Archive for October 2010
Eviction: an Institutionalized Crime
by Mohammad Romadhoni, MDP.
23rd July, 2005, more than 2100 street vendors are forcefully evicted by Bogor city council (Pemkot Bogor). As a result they faced hard economic shock and no longer obtain income whatsoever, surely their family includes elderly and infants have to bear all the consequences. Likewise, it is also happened in Manado, North Sulawesi in 2004, where 400 or so households was evicted, even though they have lived in the area for more than 30 years. One of the largest scale of evictions probably happened in Kampung Baru, Cengkareng in 2002, where thousands of people was forcefully displaced from the land, that is claimed by Perum Perumnas. Additionally, it is also noted that in Indonesia more than 1,96 millions of people are threaten to be immediately evicted, 1.6 million of those live in Jakarta (Samhadi, 2005). Those are only few recent examples of how this damaging eviction continues.
Introduction
This article shows arguments that eviction devastates the very pillars of civil society, it is basically a serious impediment in undertaking any development interventions. Due to devastating consequences eviction caused, such an attitude need to be systematically mended. Eviction thus should not be seen as a means.
The rapid growth of population in many cities in developing countries, in term of its size and population indeed corresponds with the fast emerging what they called slums or shanty towns (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989). The community live in slums area are normally recognized as the one at the very bottom layer of the society. They are associated with the ‘have not’, illegal, traditional and politically weak. On the contrary, the legal side, the powerful one, modern and also ‘the have’ is likely attributed for the big business: large capital private sector and big manufacture firms. This dualism continues and the government normally sees such slums as a ‘cancer’ that needs to be ‘eliminated’. Slum clearance or slum eradication thus is seen as a preffered way (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989) and ‘bulldozer of violence’ – in both explicit and implicit - is the key actor in this regards. The measures of slum clearance, which in fact an euphemism of eviction, is indeed highly problematic. The rationale is that, first of all, since its poor inhabitants are of course also human being, thus must be humanized. Eviction is unacceptable since it is inhumane, it is a discrimination on its most frightful manifestation.
Violating the Principle of Social Equity
Eviction is definitely an unjust approach. It works against the very principle of social and economic equity as it fundamentally and forcefully aligns the poor from accessing land resource which is crucially needed for their day to day livelihood (Berner, 2000). As a result from eviction, it is the poorest and the lower layer of the community who suffers most, as they are the most vulnerable. On the contrary, it is evident that following an eviction, the upper income groups are the one who will benefit as well as large capital industry and construction firms. What is normally happened in the case of land dispute in Jakarta for instance, once the poorer household get evicted, subsequently the land is then transformed into high rise office building, luxurious apartment and commercial super blocks.
Size Does Matter
As a matter of fact, the situation in many developing countries across the world recognized that major proportion of city population inhabited informal settlement, this fact affirms that informal settlement is actually “fundamental rather than marginal” (Berner 2000). In the case of Delhi, India for instance, “forty-seven percent (DDA, 2000 cited in Sivam, 2003) of the population lives in the informal housing sector” (Sen, 1998 cited in Sivam 2003). In Metro Manila, Philippines more than half of its population live in so called illegal settlements (Berner, 2000). Likewise, in Jakarta it is also estimated that more than half of its population reside in such illegal settlements.
Having said that normally slum is seen as a ‘cancer’, one argues a straight forward solution in addressing this situation: eviction. And among formal authorities this approach is however a preferred one. Unfortunately, to evict millions of people is not only far from effective, it is surely almost impossible. Even though an extremely large scale eviction effort is continuously undertaken, it is probably would take generations to get the job done. Not to mention, who would bear all the excessive negative consequences that follow. Furthermore, it is evident that in many developing countries the rate of growth so called ‘informal city’ is twice as fast as the ‘formal city’. This affirms that eviction is simply useless.
