Urbanization and slum formation

Transcription

1 Knowledge Network on Urban Settings Thematic Paper 13 WHO Centre for Health Development 2008 Urbanization and slum formation Giok Ling Ooi 1 and Kai Hong Phua 2 1 National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2 National University of Singapore DISCLAIMER: This work was made possible through funding provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) and undertaken as work for the Knowledge Network for Urban Settings established as part of the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. The views presented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the decision, policy or views of WHO or the Commissioners. If you wish to cite from this document please request the latest version from the author(s).

2 Understanding urbanization, urban change and growth in the developing world The literature on urbanization in developing countries highlights the differences among countries in their definition of urban centres. Hence, the calibration or measurement of the level of urbanization, as well as the rate of urban growth, also differ. Similarly, while there is consensus that cities are not the same thing as urban centres, there is no internationally accepted definition of a city. Indeed, there is little consensus about the definition of urban. Therefore, an understanding of the level of urbanization or its scale in developing countries is challenged not only by such definitional differences but also by the lack of reliable data. Developing countries generally do not have reliable or updated data on population distribution because many do not conduct regular censuses. Add to this the plethora of terms that have emerged to describe the burgeoning urban areas in developing countries in Asia and Latin America mega-urban regions, metropolitan areas, extended metropolitan areas, metropolises and mega-cities and one begins to get a sense of the complexities related to the understanding of urbanization in these areas. Further complicating matters concerning urbanization in developing countries is the weak development or virtual absence of local governments. There is, thus, a problem with regard to the representation of the local needs of urban neighbourhoods and, it can be assumed, of the needs of poor areas such as squatter and slum settlements, which often have no legal claims on urban governments. Where local governments are in place, they often lack the financial as well as expert capacity to carry out the work needed to address urban problems. Similar constraints are faced by numerous non-governmental organizations that work at the local scale among poor neighbourhoods in cities. There is, nonetheless, the risk of considering the process of urbanization as homogeneous across regions and swathes of territory that are wholly different from each other in terms of their economy and political structures. The Institute for International Environment and Development (IIED) has pointed out in publications like that by Hardoy and Sattherthwaite (1995), that two parallel urban histories can be experienced in the same city. One is the history documented in official records, which concerns the efforts of city government and private sector builders and developers to provide homes and infrastructure, such as phone lines and paved roads. The other history is that shared by many anonymous citizens struggling for their means of survival in the city, including shelter, jobs, transportation to work, and food for themselves and their families. This is a history which is too often unrecorded and fragmented, but to many researchers of urbanization in developing countries this is the real history of the city. In the report on urbanization and the formation of slum settlements that follows, the complex process of urbanization in developing countries sets the context for the discussion of the ways in which slums and squatter settlements have formed. An effort has been made to provide reliable and updated data, but success has been fraught with difficulties involving the comparability of data among cities, as well as accurate representation of the diversity of situations faced by squatter and slum developments, particularly in terms of the characteristics of these settlements and their situations. Nevertheless, the starting point for the discussion that follows in this report is the assertion that the failure of government in urban areas has led to the formation of slums and squatter settlements. 2

3 Cities have become centres where vast numbers of people compete for the most basic elements of life: for a room within reach of employment with an affordable rent, or vacant land on which a shelter can be erected without fear of eviction; for places in schools; for medical treatment for health problems or injuries, or a bed in hospital; for access to clean drinking water; for a place on a bus or train; for a corner on a pavement or square to sell some goods quite apart from the enormous competition for jobs. In the majority of cases, governments have the power and resources to increase the supply and reduce the cost of many of these. (Hardoy and Satterthwaite, 1995) The formation of slums and squatter settlements is not inevitable. This is evident in the varying proportions of the population living in such types of settlements in cities in the developing world. Urbanization in developing countries has been attributed less to natural increase in the urban population and more to the migration of people from rural areas, although it is widely recognized that the rural-urban divide does not exist any longer, given the economic reach of urban centres. People who reside in so-called rural areas can be working in cities, while many extended urban areas cover village settlements in their territorial reach and influence. Urbanization and economic development in the developing world Population distribution trends in the developing world indicate the rising proportion of people who are now living in urban areas (Figure 1). Rural population, in contrast, has been declining, and at more rapid rates than the population increase in urban areas. Figure 1 Trends in Urbanization, by Region Urban Population Percent World Africa Asia Latin America and the Caribbean More Developed Regions Source: United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision (medium scenario), Population Reference Bureau 3

