Urban Informality: Its Genesis and Future beyond Stigma and Abolition

Safiya El Ghmari*, Adil Zabadi

Dept. Risk Management & Spatial Development, Centre for Research and Studies in Urban and
Regional Planning, National Institute for Urban and Regional Planning, Rabat, Morocco
*Corresponding Author: safiya.elghmari@inau.ac.ma

Abstract
More than often informality as a concept connotes, in the common perception, with negative and
unofficial ways through which formality is bypassed. In fact, when linked with the urban context, the
first image that comes to mind is that of an informal settlement: slum, shanty towns, bidonville, …etc.
These settlements are usually described as ugly, cancerous, unhealthy districts of the urban landscape,
and their inhabitants are treated like marginals in the city and are socially excluded from the realm of
the city.
In this paper we explore the historical origins and etymology of the term “informality” before
reviewing different approaches and their evolution from segregation to interdependence and
complementarity. We then suggest a definition of urban informality and its impact on urban policy
based on a non-binary structure. And we demonstrate that urban informality is merely a manifestation
of the current economic capitalist system and differentiate between two kinds of urban informalities:
high-level and low-level.
We finally suggest that urban informality and particularly informal settlements should be studied as
spontaneous and autonomous process not pathological formation in the city. It is only then that it is
possible to debunk the myth of marginality that we have shown to be an induced self-fulfilling
prophecy.
Finally, we conclude this paper by depicting various ways in which the paradigm shift to include
urban informality as an epistemology to study cities and urban development is happening.

Keywords: urban informality, informal settlements, social exclusion, marginality, informality.

Introduction
In Africa alone over half of the urban population lives in informal settlements (UN Habitat, 2016)
and whereas in 2014 there was no standard nor formal definition of informal settlements the UN
Habitat confirmed the absence of such unambiguous definition, it is usually referred to as: “a
residential area where 1) inhabitants have no security of tenure, 2) neighbourhoods lacking basic
services and city infrastructure, 3) housing doesn’t comply with planning and building regulations.”
(UN Habitat, 2016). In fact, the other underlying social trait of these districts stems from the illegal
nature of such settlements, and principally includes exclusion and marginalization; and what seemed
to be a simple urban issue is clearly a complex social issue now.
Despite that urban informality constitutes nowadays a major part of our urban landscapes, there are
still many misconceptions on urban informality, to cite a few: informal settlements are considered to
primarily comprise rural–urban migrants and present the physical and visual manifestations of chaos
and disorder.(Arefi, 2018)
Important to note that writing about informality is “deceptively easy”: we might be familiar with the
term but still far from grasping it even after five decades of research. Our historical understanding of
these urban forms that are providing for a wide population remains weak and precarious (Fischer,
2014). Hence, what could the etymology and the first use of the term informality reveal about urban
informality?
53
1. Informality: genesis and evolution

1.1 Context and etymology

The first time when the term “informality” was used dates to 1972 when it was coined at an
international conference of the International Labor Organization (ILO). The neologism was first used
by economic anthropologist Keith Hart to describe the situation of underemployed immigrants in the
outskirts of the Ghanaian capital. Hart wanted to translate the duality that divided the local economy
into two distinct sectors, which he then called: formal and informal. Moreover, in his report he
maintains that informality was the initial state of all workers.(Hart, 1973)

Hart’s dualistic approach differentiates between the formal and informal sectors in the following
aspects:

Formal Economy (modern) Informal Economy (traditional)

Difficulty of entry; Ease of entry;
Frequent use of foreign resources; Dependence on indigenous resources;
Business ownership; Family ownership of businesses:
Large-scale operation; Small scale of operation;
Capital intensive and often imported Appropriate and labor-intensive technology;
technology; Skills acquired are outside the formal school
Formally acquired skills, often expatriate; system;
Protected markets (through taxes, quotas Unregulated and competitive markets.
and trade licenses).
Table 1: Characteristics of the formal and informal economy according to Keith Hart's classification in 1972

However, this first approach to define informality is ambiguous and approximative. In fact, according
to the encyclopaedia of informality the ambiguity and confusion around informality is inherent to the
concept itself. For instance, numerous “informal” practices are invisible yet are at simultaneously
omnipresent. This adds to the complexity of defining informality, in a sense that these grey areas
were always central to the functioning of human societies.(Ledeneva, 2018)

Nevertheless Hart’s approach has numerous flaws and is based on false deductions, such as (Bromley,
1978) :

1. Classification and accounting processes are often flawed.

2. Formal and informal are described as separate rather than interdependent.
3. The general requirements of the management of informality apply to extremely diverse
economic activities.
4. Informality is seen as an exclusively urban phenomenon.
5. Informal economy has a present but no future.
6. Economic activity is confused with places, so that entire neighbourhoods are described as
informal.
7. Informality and poverty are considered one and the same.

