures

In the United States, the urban renewal program established by Title I of the provided federal funding for cities to acquire, clear, and redevelop slum areas, targeting blighted neighborhoods in major urban centers. By the mid-1960s, this initiative had demolished over 400,000 substandard housing units, displacing more than 300,000 families, with over half comprising nonwhite households. Replacement housing construction lagged significantly behind demolitions, often prioritizing commercial or institutional developments like highways and civic arenas over affordable residential units, which relocated poverty to peripheral areas or overcrowded existing . Neighborhoods subjected to clearance experienced prolonged vacancies and adjacent property deterioration, exacerbating economic stagnation rather than revitalizing affected zones. In Europe, post-World War II slum clearance efforts followed analogous top-down models, as seen in the United Kingdom's comprehensive redevelopment drives during the 1950s and 1960s. Local authorities in cities such as Birmingham demolished tens of thousands of Victorian-era terraced dwellings classified as slums, rehousing residents in high-density peripheral estates under policies like the Housing Act of 1957. These relocations severed community ties and access to employment hubs, while new estates suffered from construction defects, inadequate amenities, and social fragmentation, leading to elevated isolation and maintenance failures that mirrored or worsened prior slum conditions. French initiatives in Paris during the same era, including Haussmann-inspired modernizations extended into mid-20th-century clearances, displaced thousands from inner-city bidonvilles but failed to integrate migrants into formal housing markets, perpetuating informal settlements on urban edges. India's slum clearance campaigns in the 1970s, intensified during the national from 1975 to 1977, exemplified similar displacement dynamics on a massive scale. In alone, over 700,000 slum dwellers were evicted and resettled to distant sites with minimal infrastructure, under directives prioritizing urban beautification and . Program assessments documented heightened and losses, as evictions disrupted proximity-based informal economies without viable relocation support, resulting in many returnees forming new unauthorized settlements. Across these cases, a recurring flaw involved undervaluing residents' investments in incremental housing improvements and social networks, treating slums as valueless voids rather than repositories of adaptive , which compounded post-clearance vulnerabilities.

Upgrading and Formalization Strategies

Slum upgrading strategies focus on incremental enhancements to existing settlements, including infrastructure provision, service connections, and legal formalization of tenure, rather than wholesale clearance. These approaches aim to improve habitability and incentivize resident investments without displacing populations. Formalization often involves granting property titles or occupancy rights, which can reduce eviction risks and enable collateral use. Evidence from quasi-experimental studies in Indian slums indicates that strengthening tenure security significantly raises residential investment rates, with titled households increasing renovations and structural improvements by factors of up to four times compared to untitled peers. In Peru, the urban land titling program, implemented from the 1990s onward, formalized tenure for over 1.2 million households in informal settlements, facilitating greater access to formal credit markets. Titled properties served as collateral, correlating with higher loan uptake and on-farm or housing investments, though effects varied by farm size and urban density. Program evaluations documented increased property transactions and values post-titling, enabling residents to leverage assets for economic activities, though credit gains were more pronounced for larger holdings. Infrastructure investments, such as transport links, have addressed geographic isolation in hilly or peripheral slums. In , , the Metrocable system, launched in , connected comunas in the northeastern hills to the urban core, reducing commute times and enhancing access to and services for low-income residents. Usage data and surveys post-implementation showed improved perceptions of security and job opportunities, with the Line H expansion linked to a 15 decline in prevalence. Water and sanitation upgrades within upgrading programs have yielded measurable health improvements. Systematic reviews of interventions, including piped water and provision, report reductions in diarrheal disease incidence by 20-30% in informal urban settings, though gains are modest without sustained maintenance. World Bank assessments of basic service enhancements in slums confirm correlations with lower child morbidity rates, attributing 15-25% of variance in health outcomes to improved access. Despite these benefits, upgrading efforts face structural constraints when isolated from broader economic dynamics. Without integration into formal land and labor markets, infrastructure and tenure gains can perpetuate dependency on public subsidies, as upgraded slums remain undervalued assets vulnerable to gentrification pressures or incomplete formalization. Evaluations highlight that countering market displacement requires addressing tenure precarity alongside service delivery, yet many programs overlook these tensions, limiting long-term transitions out of informality.

Market-Based and Private Sector Solutions

Market-based approaches to slum emphasize , demand-side subsidies that empower individual choice, and innovations that facilitate incremental improvements and economic integration. In , the (HDB) implemented a subsidized yet market-oriented system starting in the , which rapidly cleared urban slums and kampongs by providing affordable high-rise units with resale markets, achieving near-universal homeownership and eliminating squalid informal settlements through entrepreneurial land acquisition and construction efficiencies. Chile's housing policies in the 1980s under the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism (MINVU) shifted toward demand-side subsidies for self-build and incremental housing, allowing low-income households to progressively expand core units on serviced plots, contributing to a national slum prevalence drop to approximately 4% by the 2010s from higher prior levels. This contrasted with top-down relocations, as families preferred self-managed upgrades, with programs like Quinta Monroy demonstrating how half-built homes enable affordability and adaptation without full upfront costs. In India, proposals for rental market liberalization aim to counter rent control distortions that exacerbate vacancies and slum formation by discouraging private supply; reforming these laws could unlock formal rental housing, reducing reliance on informal settlements as evidenced by higher vacancy rates under current insecure property rights regimes. Private sector tools, such as , have enabled slum dwellers to finance home upgrades and sanitation improvements, with institutions extending loans for shelter enhancements in contexts like India's urban informal areas, where borrower households invest in durable materials and utilities to transition from precarious structures. innovations, including Kenya's system launched in 2007, have integrated informal slum economies—such as in Nairobi's —by facilitating remittances, trade, and savings without traditional banks, boosting household and supporting gradual investments amid the informal sector's dominance. Empirically, countries scoring above 6 on indices, such as and , exhibit 10-20% lower urban slum shares compared to peers with restrictive regulations, as freer markets incentivize private housing development and formalization over informal proliferation. These solutions prioritize enabling resident agency and enterprise over centralized mandates, yielding sustained reductions where regulatory barriers to private investment are minimized.