4 While the urban population in the world is rising generally, Asia ranks among the regions seeing the most rapid and dramatic growth rates in the history of urbanization, particularly in terms of population size (see Table 1) (Population Reference Bureau, 2004). It is estimated that more than 60% of the increase in the world s urban population during the next three decades will be in Asia, mostly in China and India but also in Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Viet Nam. Among the 23 cities with populations of more than 10 million people, many are in the developing world, and nine are in Asia alone. Population projections show that, worldwide, there will be some 300 cities with more than a million people each, and many of these are going to be in Asia and the developing world. Table 1 Urban and rural population growth rates, Asian regions, Urban Population (%) Projected average annual rate of change (%) Urban Rural Asia Eastern Asia South-central Asia South-eastern Asia Western Asia World total Source: United Nations, The outcome of such rapid urbanization in the developing world has not been entirely positive. While urbanization defined in terms of population growth in urban areas has been driven by economic development, as well as opportunities for employment and better standards of living in cities, the explosive growth in urban poverty is expected to mirror the increase in the population moving to cities in the developing world. This poverty will be reflected in the poor quality of housing, urban infrastructural support and social and reproductive health services. Table 2 shows the estimated populations of some of the world's largest cities. Table 2 Population of some of the world s largest cities, 2008 City Population Country Bangkok Thailand Beijing China Dhaka Bangladesh Istanbul Turkey Jakarta Indonesia Karachi Pakistan Lahore Pakistan Manila Philippines Mumbai India New Delhi India Seoul Republic of Korea Shanghai China Tehran Iran Tokyo Japan Source: World Gazetteer,

5 A close relationship between national incomes and the level of urbanization has been observed. The more developed countries generally have higher levels of urbanization (see Table 3). Table 3 Urbanization and national gross domestic product, selected countries National gross domestic product per capita, 1990 (US$) Urban population, 2000 (%) Japan Democratic People's Republic of Korea China Singapore Thailand Philippines Indonesia Sources: Prud homme, 1996; United Nations, Urban areas, including those located in developing countries, tend to enjoy higher incomes than the rest of the population. The gross domestic product per capita for most cities in developing countries in Asia is double and even triple that of national incomes (Table 4). These higher incomes in cities have been the magnet drawing rural migrants, who have contributed increasingly to the population boom in urban areas. Such trends appear to be likely to grow. Studies show that past efforts to slow down or re-direct migration from the largest cities to the smaller urban areas has generally failed. Indeed, such efforts have only led to the further expansion of the largest cities in the developing world (Laquian, 2005). Table 4 Urban versus national gross domestic product, selected Asian cities City National GDP a per capita (US$) City GDP per capita (US$) City GDP per capita/national GDP per capita City GDP (US$ billions) Tokyo Osaka Seoul Bangkok Shanghai Manila Jakarta Calcutta a Gross domestic product Source: Prud homme, Developing countries with lower incomes, such as the Philippines, appear to be facing a more rapid rate of urbanization, mainly because of the push from the rural areas, where drought and low farm productivity are driving migrants to urban areas. Filipino cities are among the world s fastest growing urban areas, and the Philippines is among the world s most rapidly urbanizing countries. The concentration of economic development in a few urban areas, particularly in the Manila metropolitan area, or capital city region, basically exacerbates the volume of migration of rural populations in search of better economic opportunities. Such 5

6 rapid population growth in cities in very short periods of time can severely test the coping capacity of city governments. One of the most visible and perhaps negative outcomes of the rapid urbanization seen in developing countries has been the development of squatter and slum settlements. Many of these settlements are growing almost as rapidly as the urban population growth rates, although there are slum and squatter areas that have been in existence for decades. In Brazil, for example, a number of favelas are long-established areas, often with their own forms of local government. Long regarded as the bane of cities in developing countries, slum dwellings have nonetheless proliferated, particularly in the largest cities, which see large numbers of internal migrants seeking jobs and better lives for themselves and their families. The literature on international development has highlighted the urgency of addressing the relationship between economic development, urban growth and housing, neglected on government agendas. This report focuses on this relationship. The aim of the discussion that follows is to explain how this neglect of this association has resulted in the formation of slums in rapidly urbanizing countries. Slum formation with rapid urbanization Worldwide, estimates are that one billion people are living in either slum or squatter settlements, and this includes one third of the world s urban population (UNDP, 2005). In south Asia, slum and squatter settlement populations constitute 58% of the total urban population, compared to 36.4% in east Asia, and 28% in south-east Asia (UNFPA, 2004). In addition, areas in developing countries with high concentrations of slums and slum dwellers are the fastest-growing urban areas. Cities such as Dhaka, Kolkata, Karachi and Mumbai are, realistically speaking, metropolitan or urban regions. Others, such as the greater metropolitan area of Manila, or Chinese cities such as Shanghai, are also really mega-urban regions. Such rapid urban population growth has outpaced the ability of city authorities to provide for housing and environmental and health infrastructure. Table 5 Percent urban population living in informal settlements, selected countries, 1980s Country Urban population in informal settlements (%) Indonesia 54 Bangladesh 47 India 36 Philippines 28 Sri Lanka 21 Solomon Islands 18 Thailand 16 Malaysia 15 Republic of Korea 1 Source: ESCAP, Squatter and slum settlements have formed in cities of developing countries mainly because of the inability of city governments and the private housing sector to provide adequately for 6

