[ad_1]
The study findings are from key informant interviews (18), in-depth interviews six, three community transects and two community meetings. The study participants were resident of three densely populated slum settlements of i. Jjuko, ii. Dobbi and iii. Gogonya enlisted through a consultative participatory process. Participants were eighteen (18) years of age or older, having stayed in the area for at least five years or more. The study slums were poor urban enclaves that presented low socio-economic indices ranging from unemployment and low incomes, water, sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), poor housing, lack of access ways, poor garbage collection and congestion. We present findings along four (4) themes; (Theme 1: Unsupportive environments, uncooperative neighbours and uncertainty of tenure; Theme 2: Patronage and poor service delivery; Theme 3: Intersecting realities of poverty and unemployment and Theme 4: Social relations for personal development).
Theme 1: unsupportive environments, uncooperative neighbours and uncertainty of tenure
Pervasive poverty, characterised by unplanned housing and poor sanitation were the norm in study areas. Findings indicate that a lack of space and incentives in the study slums sustained the poor living conditions. There was no incentive to do the right things and to do things right. In addition to poverty, there was indifference that was normalised, through the prevailing practices of unplanned living and a lack of regulation that were manifested in poor sanitation facilities and practices. Survival before dignity had been normalised as a form of culture (as patterned and repeated practices). Being a tenant was associated with no responsibility, since tenancy was seen as a transient phase. We found that tenants did not enlist long-term interests in slum areas. Property ownership was seen as the desired end. The pervasive informal and illegal practices such houses without proper sanitation, tax evasion through illegal and irregular transactions, encroaching on road reserves and public spaces including insecure tenure were seen to have negative impacts on living environments but remained unattended too. In the process, short term and personal improvement were in general, pursued as more rewarding as opposed to collective community concerns. Pursuit for short-term goals by both property owners (expanding non-regulated and uncompliant rentals) and tenants (paying as little as possible, while saving as much as possible for personal advancement) were a common reality. As a result, slum dwellers were less concerned about lasting sanitation improvements. What cut across was the slum social structure as defined by insecurity of tenure with no long-term interests in slums. Uncertainty about tenure was rationalised by the risks of displacement by both public and private actors. One resident asserted that:
‘We do not value living in a clean environment. Why should we be bothered when we are not sure when they will destroy this place either for road works or for the rich to take over. We even do not know the real owner of this place…here we live from day to day.’ FGD, Male resident- Jjuko zone.
‘I’m now stuck in this place and have nowhere to go! That is a reality now, I must save whatever I can to make sure I afford to stay in this place of no relatives. No one knows me here. Here your only relative is money…’ Female resident, Gogonya zone.
Tenants noted that, improvements in the sanitation status would mean increased rent and other costs and yet their incomes were not elastic. Therefore, if one needed a more sanitary and organised place, they would simply move to another place, than demanding for a better facility from the property owner. The demand for improvements in property aesthetics would be unwelcome by those that were not in a position to afford the extra cost, but also the owner since this would not attract commensurate increments in rental charges. There was consensus that places with better services and facilities are well known, but not affordable, hence, (initially) avoided. It was common for residents to move to better places when means permitted. Another practice was for landlords (current and prospective) to invest income elsewhere than investing in the upgrades and property improvements especially when tenure was insecure. There was mention of random demolitions and evictions that did not attract any compensation or rehousing. Slums also served as reserves of cheap labour where the lowly paid – low income urban poor found space in the city fabric, as these could otherwise not fit in mainstream (costly) urban life. Slums were therefore vital spaces and places in the urbanisation narrative of Uganda’s urban Darwinism. The survival imperative and the need to get by seemed to override other social and community considerations. There was a focus on personal concerns, and not slum community needs. Due to insecure tenure, slum dwellers had understood the slum investment ethos of minimal investment for better returns. By and large, the available self-help groups (social networks) did not consider collective action for a public good. As such, slum investments were extractive, unregulated and predatory to the slum environment.