A Reactive One
‘City beautification’ is usually noted as the ‘magic formula’, it is the aim government authorities argued to justify the eviction. Large scale of city beautification corresponds to a large scale of eviction. This in accordance with the fact that many evictions took place prior to major international events. For instance anticipating 1974 Miss Universe pageant in Manila, the home of ten of thousands of people was bulldozed, eviction also took place right before the visit of US President Ford also in Manila in 1975 (Berner, 2000) as well prior to 1988 Olympiad in Seoul, South Korea commenced.
The objective of eviction is seldom be met and its effect is obviously not permanent (Kolstee et al, 1994 cited in Berner, 2000) as it clearly does not address the root of the problem. This violence centered physical approach, is definitely far from effective, since it neglects a much more elegant and effective ones namely social, economic and institutional approach. It is evident that soon after eviction took place such the poors evicted keeps coming back, as they seek to live closer to their income opportunities. (Rüland, 1982)
Act of Violence
Despite the fact that violence would never solve problems, many evictions use extreme violence, as a result casualties are inevitable, it is like pouring gasoline into flame. In spite the fact that this is an inhumane approach, it fuels fiercer vertical conflict, particularly between the community evicted with the local government authorities, as well as horizontal conflict, in the case where there also third party mobilized for the interest of the powerful stakeholder. Even worse, following an eviction normally ‘conflict resolution mechanism’ is not put in place, as a result from time to time the community sink deeper in the vicious circle of conflict and violence.
Economic Disruption
Even before the eviction takes place, the poor inhabited the land are normally already vulnerable. Their shelter’s condition is far below adequate, with poor condition of infrastructure and facilities (Sivam, 2003). Their neighborhood is extremely prone to flood as well as fire incident without any mitigation facilities whatsoever. This situation obviously not only shattered their economic foundation, but also put their live at stake.
Most of the slum inhabitants heavily depend on economic activities within their local neighborhood, which mostly informal (Mukhija, 2001). They are lacked of access to further income opportunities and a great number of them even are economically isolated. The poor lives in slum unable to secure their livelihood, and they have to struggle really hard to simply meet their basic need. Eviction obviously further exacerbates the situation, it results in economic disruption, because the poor are uprooted from their surrounding economic fabric. Their economic ability to simply deal with daily survival strategies (Rakowski ,1994) is thus collapsed. Most of them are unable to stand up again, move on and to recover themselves.
Security of Tenure and Vulnerability
Housing provision for the poor is indeed a crucial issue in any poverty reduction programme. It is agreed that the key problem is more about housing shortage rather than land availability. Despite informal housing condition which is far below standard, each housing or even ‘shanty’ unit in such informal settlements is still worth of few thousands rupiahs. The demolition of those units is basically “ a waste of housing stock and property” (Rüland, 1989 cited in Berner, 2000) and further exacerbates lack of housing supply.
Having said that each housing unit in informal settlement is however economically worthwhile, some thus argued that financial potential of those who reside in informal settlement is considerably high (Aldrich and Sandhu 1995; Berner 1997 cited in Berner ,2000), the assets in such informal settlement is not as simple as it seem, as Moser (1998 cited in Berner, 2000) noted that the poor manage such a “complex asset portfolios”. This in line with the fact that a number of those who live in slum are actually respected people, namely teachers, public officials or even police officers, as the situation in Metro Manila, Philippines (Berner ,2000) and Jakarta. Security of tenure, which is associated with the willingness to invest in value adding their property asset, is thus a critical component in this regard.
Eviction is highly linked with the notion of security of tenure. Because of the eviction, such assets are to be ‘eliminated’. As there is a constant threat of eviction meaning security of tenure is not put in place, the poors thus reluctant to invest in productive assets. This situation is a serious impediment for them make progress from their small scale household economic activities (Berner, 2000), this implies to an acute economic stagnation over decades.