7 the low-income segments of the urban population. Hence, squatter and slum housing are providing housing solutions for the poor and for low-wage workers in cities, as shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Table 6 Population living in slums, by level of development Population (millions) Total urban population (millions) Urban population as per cent of total Urban slum (%) Urban population living in slums (millions) World Developed regions Developing regions Least developed countries (LDCs) Sources: UN Population Division, 2002, Table A1; Slum estimates based on DHS, ; MCS, ; WHO/UNICEF JMP, Table 7 Estimated population living in slums, 2001 Total urban population (millions) Urban population (% of total population) Urban slum population (millions) Population living in slums (% of total urban population) World Developed regions Europe Other Developing regions Northern Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America and the Caribbean Eastern Asia Eastern Asia excluding China South-central Asia South-eastern Asia Western Asia Oceania Transition countries Commonwealth of Independent States Other, Europe Least Developed Countries (LDCs) Sources: UN-HABITAT, 2003; UN Population Division, 2002, Table A1; Slum estimates from DHS, ; MCS, Countries in much of the developing world, and especially the more dynamic regions such as Asia, have experienced strong economic growth because of the state sector s drive to attract 7

8 global investment. In the Asian region, national governments have played significant roles in providing incentives to foreign investors. These incentives comprise infrastructure, such as telecommunications, factory sites, ports and airports, as well as tax packages, among others. Much of the activity calculated to attract foreign direct investment has been concentrated in cities, which in turn has led to booming economies. The largest cities have often attracted the greatest inflow of migrants in search of employment and better incomes. These migrating numbers have challenged responsive urban governance. Generally, low salaries and high housing costs in cities are the immediate problems facing populations migrating into a given city. Neglect of the need to link the economic development planned by national and city governments with urban growth and housing means, basically, that there is a growing gap between housing provision and demand. City governments and populations are caught in an upwardly moving spiral of housing needs and escalating costs that basically excludes lowerwage urban dwellers from adequate housing provision. The lack of affordable housing is exacerbated by the private sector comprising real estate developers, who are more interested in providing for the middle- and high-income sector of the housing market. More often than not these developers are competing for the scarce supply of land in highly accessible parts of the city. The cost of land inevitably rises in the central areas of a city, as well as along its major roads. Without an agenda set by national and local governments to address housing provision for their rapidly urbanizing populations, slum and squatter settlements will persist, and will continue to form in cities. National as well as city governments have in the past generally adopted the position that economic development will take care of basic needs, such as housing provided with modern sanitation and potable water supply. The focus has therefore been on development of infrastructure to promote economic growth, often at the expense of social policy to provide for such a basic need as adequate and affordable housing. Experience, however, has shown that without an agenda to provide for housing for the rapidly growing urban population, which arises from the concentration of economic activity in cities, there is little likelihood of housing issues among the urban poor ever resolving themselves. This implies the persistence of slum settlements and, in many cases, their proliferation. Implications of rampant urbanization The sheer scale of urbanization in Asia, involving huge population in-flows, poses the greatest challenge to city governments. Being among the most populous nations in the world, Asian countries have large populations which contribute huge numbers to the population shifting from rural to urban areas. This is the specific nature of urbanization in Asia. Not surprisingly, the Asian region has the largest proportion of population living in slums. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) estimates that in 2001 Asia had 554 million slum dwellers, or 60% of the world's total; Africa had 187 million slum dwellers (20% of the world's total), while Latin America and the Caribbean had 128 million slum dwellers (14% of the world's total). Rapid urbanization requires that economic development be closely linked to provision of infrastructure and social policy initiatives for cities to support their populations adequately in terms of health and housing. Cities that are being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the population they face are those with lower incomes as well as inadequate infrastructure and social policies. Urbanization becomes rampant because city governments do not appear to be 8