But what started as a story of resilience to understand the mechanisms through which the population
below the poverty line survives and earns a living, is now turning to a story of the relationship to the
state. Informality can also be defined as what the state has failed to regularize and formalize. Within
this framework informality and illegitimacy overlap. And whatever point of view we take, informality
characterizes populations that are not recognized by the dominant power: marginals.(Hart, 2011)
54
1.2 Different approached to the “informality” paradigm
Aside from the dualistic approach that Hart is one of its main theorists, structuralists led by Castells
and Portes consider informality as a way of contestation by marginal populations against the
inequalities and capitalist development. (Charmes, 2019) While the legalist approach founded by De
Soto argues that informal activities are dead capital that should be reintroduced and recognized by
capitalist economies.(Cimoli, 2006) The differences in these approaches are highlighted in the
following table:

Approaches Main Ideas Key Figures

Legalist Property rights ; Hernando de Soto
The informal economy is a reaction to over- (2000)
regulation and bureaucracy.
Reactivate informal capital;
Include informal activities and micro-operations
in the market ecosystem;
Informality of how to do things on a small scale
Strcturalist Marxist approach; Castells
Contestation of the unequal nature of capitalist Portes
development; (1989)
Informal economy as subordinate to the formal
economy
Dualistic Any activity outside the formal framework; Kevin Hart
Distinct and dissociated from the formal (1972)
economy;
Table 2: Main approaches to informality

A recurrent characteristic to these three approaches is to suggest an understanding of informality that

is based on separating informality from formality which acknowledges that informality and formality
are independent entities. However, this assumption is contested by (Roy & Alsayyad, 2003), whose
approach tends to keep the dialectical dynamic between formality and informality. They consider this
relation as both arbitrary and inconstant yet a scene of considerable state power and violence. (Roy,
2009)

Roy’s approach refutes the assumptions of Hernando De Soto for whom the State is both the creator
of “legal apartheid”, and the “benevolent promoter” of legalization at the same time. This takes the
economic debate on informality to another level. The legalization of informal property systems is not
simply a technical problem as De Soto suggests but rather a complex political struggle.(Roy, 2005)

This approach to informality is clearly linked to the condition of the population that produced it. It is
the result of resilience in the face of economic change and is an effort of adaptation to the "formal"
rules. In this case, the danger of a separatist approach to informality may lead to strategies of
eradication, repression or regulation rather to strategies of empowerment.(Wiśniewski et al., 2015)

2. Dualistic bias against urban informality

2.1 Defining urban informality

We have seen that historically informality was first used to describe a specific economic modus
operandi, yet one of its physical implications on the urban realm are informal settlements which
55
constitute most of cities’ landscapes globally and where eradication was the first reaction to this new
urban form.

In urban policy terms, informality is linked to specific types of land status and buildings. It refers (1)
to the illegal occupation of land (2) to non-compliance with building codes and infrastructure
standards (3) both to the illegality of the land on which a house is constructed and homes not
conforming to building codes and standards. (Fekade, 2000)

Although there is a consensus on the characteristics of informal settlements, the exact definition of
boundaries between informal and formal settlements remains blurry (United Nations Human
Settlements Programme, 2003): it depends largely on contextual and local interpretations of land
tenure, town planning and housing norms . In this context, an approach based on a clear distinction
between formality and informality is irrelevant, and even dangerous as mentioned earlier.