From this point of view, vulnerability is thus recognized as a key issue in understanding urban poverty (Amis 1995 cited in Berner, 2000), meaning the poorer the household, the more vulnerable they are in taking care of their asset. Loosing this assets leads them into a deep crisis (Berner, 2000). Their ‘warung nasi’ may get evicted, Their illegal ‘lapak’ (street vendor) may be eradicated from the sidewalk, or following eviction of his house, ‘kuli bangunan’ (informal construction worker) may become ill or even die. (ibid)
Social Disruption
Eviction also greatly caused social disruption. It shattered social network in term of families, friends and contact that is exist within their neighborhood. On the other hand, such social networks is surely important for their daily survival strategies (Rakowski, 1994) .It is their source of information in finding new jobs, including to learn each other how to survive being chased - or even in many cases beaten - by the police. This network also allows them to borrow money or goods in time of economic hardship, as well as share infant and child care thus they could go to work (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989)
The impact of eviction is even more devastating in the case when a particular low income settlement are lacked of social capital. They thus do not have the ability needed to collectively dealing with the impact caused by such an eviction. This normally because previously their neighborhood already troubled, vulnerable to conflict due to economic hardship and scarce resource. Once the tragedy happened, the ability to work together, to build network and maintain trust indeed is a ‘hard to solve’ issue.
Health Condition is Deteriorated
Following the eviction is a critical situation since it directly affects the poor health, particularly for infant and elderly people. For those survivors, following eviction they then have to seek cheap place to live. What normally happened is they simply double up in other household that is already overcrowding, without any adequate clean water, electricity and poor sanitation (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989). Thus it would be much more difficult for them to access health facilities and obtain medical treatment. In turn, their health condition is much more deteriorated. There is a domino effect, as the evicted get sick, their relative then have to take care of them and such relatives can not go to work either, means have no food to eat for today. Not to mention the mental illness, which is common circumstances caused by eviction. Ironically, one of the aims of such eviction claimed by the government is to improve the condition of public health, as in the case of Nigeria few decades ago (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989)
Legal Formal and Regularity Framework
The poor ‘s presence is denied and their existence is undermined simply because they live outside the ring of legal formal. It can be seen in any master plan documents for instance, slum area in their existing map is often identified as ‘green area’ or vacant land (Hardoy and Satterwhaite,1989). Normally people see slum inhabitants as a parasites, they always break the rules. In fact, as De Soto (2000) noted , the rule itself is highly problematic, the regulatory framework is just does not make any to be applied on the ground. Consequently, the poor has no choice but to break it. The land administration process is also so erratic (De Soto,2000 ) hence it is almost impossible for the poor to convert their land to formal status. Even when they already live there for decades. Lack of political will and the absence of meaningful dialogue between local government and such low income communities largely exacerbates the situation.
On the other hand, regularity framework need to be adaptive. Meaning it should be able to accommodate the fluid characteristic of the society, as the circumstances on the ground changes such regularity need to be changed as well. Such a regularity framework should also recognized the existence of the informal sphere, address the gap and promote linkage between formal and informal sphere.
Conclusion
Having said the highly negative effect of eviction abovementioned, eviction leads the poor to further impoverishment (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989), it makes them sink deeper in the vicious circle of the poverty. Eviction is surely a serious impediment for a more sustainable development.
Jakarta, May 20,2007
References
Berner, Erhard. (2000).’ Poverty Alleviation and the Eviction of the Poorest : Toward Urban Land Reform in the Philippines’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(3), September
De Soto, Hernando (2000),’ The Mystery of Capital : Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.’ Black Swan, Great Britain
Hardoy, J E. and Satterthwaite, D. (1989).’Squatter Citizen.’, Earthscan Publications, London
Mukhija, V. (2001).’ Up Grading Housing Settlements in Developing Countries. The Impact of Existing Physical Conditions.’, Cities, 18(4), 213-22
Rakowski, Cathy,A. (1994).’ Convergence and Divergence in the Informal Sector Debate : A Focus on Latin America, 1984-1992’, World Development, 22(4), 501-516
Rüland, J (1982) ,Squatter relocation in the Philippines. In E.schmidt (ed.), ‘Squatter Struggles and Housing Policies in Asia : Experiences from Five Countries in Southeast and South Asia’,Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung, Dortmund IRPUD
Samhadi, Sri Hartati. (2005).’Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum antara Teori dan Praktik.’, kompas.com, 25th June 2005, accessed May 17,2007
Sivam, Alpana. (2003).’ ViewPoint: Housing Supply in Delhi’, Cities, 20(2), 135-141
23rd July, 2005, more than 2100 street vendors are forcefully evicted by Bogor city council (Pemkot Bogor). As a result they faced hard economic shock and no longer obtain income whatsoever, surely their family includes elderly and infants have to bear all the consequences. Likewise, it is also happened in Manado, North Sulawesi in 2004, where 400 or so households was evicted, even though they have lived in the area for more than 30 years. One of the largest scale of evictions probably happened in Kampung Baru, Cengkareng in 2002, where thousands of people was forcefully displaced from the land, that is claimed by Perum Perumnas. Additionally, it is also noted that in Indonesia more than 1,96 millions of people are threaten to be immediately evicted, 1.6 million of those live in Jakarta (Samhadi, 2005). Those are only few recent examples of how this damaging eviction continues.