9 able to manage population increase, or even plan adequately for the volume projected in terms of development of the infrastructure needed. For the scale and speed of urbanisation that has been taking place in developing countries of Asia, most municipal governments are unequipped physically, fiscally, politically and administratively to tackle the problems of providing the basic infrastructure services to their people. In a situation of scarce resource allocation, the urban poor are frequently badly placed to compete for essential services. Biases in investment standards, pricing policy and administrative procedures more often than not skew services in favour of the rich, denying the poor shelter, safe water, acceptable sanitation, minimal nutrition and basic education. (Yeung, 1991) In Ho Chi Minh City in Viet Nam, neither the government nor private developers are able to provide the housing needed for the migrants who move to the city per year, nor for the additional young urban households formed annually that enter the real estate market (Marr, 2005). The result has been growth in squatter and slum settlements, which now comprise 15% of all housing in the city. Such crowded and poor housing conditions are associated with lack of sanitation and also air pollution (World Bank, 2004). In low-income cities, such as Dhaka, only one quarter of the population in the city is connected to the piped sewerage system, with only two in three of all households served with potable water (McGee, 2001). The outcome has been one of the highest rates of death from infectious diseases among Asian cities. In smaller cities in the higher-income Asian countries, such as Georgetown in Malaysia, reports on housing argue that private sector developers are more interested in building homes for the middle-income market. Affordable homes for those with low incomes are hardly on the agenda. Low-income cities in south Asia and Africa are more vulnerable to environmental disasters such as floods, and, hence, to disease, because of their fragile environmental infrastructure. Such vulnerability further threatens the health and employability of the urban population, particularly its poorest segments. The City Development Index (CDI), illustrated in Table 8, was a weighted index based on Global Urban Indicators developed by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) for Habitat II, in order to rank cities in terms of their level of development. The CDI was computed based on five sub-indices, measuring: city production, infrastructure, waste, health and education. For infrastructure, the aspects considered were water connections, sewerage, electricity and telephone. The health aspects considered were life expectancy and child mortality. In education, the dimensions that were assessed were literacy and combined enrolment. For waste, the indicators were wastewater treated and formal solid waste disposal. Finally, city product was based on either mean household income or the urban gross domestic product. The CDI ranges from 0 to 100, with cities with scores nearer to 100 being better off than those whose sores are closer to 0. While there are many critiques of the relevance and utility of an index, the aim of incorporating their results in this discussion is to highlight the disparities among Asian cities. In areas such as waste management, application of the standards for provision of wastewater treatment and solid waste management shows that Phnom Penh and Vientiane are at the bottom of the list compared to Singapore, Seoul and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). What the index does not show are details such as the organization of 9

10 environmental and public health services through housing development programmes in the cities at the top of the index. Table 8 Habitat II City Development Index, selected Asian cities City CDI a City Product Infrastructure Waste Health Education Singapore Hong Kong SAR Seoul Hanoi Jakarta Ulaanbaatar Vientiane Phnom Penh a City Development Index Source: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, Index formulations like the CDI described above provide useful perspectives on the outcomes of policy intervention or development programmes that have been in place in cities. These indices, however, provide little understanding of the processes and structures or institutional relations in the cities under study, which might be linked to or responsible for the outcomes reflected. Neither does the index highlight relationships among the indicators. So while they provide a useful start in the work to be done on understanding the effect of cities and their development in human and environmental terms, there is an urgent need to provide an understanding of where cities stand in the development of adequate housing and associated infrastructural provision. In particular, it is important to understand the effect on housing provision that can be directly linked to governance, public policy and the management of the rapid changes brought about by urbanization and economic growth. The slum/squatter housing implosion Debates about the constraints on solving housing problems have focused on the legality of land tenure for the households in such settlements in cities. Since many of these settlements do not have legal status or claim to the land upon which they have been built, they do not exist officially. This means that there is no obligation or responsibility on the part of city governments to provide infrastructure to such settlements. Indeed, in most cities the residents in these settlements do not have official addresses, and hence are not eligible to vote for candidates representing the area where the squatters or slum dwellers are living. Slum and squatter households are therefore located where there is often little prospect of being connected to modern sanitation and sewerage facilities or potable water supply. Services such as waste removal services are usually unheard of, and there is little likelihood of provision of even the most basic health services in these types of urban settlements. Many squatters are living close to or on landfill sites because they scavenge recyclable waste for a living. Many of these slum and squatter settlements are located in poor and highly vulnerable locations. They are distributed along river banks, railway tracks, on hillsides and even in landfill and dump sites at the edges of cities. A number of long-standing settlements are located in cities near central areas, mostly because they have been incorporated into the expanding boundaries of rapidly growing urban areas. In many cities, such as in the greater 10