Urban informality is also the result of mechanisms of legal, political, and economic exclusion. It can
therefore be seen as a response from poor households excluded from urban housing markets who
cannot afford formal market rents to reside in cities. (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2007) It is true that
informal urban land markets, by and large, meet the land and housing needs of most of low-income
city dwellers. This is an indicator of the ineffectiveness of existing formal markets, land tenure and
regulatory frameworks. The question again is how to maintain an equilibrium of standards applicable
to formal urban development and the urban dwellers needs. Many governments increasingly now
seem to realize that unless they change their approach to urban informality, they cannot "catch up"
with the informal urban development process.(Fekade, 2000)

For example, in Africa and Asia these exclusionary processes are fuelled by rural-urban migration
and urban population growth. However, this exclusion is originally due to a bad urban policy and
management in which legal and legislative frameworks do not consider the rights of the urban
population as a whole. In fact, this binary system of conceptualizing the city as either formal or
informal shows our inability to define adequate perspectives for the contemporary urban conditions.
The formal-informal dichotomy, sums up a variety of social relations, spatial forms and urban
economies, and encompasses a wide range of situations that cannot be limited to a binary
structure.(Lutzoni, 2016)

2.2 Urban informality: success of a paradigm

Informal settlements can thrive in cities around the world since land is available, not developed and
"up for grabs" for speculators and, ultimately, for as many settlers as it can accommodate. The
inability (or reluctance) of the government to effectively manage the land over which it exercises its
jurisdiction creates the possibility and the incentive for the overuse of land, and therefore represents
a significant regulatory slippage.(Foster, 2009)

Accordingly, the presence of informality and its persistence is due to its success as a rational system.
Urban planning all over the world requires exemptions, and exceptions (derogations) it is in this same
logic that informality fits. These systems are neither abnormal nor irrational; rather they embody a
distinctive form of rationality that underlies metropolitan expansion.(Roy, 2009)

The only difference is that the urban planning process is at a high decision-making level (high level
informality); which does not confer legitimacy to it, while informal settlements take place at a lower
decision-making level (low level informality). In reality the production of urban space happens in the
interplay between the two modes. The task is therefore not only to find practical ways of harnessing
56
the complementary potential of bureaucracy (high and informality, but also to advance reflection on
their dialectical movement.(Hart, 2011)

Moreover, from a post-colonial studies perspective, what has been called "development", "progress"
and "modernization" is simply the imposition of external rules on societies which had - and still have
- their own rules and norms. And so, what was formal suddenly becomes informal by the force and
will of imperialism, colonialism and finally globalization: everything is informal and “development”
is a process by which informality must necessarily become formal.(Charmes, 2019)

It is clear now that urban informality can’t be tackled from a segregationist point of view, rather
through a dialectical dynamics’ lens. In urban policy it is present on different levels, it has proved to
be both a mechanism by which many urban dwellers get access to housing (low level informality)
and a call to revise and reform current formal planning framework (high level informality).

This claim is also supported by Giddens, whose approach to urban sociology included more
parameters than the classical equation: a system of structuration and resources that guide and shape
every individual’s agency. However, in his theory he maintains that actors have the agency to change
the structure in which they’re taking part. Consequently, discarding urban informality based on a
segregationist approach is not only wrong but fails to encapsulate the complexity of urban space
production. (Lamsal, 2012)

3. Informal settlers are not marginals

3.1 From spatial fragmentation to social exclusion

Without contestation, spatial fragmentation gives rise to remarkable social exclusion. In fact, socio-
spatial exclusion - refers to the processes that contribute to the geographic marginalization of
particular individuals and groups because of where they live. It is characterized by their inability to
access or effectively use a range of facilities and resources that enhance well-being and enable citizens
to take advantage of available opportunities. (UN Habitat, 2016)

Across cultures, these informal parts of the city are given different: slums, shanty towns, bidonvilles
(Africa), favelas (Brazil), gecekondus (Turkey), Kijiji (Kenya), johpadpatti (India)… etc, however
and in order to avoid the negative connotations they allude to we will use the term informal
settlements instead. Many define informal settlements as the apotheosis of everything feared and
rejected by the majority who do not live there. It establishes a set of values - a morality shared by
those outside the informal settlement - and implies that within these two distinct areas people do not
share the same principles.(Neuwirth, 2005)

However, in most developing countries, the population living in informal settlements may equal or
exceed the population living in formal settlements, so that it is becoming the dominant form of urban
development (Gouverneur, 2014). It should also be noted that the application of the modern urban
tools in developing countries not only promotes segregation, to which the poor do not have access,
but would place the inhabitants of informal areas in a condition of submission to the formal city as
well.(Gouverneur, 2014)

Within this context, suggested urban renewal programs are becoming part of many local agendas
around the world forced through international agencies (IMF, WBG, UN...), and consequently “part
of a global network of activism without losing the focus on specific local struggles”(Sassen, 2008).
These projects are an attempt to reintegrate informal settlements and its population. But these
57
international policy agendas not only failed to help the urban poor in securing shelter but resulted in
a ‘loss of institutional memory’ regarding the settlements of the poor (Shatkin, 2004), and a
romanticized framework of “politics of shit” (Roy, 2005). As Giddens describes it, “sovereignty has
become fuzzy”, while “large democratic deficits are opening up” affecting citizens lives.(Giddens,
1999)

