Far from being the “great equalizer,” the pandemic has brought to light the pervasive and persistent yet forgotten structural inequities found in cities. These inequities are ever-present in the transient lives of the urban poor and the essential and vulnerable internal migrants living in slums. This is where the majority of urbanites in the Global South reside, and where most future migrants will settle. Little is known—and will be known for a while given the dearth of data—as to the actual prevalence of and mortality due to COVID-19 in some of the poorest urban neighborhoods of the world. But the pandemic provides an early lesson for the future: responding to global, overlapping vulnerabilities requires raising the weakest link through coordinated and collective local action. Improving living conditions in current and future low-income neighborhoods is the only realistic strategy to address risk, increase stability, and incorporate mobile populations.
Exodus amidst immobility
The pandemic has put the world in stasis. Its effect has been dramatic for cities, the homes and destination areas for the majority of people today. Mobility, density and diversity, the celebrated characteristics and raison d’être of cities, within months morphed into deepening vulnerabilities, disproportionately affecting those most in need. It is in cities where the pandemic unveiled and amplified the great divide between the haves and have nots, the mobile and immobile, those who belong and those who do not, those who can afford to shelter in place and those who oscillate in space.
Within countries, the lockdowns and the subsequent sudden loss of precarious informal employment have equally resulted in a new intense movement: a reverse migration from cities and slum neighborhoods—the traditional destinations for internal migrants—back to their towns and villages of origin. This urban exodus unfolded abruptly, chaotically, and traumatically. It was also short-lived, with migrant workers already returning to their host cities and neighborhoods once the initial lockdowns were relaxed. In the few cases where governments did provide assistance to address the economic fallout from the pandemic when it did reach those in need, it has been just a small fraction of the meager incomes that migrant workers earn through informal employment in cities.
“For internal migrants and slum residents, the pandemic is not a once in 100 years event. Rather, it is another serious risk added to an already significant disease burden, another vulnerability further aggravating their daily challenges”
The pandemic in the context of slum living
Realizing the local repercussions of a pandemic goes well beyond managing mobility and virus contagion. It entails, as Amartya Sen wrote, the recognition that the pandemic is very much a visible social calamity rather than an invisible enemy, one that requires: “…participatory governance and alert public discussion rather than waging war.” And this discussion needs to go beyond the short-term impacts of the pandemic. It requires understanding the longstanding and normalized inequities manifested in cities and how they can be addressed so that we mitigate current and future risks associated with increased human mobility.
Future urbanization is a developing-country process and ‘urbanization from the slum,’ the way this process unfolds. Cities in the two poorest regions, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, will account for three quarters of the unprecedented urban growth, adding 2.3 billion people to their cities by 2050. The majority of this growth will take place in low-income neighborhoods with internal migration bearing a significant share of the overall city population growth.
For internal migrants and slum residents, the pandemic is not a once in 100 years event. Rather, it is another serious risk added to an already significant disease burden, another vulnerability further aggravating their daily challenges. As is often the case, mobility in this context is not triggered by choice; it is an adaptation strategy for survival. Conditions in rural areas, which initially compelled people to migrate to cities, have not changed significantly. Jobs in towns and villages remain scarce. Wage differentials between rural and informal urban occupations are significant. The seemingly impossible trade-offs between health and subsistence are nothing new for migrants and the urban poor. Overcrowded settlements, lacking services and decent housing have always provided fertile ground for disease transmission. Infant and child mortality in these underserved neighborhoods far exceed urban averages, and sometimes are higher than in rural areas, reversing the urban health advantage—a reference to the better health conditions in cities.
Slums have always been the places accommodating human mobility towards cities. They will continue to constitute the porous destinations for migrants and mobile populations escaping hardship and seeking better prospects. However, the modernization promise of slums as spaces of social mobility, providing the rite of passage from rural to urban and from the informal to the formal, has fallen short. Unaffordable neighborhoods without safe shelter, sufficient water, good quality sanitation and drainage are now a permanent feature of the urban landscape—with second or third-generation dwellers still residing in the same areas that their ancestors did, witnessing little to no improvements in living and neighborhood conditions over time.
The pandemic provides another stark reminder of how poorly understood these neighborhoods still are. The urban exodus, the evictions, and the crackdown unleashed by pandemic responses across cities, resurfaced the long history of myopic policies aiming to control internal migration flows. We now know that past approaches based on the erroneous premise, “if you don’t build it, they will not come,” can have disastrous repercussions: the poor living conditions in the majority of neighborhoods across Southern cities reflect primarily decades of policy inertia and the absence of public and private investment.
