Informality as a concept has been widely studied in various contexts across the world. Since its emergence, informal practices have been perceived as an antithesis to the idea of formal planning. The complex layers of society, culture, economy, and geography that wrap informality have forced scholars to analyze them for what they are not (i.e., formal) instead of what they actually represent. Owing to this binary, informality was closely associated with practices of the urban poor and the formal planning apparatus of the state has consistently made efforts to sanitize cities of such practices. On the other hand, urbanization in much of the developing world indicates that cities cannot efficiently function without such practices. Thus informality, in its simplistic understandings, is believed to exist within urban geographies of the marginalized population, and the state is commonly believed to be constantly in an effort to formalize it. This thesis is an attempt to question this attitude towards informality while also being an effort to expand geographies of informality into the realm of everyday urban practice. Using the case of Ahmedabad, India, the thesis argues that in rapidly urbanizing societies, all classes of the population, including the state, are operators of such informal navigations in everyday life. Qualitative field research was done in Ahmedabad where the city was studied from a macro to micro scale, supported by secondary research. Eight diverse scenarios within Ahmedabad were selected which represent the diversity of actors and spatial geographies. Using these cases, the thesis argues that informality is not a tool for the ‘marginalized’, but a ‘practice’ of navigating ‘everyday urban life’. A practice-oriented framework not only allows the decentering of the state from the study of informality, but it also depicts the state as a set of multiple fields (Narayanan, 2019). Thus, the state is no longer an arbitrator of the formal-informal dichotomy, but one of the many actors that employ informal means to ‘get things done’. The eight case studies also reflect how the rising middle class in India, which has largely been absent from the studies of informality, is both a consumer and producer of informal practices. When such a wide spectrum of society and the state practice what is considered as ‘informal’, who defines what is formal and what is informal? Informality is then seen through a dynamic institutional kaleidoscope of overlapping jurisdictions, a product of the complex relationship between society and the state. Thus, the concept of ‘institutional complexity’ vs ‘social complexity’ is used to draw parallels between the selected cases, and to identify converging and diverging patterns among them. The thesis is an effort to open the discussion around informality and question the need for such binaries. The case studies represent the breadth of informal everyday practices in an Indian city. How do our understandings of what is informal change, when every other act of navigating urban life can be deemed as ‘not formal’? Do we need a unified, static theory of informality or can the understandings of formal vs informal be local and dynamic? If the present planning mechanisms of ‘formalization’ have produced identical and unequal cities across the world, can ‘located’ practices of informality represent a context-driven, heterogeneous way of making cities?
Il concetto di informalità è stato ampiamente studiato in vari contesti in tutto il mondo. Fin dalla loro comparsa, le pratiche informali sono state percepite come un’antitesi all’idea di pianificazione formale. I complessi strati di società, cultura, economia e geografia che avvolgono l’informalità hanno costretto gli studiosi ad analizzarli per ciò che non sono (cioè formali) invece che per ciò che effettivamente rappresentano. A causa di questo binario, l’informalità è stata strettamente associata alle pratiche dei poveri urbani e l’apparato di pianificazione formale dello Stato ha costantemente compiuto sforzi per ripulire le città da tali pratiche. D’altro canto, l’urbanizzazione in gran parte dei paesi in via di sviluppo indica che le città non possono funzionare in modo efficiente senza tali pratiche. Pertanto si ritiene che l’informalità, nella sua accezione semplicistica, esista all’interno delle geografie urbane della popolazione emarginata, e si ritiene comunemente che lo Stato sia costantemente nel tentativo di formalizzarla. Questa tesi è un tentativo di mettere in discussione questo atteggiamento nei confronti dell’informalità e allo stesso tempo è uno sforzo per espandere le geografie dell’informalità nel regno della pratica urbana quotidiana. Utilizzando il caso di Ahmedabad, in India, la tesi sostiene che nelle società in rapida urbanizzazione, tutte le classi della popolazione, compreso lo stato, sono operatori di tali spostamenti informali nella vita di tutti i giorni. La ricerca qualitativa sul campo è stata condotta ad Ahmedabad, dove la città è stata studiata dalla scala macro alla micro, supportata dalla ricerca secondaria. Sono stati selezionati otto diversi scenari all’interno di Ahmedabad che rappresentano la diversità degli attori e delle geografie spaziali. Utilizzando questi casi, la tesi sostiene che l’informalità non è uno strumento per gli “emarginati”, ma una “pratica” di navigazione nella “vita urbana quotidiana”. Un quadro orientato alla pratica non solo consente il decentramento dello Stato dallo studio dell’informalità, ma descrive anche