Introduction
This article shows arguments that eviction devastates the very pillars of civil society, it is basically a serious impediment in undertaking any development interventions. Due to devastating consequences eviction caused, such an attitude need to be systematically mended. Eviction thus should not be seen as a means.
The rapid growth of population in many cities in developing countries, in term of its size and population indeed corresponds with the fast emerging what they called slums or shanty towns (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989). The community live in slums area are normally recognized as the one at the very bottom layer of the society. They are associated with the ‘have not’, illegal, traditional and politically weak. On the contrary, the legal side, the powerful one, modern and also ‘the have’ is likely attributed for the big business: large capital private sector and big manufacture firms. This dualism continues and the government normally sees such slums as a ‘cancer’ that needs to be ‘eliminated’. Slum clearance or slum eradication thus is seen as a preffered way (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989) and ‘bulldozer of violence’ – in both explicit and implicit - is the key actor in this regards. The measures of slum clearance, which in fact an euphemism of eviction, is indeed highly problematic. The rationale is that, first of all, since its poor inhabitants are of course also human being, thus must be humanized. Eviction is unacceptable since it is inhumane, it is a discrimination on its most frightful manifestation.
Violating the Principle of Social Equity
Eviction is definitely an unjust approach. It works against the very principle of social and economic equity as it fundamentally and forcefully aligns the poor from accessing land resource which is crucially needed for their day to day livelihood (Berner, 2000). As a result from eviction, it is the poorest and the lower layer of the community who suffers most, as they are the most vulnerable. On the contrary, it is evident that following an eviction, the upper income groups are the one who will benefit as well as large capital industry and construction firms. What is normally happened in the case of land dispute in Jakarta for instance, once the poorer household get evicted, subsequently the land is then transformed into high rise office building, luxurious apartment and commercial super blocks.
Size Does Matter
As a matter of fact, the situation in many developing countries across the world recognized that major proportion of city population inhabited informal settlement, this fact affirms that informal settlement is actually “fundamental rather than marginal” (Berner 2000). In the case of Delhi, India for instance, “forty-seven percent (DDA, 2000 cited in Sivam, 2003) of the population lives in the informal housing sector” (Sen, 1998 cited in Sivam 2003). In Metro Manila, Philippines more than half of its population live in so called illegal settlements (Berner, 2000). Likewise, in Jakarta it is also estimated that more than half of its population reside in such illegal settlements.
Having said that normally slum is seen as a ‘cancer’, one argues a straight forward solution in addressing this situation: eviction. And among formal authorities this approach is however a preferred one. Unfortunately, to evict millions of people is not only far from effective, it is surely almost impossible. Even though an extremely large scale eviction effort is continuously undertaken, it is probably would take generations to get the job done. Not to mention, who would bear all the excessive negative consequences that follow. Furthermore, it is evident that in many developing countries the rate of growth so called ‘informal city’ is twice as fast as the ‘formal city’. This affirms that eviction is simply useless.
A Reactive One
‘City beautification’ is usually noted as the ‘magic formula’, it is the aim government authorities argued to justify the eviction. Large scale of city beautification corresponds to a large scale of eviction. This in accordance with the fact that many evictions took place prior to major international events. For instance anticipating 1974 Miss Universe pageant in Manila, the home of ten of thousands of people was bulldozed, eviction also took place right before the visit of US President Ford also in Manila in 1975 (Berner, 2000) as well prior to 1988 Olympiad in Seoul, South Korea commenced.
