City of felt and concrete: Negotiating cultural hybridity in Mongolia's capital of Ulaanbaatar

Abstract

Capital cities play an integral role in the construction of national identity. This is particularly true when the capital is the country's only major urban center. Over the course of its history, Mongolia's capital of Ulaanbaatar has been periodically reshaped to reflect competing trajectories of national culture. This article examines the evolving symbolism of architecture, urban design, and public space in Ulaanbaatar as a means of exploring Mongolia's complex negotiation between its traditional culture (mobile pastoralism and Shamanism/Buddhism), its socialist legacy, and globalization. Amidst the rampant social change of the last two decades, rather ambiguous national narratives have emerged in Mongolia. Like the capital's cityscape, these narratives reflect aspects of both recent and distant pasts, as well as contemporary economic, political, and social realities. This article reveals how increasingly palpable global economic and cultural practices are fomenting material change in the current phase of Ulaanbaatar's evolution. A combination of secondary source research and observations drawn from several months of fieldwork provide the basis for a discussion of the city's role as a forum for cultural contestation and national reform.

Understanding urbanization and its impact on the livelihood levels of urban residents in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

“…To investigate the robustness of our results, we divided the observations into two parts: data from 2002 to 2009 and data from 2010 to 2016. We used 2009 as a breakpoint because the dzud disaster occurred in 2009–2010 (Diener & Hagen, ). Although Mongolia suffered from the dzud disasters for several consecutive years from 1999 to 2002 (Tachiiri, Shinoda, Klinkenberg, & Morinaga, ), the dzud disaster in 2009–2010 was rare in history (Meng, ), and the amount of livestock losses far exceeded that of previous losses .…”

“…Many rural migrants relocate to the city and reassemble their ger in peri‐urban areas (Tsutsumida et al, ). Because these settlements are informal, ger areas often lack basic infrastructure and services (Diener & Hagen, ), and have become gathering areas for low‐income rural migrants.…”

“…The population growth in Ulaanbaatar is thus steadily increasing, from 821,796 in 2002 to 1,380,792 in 2016, with an annual growth rate of 3%, according to Mongolian Statistical Yearbooks 2002–2016. Moreover, the population of ger areas was estimated to comprise more than 60% of the total population (Byambadorj, Amati, & Ruming, ; Diener & Hagen, ; Yi & Shi, ). Due to the inadequate provision of basic services (Kawagishi, Sugimoto, Kitano, Gonchigbat, & Hirota, ; Sugimoto, Kawagishi, Kitano, Gonchigbat, & Hirota, ), the ger areas have become synonymous with poverty, pollution, and disease.…”

“…One of the most pressing issues is the inequality in livelihoods between urban residents and rural migrants who live in peri‐urban areas (Tsutsumida, Saizen, Matsuoka, & Ishii, ), although these rural migrants are classified as urban residents . Due to the largely unplanned nature of Mongolian urban expansion and the de facto informality of the settlements (Battsetseg, ; Bolchover, ), the urban fringes in Mongolia often lack basic infrastructure and services, such as electricity, sewerage and garbage disposal, drinking water supply (Diener & Hagen, ), and roads (Tsutsumida et al, ). Most migrants who live in such areas thus have difficulties meeting basic living standards (Sigel, Altantuul, & Basandorj, ).…”

“…However, to date, the relationship between urbanization and the livelihood levels of urban residents has received relatively limited scholarly attention, especially in the context of Mongolia. The literature on Mongolia's urbanization has mainly focused on three aspects, namely, (a) urban land use (Amarsaikhan, Blotevogel, & Chinbat, ; Amarsaikhan et al, ; Purevtseren, Tsegmid, Indra, & Sugar, ), (b) environmental change (Fan, Chen, & John, ; Park, Fan, Ranjeet, & Chen, ; Sukhnaran, ), and (c) migration patterns (Diener & Hagen, ; Guttikunda, Lodoysamba, Bulgansaikhan, & Dashdondog, ; Miller, ; Tsutsumida et al, ). The few studies that analyze the livelihood levels of rural migrants, in turn, are devoted to describing rather than explaining.…”