11 metropolitan area of Manila in the Philippines, as well as in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, rapid development of new real estate comprising condominiums and shopping malls has led to gridlocked traffic conditions, severe environmental conditions (air, noise and river pollution), unstable squatter tenements sandwiched between prime commercial complexes and high class condominiums, loss of heritage edifices and neglect of human development (Lee, 2006). Many of the settlements are likely to be located on state land or on marginal sites. Locating in these sites can help the squatters and slum dwellers avoid harassment by the authorities or by private land owners. The marginal sites occupied by squatter and slum settlements are often highly vulnerable to floods as well as landslides. The visibility of slum and squatter settlements in cities is exacerbated by the development problems they present because of the lack of provision of adequate housing, environmental infrastructure, health care and other basic needs. Such lack of provision usually means further degradation of environmental conditions as settlements grow. Lack of management of wastewater and solid waste results in the dumping of this waste in waterways, along which many slum and squatter settlements are located. This is seen in the metropolitan area surrounding Manila and in numerous other cities, such as Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Crowding and congestion are attendant problems in squatter and slum settlements, particularly when there are constraints on expansion either because abutting land has already been taken or because eviction processes are ongoing. This means that existing space, which is already limited to begin with, may be further subdivided when people move in. There is a growing sense of urgency with regard to urban housing, mainly because available urban land in the most accessible locations fetches a premium price. There is therefore a shrinking supply of vacant land in such locations for the development of squatter or slum settlements, with, as a result, increasing pressure on those parcels of land that remain. It is therefore not surprising that rural migrants to cities are settling in peri-urban areas. These are now the fastest growing parts of large cities. Peri-urban areas the new challenge Many of the larger cities and mega-urban regions in developing countries are surrounded by dense and generally impoverished shanty towns, as well as numerous other forms of so-called informal and/or irregular housing, characterised by inadequate infrastructure and service provision, and lack of security of shelter and land tenure (McGregor, Simon and Thompson, 2005). These settlements have been spreading into formerly rural or farm land and other periurban areas. In these peri-urban zones or areas of rural-urban interface, the delegation of administrative responsibilities among urban and rural governments, or provincial and national levels of governance, is usually far from clear (Sutandyo-Buchholz, 2006). These are zones of complex overlaps and gaps that pose formidable challenges to planners, governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and residents with regard to security of tenure issues, the upgrading required for settlements, service provision, integration with urban areas, and other associated governance issues. Peri-urban development has been promoted by both state and private sectors. Thus, in the peri-urban zone one finds industry and middle-income housing, gated communities and other edge city projects, i.e. projects in the fringe areas outside of city boundaries. Such development, with associated infrastructure, such as roads to connect it to urban areas, is prompted by the availability of land that is usually less expensive, as well as the attraction of avoiding the congestion of urban areas. It is not surprising, therefore, that the rate of peri- 11