Theme 2: patronage and poor service delivery
There were varying degrees of patronage that led to illegalities and violations of shared goods by both patrons and their clients. Due to vested interests and corruption among public officials, the population had become lethargic viewing slums as places to be borne with. The unregulated transactions in slums such as tax evasion and unplanned land tenure; low revenue collection, lack of enforcement and a generally apathetic population that did not demand for better services sustained poor living conditions.
Slums also served as vote banks where politicians and other elites ‘warehoused’ their voters in a complex game of political promises, political favors and dealing with their political enemies and threats. This clientelism and perverse incentives denigrated local development. Patronage in slums led to varying degrees of illegalities and planning violations, including non-compliance to public health rules and regulations. This was summed up in the following except;
‘All those big names and politicians have their ‘army’ of voters in this place. Indirectly, many people in the slum serve the interests of those in power. There are ‘brokers’ that ‘manage’ this complexity by managing the majority for the benefit of those that gain from this chaos…’ Policy analyst/ researcher.
In such a setting, it was reportedly not plausible to enforce public health regulations, with the very custodians of public order in these locations falling short of the very standards.
‘We stay in a poor area, but this area makes a lot of money for the owners. If they really wanted, they would improve this place… but they are not bothered. Why should we bother either? In town, you are on your own. If you are lucky and get a friend or relative to work with, that is enough…’ In-depth interview with long stay slum dweller, Ddobi zone.
‘Our leaders only care about themselves. When we first came here, we thought that you could share whatever was available to the community. We did not know that to defecate, you need money…. There is no service; nothing is free here. That is why we do our best to avoid paying any money. Otherwise, how do you survive? Where can you get such volumes of money? The more you stay here, the more you understand that it is up to you to survive. If you cannot, no one is bothered because we are all struggling! Female slum resident, Jjuko zone.
Slums were devoid of safe water supply, improved sanitation, sufficient living area, durable tenure, public service aesthetics and established property rights. By and large, slum social structures have evolved as survival spaces where residents do not perceive themselves as part of the urban polity and the solution to improving slums; but improving themselves. This improvement was through eking out a living through all manner of income sources, including all round endurance and illegalities. Even in conditions of squalor and poverty, slum dwellers were aware that public interest provisions had ceased to be effective and served private gain for the urban elite. While the city had service delivery challenges, slums therein were exceptionally deprived of social services. This had served as a pointer for slum dwellers that there were no standards to be upheld and demanded. Life in the slums was to whom it may concern.
Theme 3: intersecting realities of poverty and unemployment
Incomes in slums were low amidst limited employment opportunities. Study participants noted that most times they live from day to day without much left in terms of savings. In this case, daily income was critical. Because of this scarcity occasioned by a small capital base and trading options such as the selling of charcoal, alcohol brewing and food items on a small scale by hawking could not enable break out of poverty. In the process, slum dwellers were not bothered about bad slum sanitation and aesthetics because this was what they could afford. What was regarded as important was to meet the basic survival needs such as food and shelter. One participant asserted that;
‘You cannot have much expectations regarding good standards when you are poor! For us the poor, we work with what is left over’ Resident-Ddobi zone.
Life in the study slums was reported to be unpredictable especially that the livelihood sources were insecure. There was a great likelihood of experiencing physical harm for children, girls and single women especially at night when they started transacting in the small trades in open air roadside markets. Even when such risk was well known, there was no alternative to taking on such risks. The risks were associated with dark unlit spaces and a lack of sanitation facilities as well as open trenches that were not addressed by local authorities. Due to the pervasive poverty, and the needed resilience, many bad situations were ignored in an effort to find space in the city. Most property owners in the studied slums were absentee landlords; therefore, they were not directly affected by the negative realities of living in slums. This disconnect further drove slum exploitation and extractive frameworks including cheap labor, poor standards in housing, water and sanitation. Slum dwellers had understood their place as being on their own without meaningful support from social structures that deliver public goods, social security or employment. The available social networks (economic, financial and geo-ethnic) were not concerned about the development of slums, but meeting the practical needs of income and asset acquisition; the here and now. This pursuit for survival among slum dwellers rendered common goods irrelevant. This was a manifestation of urban decay where those that break out of poverty as well as those with the means to improve slum conditions, do not tend to do so. Slum exploitation was seen as a means to succeed elsewhere. The challenge is how to stop this cycle. Poverty and the difficulties experienced in trying to meet basic needs had relegated dignity.