Debates and Alternative Perspectives

Slums as Stepping Stones vs. Poverty Traps

Scholars debate whether slums function as to or traps that entrench disadvantage. The argument posits that in slums enables rural migrants to access urban labor markets, accumulate savings, and invest in skills, facilitating eventual upward mobility. Historical precedents illustrate this dynamic: European immigrants, including Irish famine arrivals in New York s during the late , often escaped slum conditions through industrial jobs, achieving intergenerational occupational advancement at rates higher than previously assumed. Similarly, quantitative models of developing-world depict slums as temporary footholds for low-education households, where proximity to city jobs supports growth despite initial hurdles. In contrast, the poverty traps framework emphasizes mechanisms like human capital thresholds and investment inertia, whereby substandard living conditions and limited access to quality or networks hinder skill acquisition, locking residents into low-productivity cycles. Analyses of slums in the developing world document how these factors impede exploitation of urban opportunities, with poor initial endowments perpetuating low returns on effort. Urban economists, including , link such persistence to broader failures in human capital formation within dense, low-income areas. Empirical evidence from longitudinal slum surveys reveals mixed outcomes, with many households experiencing upward mobility—such as occupational or gains—yet facing high volatility and plateaus that prevent sustained escape. Individual agency emerges as pivotal, particularly through : meta-analyses across developing countries estimate private returns of approximately 10% per additional year of schooling, providing strong incentives to overcome via personal . Overall, data favor interpretations prioritizing market incentives and over deterministic structural barriers, as observed mobility correlates with proactive skill-building amid urban opportunities.

Critiques of International Aid and Narratives

Critics of international aid contend that it often induces and dependency among recipient governments and communities, discouraging domestic reforms and self-reliant efforts essential for sustainable slum reduction. Empirical analyses indicate that foreign can crowd out local investments; for instance, in sectors like , exogenous increases in aid resources have been observed to reduce complementary efforts by households and governments, as recipients anticipate continued external . This dynamic extends to urban development, where fungibility—governments reallocating funds away from intended to other priorities—undermines targeted interventions, with studies across developing countries showing aid offsetting up to 20-30% of domestic spending in social sectors. Dominant narratives surrounding slums have been faulted for overemphasizing victimhood and external historical factors, such as colonial legacies, while downplaying the agency, resilience, and policy choices of post-independence governments. In many cases, slum persistence correlates more strongly with domestic economic mismanagement—such as protectionist policies and state-led industrialization that stifled job creation—than with inherited structures; for example, India's pre-1991 "License Raj" regime expanded urban informal settlements through regulatory barriers, whereas subsequent spurred formal employment growth. Such narratives, often amplified by international organizations, risk portraying slum dwellers as passive beneficiaries rather than highlighting entrepreneurial adaptations, like informal economies in places such as Mumbai's , which generate significant local income despite infrastructural deficits. Evidence suggests that market-oriented reforms, particularly trade liberalization, have outperformed aid in diminishing slum prevalence in by fostering rapid economic expansion and labor absorption. In and , post-reform trade openness from the late 1970s and 1990s, respectively, correlated with accelerated and into formal housing, with urban poverty rates halving in between 1981 and 2004 amid export-led growth that outpaced aid inflows. These outcomes contrast with aid-reliant regions, where slower formal sector integration has perpetuated informal settlements, underscoring that enabling trade and private investment yields causal pathways to slum mitigation superior to dependency-inducing transfers.

Empirical Evidence on Development Transitions

South Korea provides a prominent case of successful slum transitions through land reforms and market-oriented growth. Following comprehensive agrarian reforms in the 1950s that redistributed land from absentee owners to tenant farmers, the government under Park Chung-hee pursued export-led industrialization from the 1960s onward, emphasizing manufacturing and labor-intensive exports. This strategy generated rapid GDP per capita growth—from $87 in 1960 to $1,679 by 1980 (in constant 2010 dollars)—enabling rural migrants to access formal urban jobs and housing markets. Slum redevelopment in Seoul during the mid-1960s shifted from state-led clearance to integrating market forces, reducing urban informal settlements as formal housing supply expanded with rising incomes; by the 1990s, widespread slum conditions had been largely eliminated. Longitudinal cross-country data corroborate that sustained , particularly when paired with secure rights, drives slum reductions more effectively than redistributive interventions alone. Analysis of urban poverty transitions shows slum population shares drop by over 50% in nations crossing a GDP threshold of approximately $5,000 (in 2012 dollars), as formal credit and become accessible, formalizing informal holdings into productive assets. rights formalization amplifies this: empirical studies in developing urban contexts demonstrate that titling slum properties increases in durable by 20-50%, reducing informality persistence compared to growth without legal security. In contrast, redistributive policies lacking growth foundations, such as Zimbabwe's fast-track land grabs, collapsed agricultural output by up to 60%, spurring rural-urban migration and inflating Harare's informal settlements, where over 30% of urban dwellers now reside in expanded slums amid economic contraction. These cases underscore causal mechanisms where export-driven growth and property enforcement enable self-sustaining formalization, outpacing slum formation, whereas disruptive redistribution without productivity gains entrenches urban informality. Peer-reviewed analyses of East Asian versus African transitions highlight that secure tenure and thresholds above low-income stagnation levels correlate with slum shares falling below 20%, independent of volumes or clearance campaigns.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.