Unintentionally, the political message to residents of informal settlements is that they need to be
eradicated, or at best displaced, and that they don’t play a significant role in shaping a
solution.(Huchzermeyer, 2006) This process of marginalization is not only making the situation
worse but is based on a false assumption of marginality itself. As it has been demonstrated by Janice
Perlman (Perlman, 1975) that marginality was a myth used as an instrument of social control of the
poor and a collective consumption mechanism that determined the social order of the urban poor
concluding that their social, cultural, political and economic marginality was “empirically,
analytically wrong. misleading and deceptive in its political implications”. (Perlman, 1975)
However, nowadays this myth has become a reality due to decades of misunderstanding informal
settlements social structure.(Perlman, 2010)

Therefore, this population was instrumentalized and made marginal: their right to social integration
and decent housing was disregarded. They had no right to the city. Notwithstanding that being part
of the social contract, these inhabitants are expected to fulfil certain formalities in exchange of public
services, but for a population that doesn’t benefit from any service, what is the incentive to be part of
the contract? Why are they supposed to align with formal rules if they rely on themselves to live
without any support from the formal city? (Charmes, 2019)

3.2 Re-establishing informal settlements

In the same respect, the contradiction between human rights, property rights and security of tenure
must be emphasized. In the human rights-based approach, the formalization of land tenure stresses
its role in ensuring the right to security of housing in accordance with international treaties and
covenants guaranteeing social stability aimed at reducing poverty.(Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2007)

Consequently, when it comes to describing informal settlers, emphasis should be on the spontaneity
and autonomy of action as key features of informal settlement, this approach successfully avoids the
“pathologizing” tendencies of other hegemonic discourses on informality. But it still carries the risk
of romanticizing these settlements (i.e: Favelas tourism,…), which is that of masking the class
structure and conflicts of interest.(Wiśniewski et al., 2015) Moreover, urban informality is no longer
the domain of the poor only but has become one of the main routes to home ownership for the middle
and lower classes .(Alsayyad, 2004)

In the late 1960s, it was circulated those informal settlements were populated by those doomed by
their own laziness and poverty to stay on the fringes of life. These “others”, as they were called, lived
on the fringes of society and were seen as the “cancerous plagues on the formal city”, which turned
out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Roy & Alsayyad, 2003)

In Morocco for instance, the social problems of informal settlers have been reduced to a housing issue
that can be calculated and managed through an institutional initiative (Cities Without Slums, 2004).
But this understanding is far from being apolitical. Ultimately, new government policies play a
determining role in reassembling and reintegrating informal settlers to fit the conditions of a particular
type of political and social life.(Bogaert, 2011)

58
One-off improvements like these do not necessarily change the negative perception around informal
settlements and their population. On the contrary, there is a serious risk that they will further widen
the gap. Therefore, it is argued here that the main task should be to seek common grounds from the
start by creating a plan that defines the existence of the informal settlement side by side with the
context of the formal city. (Tostensen, 2005) It is not simply a matter of complacency towards the
formal residents of the city as former studies have shown informal settlers themselves do not wish to
live forever in an informal settlement. (Jacobs, 1961)

Conclusion

In conclusion, urban informality is a complex phenomenon that requires more research and studies
and we demonstrated that any approach that is based on separating informality from formality does
not reflect the real dynamics between the two paradigms. Consequently, studying urban informality
should be approached within the dialectic synergy between urban informality and the formal city.

This can’t be possible without a change in the narrative of informal settlers that should be moving
away from being a submissive and marginal urban entity, portrayed by Davis as a Dickensian
landscape of depravation and poverty (Davis, 2006), to an active and legitimate contributor in the
production of urban spaces.

A similar paradigm shift is also happening on the academic level as well. There is a growing interest
in not only furthering our understanding of urban informality but also learning from it. One example
is studying the morphogenesis of urban informality which objective is “to develop a framework for a
global comparative study” of these settlements.(Dovey et al., 2020). Another noteworthy initiative
by Gouverneur is a study of informal armatures to merge it with the formal during city-
making.(Gouverneur, 2014)

And if informality is still considered as a state in which codes and norms are absent, the problem
might be in reverse: its codes are rather intrinsic to the common social practice. However, failing to
recognize these practices, there was an urge to fill the void with formal rules and norms. (Lefebvre,
1981). After all, we have been looking at the wrong side of the issue: “informality is in the eye of the
beholder.”(Hart, 1985)

Acknowledgment

This research was conducted thanks to the National Centre for Research in Sciences and Technology
in Rabat grant N°1INAU4.