The objective of eviction is seldom be met and its effect is obviously not permanent (Kolstee et al, 1994 cited in Berner, 2000) as it clearly does not address the root of the problem. This violence centered physical approach, is definitely far from effective, since it neglects a much more elegant and effective ones namely social, economic and institutional approach. It is evident that soon after eviction took place such the poors evicted keeps coming back, as they seek to live closer to their income opportunities. (Rüland, 1982)
Act of Violence
Despite the fact that violence would never solve problems, many evictions use extreme violence, as a result casualties are inevitable, it is like pouring gasoline into flame. In spite the fact that this is an inhumane approach, it fuels fiercer vertical conflict, particularly between the community evicted with the local government authorities, as well as horizontal conflict, in the case where there also third party mobilized for the interest of the powerful stakeholder. Even worse, following an eviction normally ‘conflict resolution mechanism’ is not put in place, as a result from time to time the community sink deeper in the vicious circle of conflict and violence.
Economic Disruption
Even before the eviction takes place, the poor inhabited the land are normally already vulnerable. Their shelter’s condition is far below adequate, with poor condition of infrastructure and facilities (Sivam, 2003). Their neighborhood is extremely prone to flood as well as fire incident without any mitigation facilities whatsoever. This situation obviously not only shattered their economic foundation, but also put their live at stake.
Most of the slum inhabitants heavily depend on economic activities within their local neighborhood, which mostly informal (Mukhija, 2001). They are lacked of access to further income opportunities and a great number of them even are economically isolated. The poor lives in slum unable to secure their livelihood, and they have to struggle really hard to simply meet their basic need. Eviction obviously further exacerbates the situation, it results in economic disruption, because the poor are uprooted from their surrounding economic fabric. Their economic ability to simply deal with daily survival strategies (Rakowski ,1994) is thus collapsed. Most of them are unable to stand up again, move on and to recover themselves.
Security of Tenure and Vulnerability
Housing provision for the poor is indeed a crucial issue in any poverty reduction programme. It is agreed that the key problem is more about housing shortage rather than land availability. Despite informal housing condition which is far below standard, each housing or even ‘shanty’ unit in such informal settlements is still worth of few thousands rupiahs. The demolition of those units is basically “ a waste of housing stock and property” (Rüland, 1989 cited in Berner, 2000) and further exacerbates lack of housing supply.
Having said that each housing unit in informal settlement is however economically worthwhile, some thus argued that financial potential of those who reside in informal settlement is considerably high (Aldrich and Sandhu 1995; Berner 1997 cited in Berner ,2000), the assets in such informal settlement is not as simple as it seem, as Moser (1998 cited in Berner, 2000) noted that the poor manage such a “complex asset portfolios”. This in line with the fact that a number of those who live in slum are actually respected people, namely teachers, public officials or even police officers, as the situation in Metro Manila, Philippines (Berner ,2000) and Jakarta. Security of tenure, which is associated with the willingness to invest in value adding their property asset, is thus a critical component in this regard.
Eviction is highly linked with the notion of security of tenure. Because of the eviction, such assets are to be ‘eliminated’. As there is a constant threat of eviction meaning security of tenure is not put in place, the poors thus reluctant to invest in productive assets. This situation is a serious impediment for them make progress from their small scale household economic activities (Berner, 2000), this implies to an acute economic stagnation over decades.