12 urban population growth can be faster than that of urban areas. Peri-urban areas are projected to be increasingly important in terms of population growth and economic development. Indeed, in rapidly urbanizing countries like China, urban population growth in peri-urban areas is projected to range from 40% to 60%. In Jakarta in south-east Asia, it is projected that some 70% of urban population growth will take place outside the core metropolitan area. These are increasingly the trends, with growth in the core urban areas either slowing or remaining unchanged, while peri-urban areas see rapid growth rates. Table 9 Growth rates of mega-urban regions Population (thousands) Annual growth rate (%) Jakarta metropolitan area Jakarta Bogor Tangerang Bekasi Metropolitan area in Hong Kong SAR Hongkong Shenzhen Guangzhou Macao SAR Zhuhai Source: Lo and Yeung, Squatter settlements that have spilled into peri-urban areas can, in a number of different ways, be worse off than those located in city areas. In particular, these settlements and provision for their welfare tend to be caught between the jurisdictions of urban and rural governments because they are neither urban nor rural. While many rural settlements may be affected in an equally negative way by the spread of land uses that are more characteristic of urban areas, such as industry and gated communities, at least the status of these rural households is less ambiguous, since, presumably, they are officially under the jurisdiction of the rural authorities. Similar to the rampant or super-induced urban growth that has been characteristic of most fast-growing cities and urban regions in the developing world, peri-urbanization, or growth in peri-urban zones, appears to be mainly haphazard in nature. Furthermore, there are problems arising because of the lack of coordination among governments at the metropolitan, provincial and possibly national levels in the provision of services and infrastructure. Squatter households in peri-urban areas practise farming to supplement incomes. Lacking the means to store water or meet irrigation needs, there have been reports of households breaking into sewage pipes serving industry and other areas to secure water for farms. These households are then exposed to dysentery and cholera risks from faecal bacteria and worm infestation (Bradford et al., 2003). Difficulty in securing potable water can, in turn, mean problems with maintaining acceptable standards of hygiene, which has been responsible for the rise in the spread of water-borne diseases and even tuberculosis. 12

13 Linking economic development and urban growth to housing provision Slums and squatter settlements have proliferated because governments of developing countries have generally failed to link economic development with the scale of urban growth and, hence, the housing needs that have to be provided for as a result. Cities such as Hong Kong SAR and Singapore have both benefited from relating economic development to urban growth and, hence, housing needs. For both cities, the translation of economic development plans into the associated demands on urban infrastructural investments has also entailed an effort to provide for housing needs. This means a public housing programme has been initiated in tandem with economic and urban infrastructural development. Governments in both Singapore and the Hong Kong SAR were driven by the consciousness that the effort to industrialize meant the need for political stability, as well as the provision of basic services for a disciplined workforce, able to conform to workplace norms. Implementation of social policy accommodating the basic needs of the urban labour force paralleled the rolling out of the economic development agenda. Public housing and public transport development have contributed to urban and economic growth, apart from addressing basic needs of the urban population for affordable shelter as well as mobility. Both the cities of Singapore and Hong Kong SAR are in the high-income bracket now. They were however, low-income urban places in the 1960s, with populations comprising large migrant groups seeking better economic opportunities. Singapore s per capita gross domestic product in 1965 was US$ 800. Urbanization and an industrialization strategy have clearly lifted the economies and fortunes of both cities and their populations. Success with urbanization and industrialization has been less a matter of chance and fortuitousness than careful planning and the synchronised linkage that was developed between urban development, economic growth and housing. Rehousing or upgrading of slum/squatter settlements as social process The success of rehousing programmes, or upgrading for slum and squatter households has depended on these programmes being planned and implemented as a social process, with goals that are transparent to all the stakeholders. Slum and squatter households were willing to relocate in cities such as Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong SAR, mostly because of the improvement in living conditions as well as opportunities for home ownership that low-cost and public housing schemes promised. The public housing scheme in Singapore involved a co-payment scheme that would have failed if the households being resettled did not believe that their living conditions would be improved by shifting to their new homes, as will be discussed in the case-study below. Such housing provision, once introduced, also illustrates the alternatives that exist in urban housing for the poor as compared to the slums and squatter settlements that have proliferated. Policy initiatives and effective implementation The policy solutions proposed for addressing the formation of slums and squatter settlements require consistency in implementation. It is also necessary that such policy decisions be reviewed regularly. In Singapore, the compensation package for households being resettled had to be negotiated several times to assure these households that their relocation had been fairly and adequately compensated for, in terms of financing and new homes. 13