Theme 4: social relations for personal development
The few available social networks in slums that we encountered through this study had specific targets and objectives. These target-based networks and associations focused on specific, usually income objectives for members and not the wider community. We found that these networks would not survive if their economic rationale did not exist. It is this economic rationale that was the motivation to start and join such associations and groups. Other ventures and initiatives that did not have a direct economic or capital benefit were not attractive to slum residents. Usually, slum dwellers prioritized making connections with people in common trade and interests or those that could support them to achieve the next economic status. Such relations were not usually with and not necessarily among neighbours, but rather with those carefully selected individuals for mutual benefit. Such individuals usually came together, not to discuss area progress and community development matters such as sanitation or other shared and collective services but met in savings and credit groups commonly known as Nigiina. These relations and strategies encouraged predation of shared resources with no regard for the future. There were reports of the few shared spaces having been converted to private use. This partly, in addition to the lack of planning, explains the overcrowding and haphazard structures.
Tenants argued that improved sanitation only benefitted the property owner in form of increased rental charges, and thus, as tenants, there was no incentive or motivation to support or invest in improved sanitation. The social networks and behavior types were those deemed critical for survival, while other aspects of life, like improved sanitation access, remained unattended. In order to cope with urban life that was cash driven, slum dwellers engaged in activities that initially tended to underlie survival (physiological needs, such as food and shelter). Sanitation and shared (public) services were neither an area of recurrent expenditure nor a focus of future planned expenses. In-depth discussions indicated that income earning ventures and improved sanitation (private or shared) were not aligned as shown in the voices below.
“Under normal circumstances, people who stay and work together interact and relate very well. However, such happens in villages [and not in slum areas]. Here in slums, people mind their own business. And if they meet for business, they do not transfer the same cooperation to cleaning shared latrines”. Local leader, Gogonya Zone.
“Having common interest beyond income and survival groups can only work among landlords; but with tenants, it is not possible. People know that anytime they would be shifting to a different place to look for more opportunities….” Local Council Official, Jjuko zone.
For a slum dweller, seeking the most affordable housing to escape the sun and the rain was the most important thing over and above the availability or status of sanitation. In most cases, the urban poor were at least able to escape the sun. In general, slums served as places of survival and not welfare.
Participants emphasized ‘minding one’s’ businesses and ‘playing it safe’ with neighbours. They argued that it was irrational, uneconomical and unsustainable to police fellow tenants around and yet everyone was struggling. This indifference did not encourage shared and public goods to flourish. The voices from FGDs illustrate this point.
“The house is not mine, and I may leave this place anytime. Why should I be bothered? Everyone has enough troubles. What should bother me is what to eat and not where to defecate or where my neighbor defecated; properly or not.” Female FGD participant, Jjuko Zone.
“Here, everyone works as an individual.’ Punishing people is not easy. Even then, such people do not get ashamed. Even if you identified them, they are likely to remain the same. Because of this, proper sanitation has remained elusive.” Female tenant, Jjuko Zone.
In the absence of the-would-be normative social structures and local systems of social control, growth and development is unlikely. Socially disjointed neighborhoods with neither community sentiment nor altruism provide scant support for structures of shared living, unless the support is provided by the market or welfare state. In this sense, slum neighborhoods were not viewed by residents as communities, but were viewed as mere places of residence with ‘limited liability’. While the notion of community focuses on the existence of commitment, skills, resources, and problem-solving abilities among others, this was not the case in our study setting. This understanding also underlies community capacity as being directly and indirectly influenced by the social structure and other contextual factors. We found that neighbourliness in slums was not based on social ties, but more so on resource and market systems. It was money that bridged the gaps left by the absence of functional commons (shared goods for collective gain). Slum social networks were selective, transactional in nature and focused on individual progress rather than collective progress. There was evidence that slum dwellers were members of social networks as a functional response to mitigating the harsh urban demands and not to improve the place of residence.
[ad_2]
Source link