Search

The role of informal settlements in human development remains contested in urban studies literature. For instance, some existing studies view urban informal settlements as hotspots of social unrest, squalor and precarious residential environments (poverty traps); while others perceive them as places where the poor become resourceful, ingenious, and develop necessary skills to navigate urban life (pathways out of poverty). The absence of systematic evidence on the nexus between informal settlements and human progress hinder sound urban policy practices. This paper examines the role of informal settlements in human development focusing on Hopley, Hatcliffe Extension and Epworth Ward 7– Harare’s three largest informal settlements. The study combines surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions with selected residents from the three neighborhoods. The study reveals that despite feeling ‘trapped’ in conditions of precarious, overcrowded, and insecure housing, coupled with discursive territorial stigmatization, some informal settlement residents are hopeful that their settlements will eventually improve. The ambivalence of Harare’s urban policy toward informal settlements must be replaced by a more positive approach to improve the livelihoods of people living in these neighborhoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In developing countries, people living in informal settlements are subjected to different forms of coercive control such as threats of evictions, exclusion, blocked access to urban services and other types of structural violence. These coercive measures are legitimised through the discursive branding of informal settlements as 'unplanned', 'disorderly' and 'dangerous' neighbourhoods. This paper examines how people living in these denigrated neighbourhoods engage with and resist this territorial stigmatisation. It uses data from key informant interviews (KIIs) with urban elites, in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with residents of Harare's informal settlements. Our analysis reveals that while some informal settlement residents have internalised stigmatising discourses, others resist them through constructing counternarratives that seek to portray their settlements as 'good places for the urban poor', thereby creating a positive image of their neighbourhoods in the context of extreme spatial and socio-economic marginalisation. These place-based narratives are rooted in the shared experiences with informality and associational life in a city where such residents are needed yet unwanted. We conclude that while informal settlement residents are aware of their precarity and tenure insecurities, these counternarratives build strong solidarities to resist state-sponsored evictions, arbitrary relocations and other forms of structural violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]