How does democracy affect poverty? In particular, how does democracy shape opportunities for political and institutional access for poor groups? This research paper from the International Development Department at the University of Birmingham pursues a grass-roots approach in several localities in Bangalore to investigate poverty through the framework of local economics, local politics and local land settings.
Democracy, particularly local democracy, is critical for poor groups to consolidate their economic and political claims in Bangalore, a city of increasing divides between rich and poor. As active political and economic agents, poor groups pressure local representatives to secure their claims to productive urban locations, access to land and services. Claiming is underpinned by interdependent coalitions between local elite and poor groups shaped by links in the local economy and politics of land.
Pro-poor governance relates to municipal government providing political space, althought the support of higher level politicians can be drawn. Western Bangalore is characterised by economics underpinned by sophisticated political strategies to access the city’s resources. The diverse ethnic groups are inter-linked by economy and the need to secure land. ‘Master Planned’ south Bangalore in contrast, has land markets linked to an institutional terrain that reinforces ‘middle class activism’ against the poor. In KR Market, Bangalore’s wholesale market and centre of trade and commerce, large infrastructure and urban renewal projects move the poor out and make for a fragile economic and political setting. Claim making is often stealth-like rather than from ‘social movements’. This political and economic space, staking claims to productive urban locations, contrast with poverty schemes and NGO run programs. The latter treat the poor as passive beneficiaries, if not diluting their economic and political claims. Issues arising from these case studies are:
- Slum like and highly politicised neighbourhoods, despite apprearances, can create opportunities for economic and political claim making. Power relationships are fluid and complex, and contrast with assumptions of ‘patron-client’ relationships.
- The economic systems are underpinned by sophisticated financial circuits with cyclical investments within rural areas. This interlocking of rural groups across urban and rural land markets extends political claim-making.
- Central city areas with a dense local economy, may operate as ‘learning environments’ – providing entry into economic and political systems. Once started, poor groups need to move out to peripheral areas which improve surpluses but require political and economic agility.
- Master planning is underpinned by an institutional terrain with lack of democratic representation, controlled by high-level bureaucrats, state-level politicians, high-income residents and NGOs. These limit the influence of local politicians.
- Poverty projects in promoting housing rights and micro-credit, tend to de-politicise issues of contested locations, subvert claims of poor groups to land and split their political alliances.
Policy prescription comes from a close observation and recognition of the political and economic vitality of local processes and Indian society, rather than inventing new ways that pre-suppose a blank canvas.
- Doing ‘good housing’, resettlement, urban renewal including ‘growth-attracting mega infrastructure’ form part of bad government that harms poor groups.
- Pro-poor politics, centered within municipal government, will necessarily be complex, messy and fluid given the complexity of local alliances shaped by local economies.
- Local government shaped land management opens up access via multiple tenure forms and effective, pro-poor land policy is centered around incremental upgrading and tenure on an “as is where is” basis to secure de-facto claims to already established locations.
- Recognising the differences in the structure of political claims and appreciation for the history of party politics from one state to another.
- It is important not to create parallel voice mechanisms via NGOs but rather to strengthen the actual operational powers including over land of local elected bodies.
- From a static and centralising ‘rights’ approach, to recognizing the local political space of flexibility and fluidity pointing to ‘claims’.