From this point of view, vulnerability is thus recognized as a key issue in understanding urban poverty (Amis 1995 cited in Berner, 2000), meaning the poorer the household, the more vulnerable they are in taking care of their asset. Loosing this assets leads them into a deep crisis (Berner, 2000). Their ‘warung nasi’ may get evicted, Their illegal ‘lapak’ (street vendor) may be eradicated from the sidewalk, or following eviction of his house, ‘kuli bangunan’ (informal construction worker) may become ill or even die. (ibid)
Social Disruption
Eviction also greatly caused social disruption. It shattered social network in term of families, friends and contact that is exist within their neighborhood. On the other hand, such social networks is surely important for their daily survival strategies (Rakowski, 1994) .It is their source of information in finding new jobs, including to learn each other how to survive being chased - or even in many cases beaten - by the police. This network also allows them to borrow money or goods in time of economic hardship, as well as share infant and child care thus they could go to work (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989)
The impact of eviction is even more devastating in the case when a particular low income settlement are lacked of social capital. They thus do not have the ability needed to collectively dealing with the impact caused by such an eviction. This normally because previously their neighborhood already troubled, vulnerable to conflict due to economic hardship and scarce resource. Once the tragedy happened, the ability to work together, to build network and maintain trust indeed is a ‘hard to solve’ issue.
Health Condition is Deteriorated
Following the eviction is a critical situation since it directly affects the poor health, particularly for infant and elderly people. For those survivors, following eviction they then have to seek cheap place to live. What normally happened is they simply double up in other household that is already overcrowding, without any adequate clean water, electricity and poor sanitation (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989). Thus it would be much more difficult for them to access health facilities and obtain medical treatment. In turn, their health condition is much more deteriorated. There is a domino effect, as the evicted get sick, their relative then have to take care of them and such relatives can not go to work either, means have no food to eat for today. Not to mention the mental illness, which is common circumstances caused by eviction. Ironically, one of the aims of such eviction claimed by the government is to improve the condition of public health, as in the case of Nigeria few decades ago (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989)
Legal Formal and Regularity Framework
The poor ‘s presence is denied and their existence is undermined simply because they live outside the ring of legal formal. It can be seen in any master plan documents for instance, slum area in their existing map is often identified as ‘green area’ or vacant land (Hardoy and Satterwhaite,1989). Normally people see slum inhabitants as a parasites, they always break the rules. In fact, as De Soto (2000) noted , the rule itself is highly problematic, the regulatory framework is just does not make any to be applied on the ground. Consequently, the poor has no choice but to break it. The land administration process is also so erratic (De Soto,2000 ) hence it is almost impossible for the poor to convert their land to formal status. Even when they already live there for decades. Lack of political will and the absence of meaningful dialogue between local government and such low income communities largely exacerbates the situation.
On the other hand, regularity framework need to be adaptive. Meaning it should be able to accommodate the fluid characteristic of the society, as the circumstances on the ground changes such regularity need to be changed as well. Such a regularity framework should also recognized the existence of the informal sphere, address the gap and promote linkage between formal and informal sphere.
Conclusion
Having said the highly negative effect of eviction abovementioned, eviction leads the poor to further impoverishment (Hardoy and Satterthwaite,1989), it makes them sink deeper in the vicious circle of the poverty. Eviction is surely a serious impediment for a more sustainable development.
Jakarta, May 20,2007
References
Berner, Erhard. (2000).’ Poverty Alleviation and the Eviction of the Poorest : Toward Urban Land Reform in the Philippines’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(3), September
De Soto, Hernando (2000),’ The Mystery of Capital : Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.’ Black Swan, Great Britain
Hardoy, J E. and Satterthwaite, D. (1989).’Squatter Citizen.’, Earthscan Publications, London
Mukhija, V. (2001).’ Up Grading Housing Settlements in Developing Countries. The Impact of Existing Physical Conditions.’, Cities, 18(4), 213-22
Rakowski, Cathy,A. (1994).’ Convergence and Divergence in the Informal Sector Debate : A Focus on Latin America, 1984-1992’, World Development, 22(4), 501-516
Rüland, J (1982) ,Squatter relocation in the Philippines. In E.schmidt (ed.), ‘Squatter Struggles and Housing Policies in Asia : Experiences from Five Countries in Southeast and South Asia’,Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung, Dortmund IRPUD
Samhadi, Sri Hartati. (2005).’Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum antara Teori dan Praktik.’, kompas.com, 25th June 2005, accessed May 17,2007
Sivam, Alpana. (2003).’ ViewPoint: Housing Supply in Delhi’, Cities, 20(2), 135-141