14 It is important to have consistency through time and space in the implementation of policies providing homes for the urban poor, in order to pre-empt further formation of slum or squatter settlements. Like the need to ensure that the resettlement programme is a socially inclusive process transparent to all stakeholders, consistency in policy implementation is important in reassuring members of poor, urban households that their housing needs will be met in a timely and efficient manner. The challenge to maintaining such consistency in policy decision-making in the cities of developing countries has been the frequent changes in urban government that have taken place. In cities such as Bangkok and the greater metropolitan area of Manila, governments have changed before plans could be implemented. This can mean that unless the urban poor take matters into their own hands, they cannot expect their housing problems to be solved by the government. Decentralization and coordination in housing provision The provision of housing on a scale that is adequate to address the issues related to the formation of slums and squatter settlements generally requires some degree of decentralization. No one agency can cover the entire spectrum of needs to be provided for when the urban poor are being re-housed or accommodated in adequately planned housing estates. The problem with decentralization, however, particularly across agencies working at different political levels and geographical scales, has been coordination among these agencies. In many cities in developing countries city governments have to work closely with the national government agencies where expertise is concentrated, as well as with sectors important for the provision of land, electricity and basic urban services ranging from transport to potable drinking water supply and sanitation. Sustained financing system Most important for the success of housing programmes for the urban poor is a sustained financing system which is affordable for households being relocated from slums or squatter settlements. Realistically speaking, few urban governments or even national sectors can provide housing ad infinitum without working out a financial support package. This might be a package involving co-payment divided between the urban poor and the state. This financing scheme has to provide households with knowledge and information concerning their longterm commitments, particularly in terms of the instalment payments to be met for their homes. Institutional help is important in enabling poor households to establish the kind of housing they can afford and to which they can secure access. Most of the financing schemes for affordable or low-cost housing have been pegged to the earning capacity of the households needing these homes. Financing schemes might have to provide flexibility because of the problems encountered by families when the main breadwinner falls ill or has an accident, or when the only salary is lost because of retrenchment or industrial restructuring. Gradual upscaling of housing solutions Successful housing programmes for the poor have been characterized by being modest, both in the initial scale of the undertaking and with regard to the resources utilized. For the Singapore case-study, the strategy was initially to develop public housing for the urban poor in and around the urban fringe wherever pockets of land could be found for such development. Being small-scale, these developments were highly successful because they 14

15 were close to the city centre and hence near the places where people worked, as well as to where their young children were attending school. These modest developments put in place by the public housing programme were also more economical because there was less need to provide a full and comprehensive range of facilities, such as transport services or schools, since the estates were located near the city centre. Gradually, there has been a scaling up of the size and extent of housing developments. New towns were developed further from the city centre when land was available. Being located some 6-8 km away from the city centre, these new towns were provided with a more comprehensive range of facilities, to ensure that residents would not face the stress of locating such facilities outside of their residential estates. By then, the programme had shifted to a home ownership scheme involving co-financing between the state and home buyers. Hence, the gradual approach has allowed time for the programme in Singapore to grow in scale and size to accommodate housing needs, with the focus on first moving ahead as soon as possible with available resources. Singapore case-study From slum dwellers to homeowners in public housing estates Singapore s highly successful public housing programme, which provides homes for 85% of the population, has been an important aspect of the urbanization strategy that this city-state has used in its economic development plan. Economic planning focused on attracting foreign direct investment to Singapore, particularly for its manufacturing sector. While such planning meant the provision of factory sites, infrastructure such as a port and airport, as well as good urban transport services and water and electricity supply, it also implied the development of office space and other commercial space, such as shopping centres, hotels and eating places. Such a development agenda necessitated the redevelopment of the central area, where in the 1960s some two thirds of the population were concentrated. In addition, a majority of the population was living in slum and squatter settlements that had proliferated with the post-war shortage of housing. This was further aggravated by the Rent Control Act introduced by the colonial administration. These housing conditions are aptly described in the following citation (Abrams, 1977). In Singapore, 130,000 people live in squalid and insanitary attap kampungs throughout the municipal areas. They have standpipe water and the most primitive sanitation. `It is a physical impossibility to eject these people; they have nowhere else to go. Although the municipality does excellent work in trying to keep these areas properly drained and free from disease, nevertheless they constitute a menace to the general health of the whole city (Fraser, 1952). Singapore squatters demand fantastic prices for possession; a parcel of land free from squatters is three times as expensive as land that is squatter-occupied. When a fire ousted 16,000 persons from a squatter area, the government acquired the land for a housing project. Because it would have had to pay the value of the land as a cleared site, it passed a law fixing the price at one third the value. When acquiring squatter-occupied land, it often compensates the squatter for his 'rights'. Earlier research highlights not only the difficulty in addressing the issues of slums and squatter settlements in Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s but also the health problems experienced by residents. Such problems included worms in children living in the slum 15