lo Stato come un insieme di molteplici campi (Narayanan, 2019). Pertanto, lo Stato non è più un arbitro della dicotomia formale-informale, ma uno dei tanti attori che impiegano mezzi informali per “fare le cose”. Gli otto casi di studio riflettono anche come la classe media emergente in India, che è stata in gran parte assente dagli studi sull’informalità, sia sia consumatrice che produttrice di pratiche informali. Quando uno spettro così ampio di società e stato pratica ciò che è considerato “informale”, chi definisce cosa è formale e cosa è informale? L’informalità viene quindi vista attraverso un caleidoscopio istituzionale dinamico di giurisdizioni sovrapposte, un prodotto della complessa relazione tra società e Stato. Pertanto, il concetto di “complessità istituzionale” vs “complessità sociale” viene utilizzato per tracciare parallelismi tra i casi selezionati e per identificare modelli convergenti e divergenti tra di essi. La tesi è uno sforzo per aprire la discussione sull’informalità e mettere in discussione la necessità di tali binari. I casi di studio rappresentano l’ampiezza delle pratiche quotidiane informali in una città indiana. Come cambia la nostra comprensione di ciò che è informale, quando ogni altro atto di navigazione nella vita urbana può essere considerato “non formale”? Abbiamo bisogno di una teoria unificata e statica dell’informalità o la comprensione di formale e informale può essere locale e dinamica? Se gli attuali meccanismi di pianificazione della “formalizzazione” hanno prodotto città identiche e disuguali in tutto il mondo, le pratiche “localizzate” di informalità possono rappresentare un modo eterogeneo e guidato dal contesto di costruire città?
Beyond the Margins: Exploring Urban Informality in State Apparatus & Middle Class Realities of Ahmedabad, India
Wadhwani, Bhavesh Parshotam
2023/2024
Abstract
Informality as a concept has been widely studied in various contexts across the world. Since its emergence, informal practices have been perceived as an antithesis to the idea of formal planning. The complex layers of society, culture, economy, and geography that wrap informality have forced scholars to analyze them for what they are not (i.e., formal) instead of what they actually represent. Owing to this binary, informality was closely associated with practices of the urban poor and the formal planning apparatus of the state has consistently made efforts to sanitize cities of such practices. On the other hand, urbanization in much of the developing world indicates that cities cannot efficiently function without such practices. Thus informality, in its simplistic understandings, is believed to exist within urban geographies of the marginalized population, and the state is commonly believed to be constantly in an effort to formalize it. This thesis is an attempt to question this attitude towards informality while also being an effort to expand geographies of informality into the realm of everyday urban practice. Using the case of Ahmedabad, India, the thesis argues that in rapidly urbanizing societies, all classes of the population, including the state, are operators of such informal navigations in everyday life. Qualitative field research was done in Ahmedabad where the city was studied from a macro to micro scale, supported by secondary research. Eight diverse scenarios within Ahmedabad were selected which represent the diversity of actors and spatial geographies. Using these cases, the thesis argues that informality is not a tool for the ‘marginalized’, but a ‘practice’ of navigating ‘everyday urban life’. A practice-oriented framework not only allows the decentering of the state from the study of informality, but it also depicts the state as a set of multiple fields (Narayanan, 2019). Thus, the state is no longer an arbitrator of the formal-informal dichotomy, but one of the many actors that employ informal means to ‘get things done’. The eight case studies also reflect how the rising middle class in India, which has largely been absent from the studies of informality, is both a consumer and producer of informal practices. When such a wide spectrum of society and the state practice what is considered as ‘informal’, who defines what is formal and what is informal? Informality is then seen through a dynamic institutional kaleidoscope of overlapping jurisdictions, a product of the complex relationship between society and the state. Thus, the concept of ‘institutional complexity’ vs ‘social complexity’ is used to draw parallels between the selected cases, and to identify converging and diverging patterns among them. The thesis is an effort to open the discussion around informality and question the need for such binaries. The case studies represent the breadth of informal everyday practices in an Indian city. How do our understandings of what is informal change, when every other act of navigating urban life can be deemed as ‘not formal’? Do we need a unified, static theory of informality or can the understandings of formal vs informal be local and dynamic? If the present planning mechanisms of ‘formalization’ have produced identical and unequal cities across the world, can ‘located’ practices of informality represent a context-driven, heterogeneous way of making cities?| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Wadhwani_Bhavesh_Final_Spread.pdf
non accessibile
Dimensione
82.79 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
82.79 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/214784