References

Alsayyad, N. (2004). Urban Informality as a “New” Way of Life. 26.

Arefi, M. (2018). Learning from Informal Settlements in Iran. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78408-3
Bogaert, K. (2011). The Problem of Slums: Shifting Methods of Neoliberal Urban Government in
Morocco: The Problem of Slums: Urban Government in Morocco. Development and Change,
42(3), 709–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01706.x
Bromley, R. (1978). The Urban Informal Sector: Why Is It Worth Discussing ?
Charmes, J. (2019). Dimensions of Resilience in Developing Countries: Informality, Solidarities and
Carework. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04076-5
Cimoli, M. (2006). A low-growth model: Informality as a. CEPAL REVIEW, 18.
59
Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. Verso.
Dovey, K., van Oostrum, M., Chatterjee, I., & Shafique, T. (2020). Towards a morphogenesis of
informal settlements. Habitat International, 104, 102240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102240
Durand-Lasserve, A., & Selod, H. (2007). The formalisation of urban land tenure in developing
countries. 47.
Fekade, W. (2000). De"cits of formal urban land management and informal responses under rapid
urban growth, an international perspective. Habitat International, 24.
Fischer, B. (Editor). (2014). Cities from Scratch: Poverty and Informality in Urban Latin America
(Duke University Press).
Foster, S. R. (2009). Urban Informality as a Commons Dilemma. 40, 25.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World: How Globalisation Is Reshaping Our Lives (Routledge).
Gouverneur, D. (2014). Planning and Design for Future Informal Settlements (Routledge).
Hart, K. (1973). Informal Income Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana. The Journal of
Modern African Studies, 11(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X00008089
Hart, K. (1985). The Informal Economy. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 10(2), 6.
Hart, K. (Ed.). (2011). The human economy: A citizen’s guide (Reprinted). Polity.
Huchzermeyer, M. (2006). The new instrument for upgrading informal settlements in South Africa:
Contributions and constraints. 11.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
Lamsal, M. (2012). The Structuration Approach of Anthony Giddens. Himalayan Journal of
Sociology and Anthropology, 5, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.3126/hjsa.v5i0.7043
Ledeneva, A. (Ed.). (2018). The Global Encyclopaedia of Informality: Understanding Social and
Cultural Complexity—Volume 1. UCL Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1981). La production de l’esapce (anthropos). anthropos.
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/homso_0018-
4306_1968_num_8_1_3105
Lutzoni, L. (2016). In‑formalised urban space design :Rethinking the relationship between formal
and informal. https://cityterritoryarchitecture.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s40410-
016-0046-9
Neuwirth, R. (2005). Shadow cities: A billion squatters, a new urban world. Routledge.
Perlman, J. (1975). Rio’s Favelas and the Myth of Marginality. Politics & Society, 5(2), 131–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003232927500500201
Perlman, J. (2010). Favela: Four decades of living on the edge in Rio de Janeiro. 445.
Roy, A. (2005). Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 71(2), 13.
Roy, A. (2009). Why India Cannot Plan Its Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of
Urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099299
Roy, A., & Alsayyad, N. (Eds.). (2003). Urban Informality: Transnational Perspectives from the
Middle East, Latin America and South Asia. Lexington Books.
Sassen, S. (2008). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages (Updated ed.,
4. print., 1. paperback print). Princeton Univ. Press.
Shatkin, G. (2004). Planning to Forget: Informal Settlements as ‘Forgotten Places’ in Globalising
Metro Manila. Urban Studies, 41(12), 2469–2484.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980412331297636
Tostensen, A. (2005). Reconsidering Informality: Perspectives from Urban Africa. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(2), 459–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2427.2005.00600_3.x
UN Habitat. (2016). World Cities Report 2016: ‘URBANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT’—
Emerging Futures.
60
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (Ed.). (2003). The challenge of slums: Global report
on human settlements, 2003. Earthscan Publications.
Wiśniewski, R., Winczorek, J., & Mica, A. (2015). Sociologies of Formality and Informality. Peter
Lang Edition, 260.

61