16 settlements. Water-borne illnesses cholera and dysentery were a perennial problem, largely because of the lack of adequate supply of potable water. Other prevalent illnesses arising as much because of congested living conditions as low standards of hygiene included tuberculosis. The urban land-use plan that was drawn up in the late 1950s also identified the problems of providing better housing for the population without relocating the majority of them out of the city centre. This would be a measure to free up land for the development of the central area facilities needed to support the economic planning being initiated. The success that the resettlement programme had was not due to government coercion, as might be widely believed. In many other cities households forced to move in this way have inevitably found their way back to the cities squatter and slum settlements. Resettlement policies in Singapore were regularly revised and aimed at convincing the households being resettled that they would be moving to better homes, located in healthier and safer environments that would be provided with drinking water and electricity as part of the compensatory package. These packages were then regularly revised to address issues that arose among households being relocated. Part of the resettlement policy has been to relocate households near their former homes. Indeed, the planning and development of public housing estates followed a gradual approach, as mentioned above. Initially, the estates were located in and around the fringes of the central area. This not only reassured the households being relocated that they would be living near familiar places and workplaces, but also obviated the necessity for the public housing authority to provide an exhaustive list of estate facilities to meet everyday needs for goods and services. Many resettlement programmes have failed because of the virtual banishment of low-income households to distant locations, often outside of the city altogether. Often little is organized in the way of public transport connecting these households to their places of work, or even regarding the networking necessary for many of them to find work if they happen to be blue collar or odd job workers. This type of situation exacerbates the massive dislocation faced by poor households. Some of these problems related to the relocation of squatter or slum households are being seen in cities such as Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. Being a city-state, Singapore has not faced rural-urban flows of migrants on the scale with which most of the larger cities in developing countries have had to contend. Unlike many other cities in developing countries, Singapore was able to plan more accurately for the housing of households being resettled from slum and squatter settlements. Nevertheless, all city governments can at least put some effort into planning for projected infrastructural needs, based on population censuses and available knowledge about the growth rate from migration to cities. In Singapore, the government also launched what has been considered a draconian population planning policy, limiting families to two children. The stop at two policy was aided by the urbanization process, and, together with economic development, has contributed to a declining fertility rate, which is now below replacement level and has led to rapid ageing of the population. The Singapore Government s strategy for solving the problem of slum settlements would not have been successful if it had consisted of an isolated and piecemeal approach. Success in 16

17 providing alternative housing to the city-state s low-income population was achieved because housing provision was an integral part of the urbanization agenda that shaped the economic development plan initiated in the 1960s. In a number of ways, the planned approach that was taken made urbanization a more complete development process than that seen in many developing countries. Lack of a planned approach is reflected in the proliferation of slum settlements as well as the peri-urban developments where the urban has intersected with rural areas and farmlands. In Singapore, the public housing programme to accommodate the urban poor meant the provision of permanent homes in the city, for which the residents would co-pay. These homes would be located near workplaces or would at least be well connected by public transport. Such provision of shelter for the urban poor contributed significantly to urbanization, giving each of the households involved a legitimate stake in the city through home ownership. Planning the move from city slums and squatter settlements The public housing authority developed housing estates and new towns further away from the city centre only incrementally. The first new town developed was located some 6-8 km away. To compensate for the longer distance between their new homes and the city centre, this new town was planned with neighbourhood centres. Such centres provided urban services and facilities, such as shops and fresh food markets located walking distances from people s homes. The new town was also served by, first, a major public bus interchange and, ultimately, a mass rapid transit station, to which all the neighbourhoods were connected by feeder bus services. Furthermore, the new town was located along highways connecting the town centre to the city, thus facilitating relatively convenient and fast commuting to workplaces. Built into the resettlement effort were elements that both encouraged households to move out of the slum and squatter settlements, and to move into the apartments developed by the public housing authority. The housing form that was selected was high-rise, high-density housing. This would be affordable for both the government and the households that would be copaying the costs of the public housing programme. In terms of land use, the high-rise, highdensity solution was practical as a way of conserving scarce land resources in the tiny citystate of Singapore. The public housing authority trained staff to provide assistance to households moving into the high-rise, high-density homes. These staff would be staying in the estates themselves and available to residents needing help in their homes. At the same time, a 24-hour emergency service was started and continues till today. This service includes the fixing of lifts that break down as well as other emergencies arising among households in public housing estates, such as disruption to electricity and water supply. Financing home ownership Initially, the public housing homes were rented to residents. Growth in both the rate of resettlement, as well as in the number of households making the move to the public housing estates to rent new homes, was slow until the late 1960s, when a financing scheme was introduced to enable households to buy the homes. This scheme allowed people who were employed to use part of the money in their retirement savings fund Central Provident Fund to buy apartments in public housing estates. Such a scheme led to a boom in the demand for public housing and a queue for public housing homes and home ownership. 17