But if it’s true that in every crisis lies a great opportunity, then the pandemic offers a chance to revisit past assumptions, and redirect course by:
Accommodating internal migration rather than attempting to curb mobility
The key issue that cities face is not whether or not migration will take place, but rather what is likely to be its scale, where exactly it will occur, and what needs to be done to prepare for it. This implies a much better understanding of mobility, its drivers and the conditions in destination neighborhoods. It requires the systematic enumeration of current populations and the incorporation of population projections into city planning. It necessitates the analysis of spatial development patterns to plan for future needs in infrastructure, open spaces and housing, while minimizing the environmental impacts associated with urban density and human activity. Guaranteeing that adequate urban infrastructure keeps pace with the rapid increase in population will not only improve health and overall conditions but can also induce a transition away from current unsustainable growth dynamics.
Acknowledging that migrants and the informal neighborhoods they live in provide essential contributions to cities
Recent narratives on migration in low-income settings tend to focus on the intense competition for scarce resources between migrants and host communities. In this narrative, migrants, particularly those that are forcibly displaced, are often thought to constitute a burden. However, empirical evidence undercuts this view and shows that the integration of migrants and refugees into local economies results in improved long-lasting welfare for the entire community, even after their departure. The pandemic and the urban exodus that followed offered an interesting natural experiment as to what cities could face in the absence of essential functions often fulfilled by migrant workers. In Mumbai, preparation for the upcoming monsoon season has stalled, as most of the workers responsible for the removal of the sludge from drains are migrants who left the city. The prospects of extensive flooding and the disease burden from monsoon-related illnesses could further stress the city’s already overwhelmed health system.
“Perhaps the main lesson from the pandemic in cities of the South is that a starting point in changing this situation in order to create safe, welcoming, inclusive, resilient and sustainable cities is a recognition for the need for collective action. This is imperative in cities where governments typically lack resources, responsiveness, or capabilities to address the growing challenges of poor and mobile populations.”
Recognizing that what makes people and places welcomed and permanent depends on policy
Norberg-Schulz noted that: “…we only start to realize that true freedom presupposes belonging and that ‘dwelling’ means belonging to a concrete place.” Policies often make the implicit assumption that mobile populations and the neighborhoods they live in do not belong to the city. Policies ranging from forced evictions to “planned” relocations are based on this premise. In doing so, they assume that improving conditions can be done without the necessary knowledge of what current conditions are, and without consulting with the residents. If informality is neither an anomaly nor an ephemeral phenomenon but the very essence of cities, then policies need to be rethought from this perspective. Housing, infrastructure services, and resilient communities cannot be built without consideration of people’s needs and preferences. This is the only way through which a sense of permanence and belonging can be achieved.
There are practical actions already taken across many localities that can guide a broader policy paradigm shift. Community self-enumerations and data collection processes can lead to a better understanding of the nature of mobility and the conditions occurring in informal settlements. So far, these processes have been used extensively to create community awareness and organization, “make the invisible visible,” fight evictions, forge partnerships with governments and negotiate improvements in slums. Yet the potential of these data to act as the basis for a more systematic monitoring of mobility and living conditions at the local level has gained little attention, even if this type of information has been used in successful policies, programs and interventions in several cities.
Perhaps the main lesson from the pandemic in cities of the South is that a starting point in changing this situation in order to create safe, welcoming, inclusive, resilient and sustainable cities is a recognition for the need for collective action. This is imperative in cities where governments typically lack resources, responsiveness, or capabilities to address the growing challenges of poor and mobile populations. In these settings, the most obvious, and in many cases the only realistic, answer is for governments to work together with community groups to undertake improvements and mitigate risks. There are many examples of this taking place even amidst the pandemic. Dharavi, one of Mumbai’s largest and oldest settlements, and initially a hotspot of the virus, has so far effectively managed the spread of the virus. Similar stories come from settlements across cities, where a strong focus on community engagement and past experiences with epidemics have contributed in the control so far, of the virus in overcrowded settings.
But without significant support from governments, these efforts cannot be sustained. Much more in the way of resources and attention needs to be given to these efforts. If governments, international institutions and the scientific community are serious about managing mobility and improving living conditions for the urban poor, then a shift in thinking from the idea that policy is what the government does, to one where policy is co-produced though the active involvement of migrants and the urban poor themselves is necessary.
Conclusion
The hopes of humanity focus on the scientific race for the development of a vaccine, the best single effort that will provide a return to normalcy. However, even if a successful vaccine is found, it will not always reach marginalized and mobile populations. The pandemic’s course provides a painful reminder that the preventive measures that societies have available in order to contain risk are only as effective as those of the most vulnerable amongst us. This is why raising the “weakest link” in cities, by broadening assistance and support for migrants and the urban poor in their neglected neighborhoods, is crucial. In parallel to the rapid scientific research for vaccine development there is another urgent need: to finally initiate a meaningful dialogue with the urban poor, in order to address the precarity and deprivation that both migrants and city natives experience.
Achilles Kallergis is Director of the Cities and Migration Project at the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility, The New School, USA
Sheela Patel is Founder and Director of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) India.