FROM VISIBLE INFORMALITY TO SPLINTERED INFORMALITIES: Reflections on the Production of ‘Formality’ in a Moroccan Housing Programme

Abstract

Increasingly, scholarly works challenge the formal/informal dichotomy, stressing the multiple political practices of producing informality which go beyond state incapacity. In contrast, this article addresses a lack of research concerning the production of 'formal' urban space through state-led housing programmes. Deconstructing simplistic notions of state intentionality and incapacity, the article zooms in on competing interests and diverse resources, as well as the shifting power relations between multiple private, semi-public and public actors which shape the production of 'formality'. Focusing on a shantytown resettlement programme in Casablanca, the article differentiates between visible informality and splintered informalities. The former relates to the prevailing clear-cut and stereotypical dichotomy between formal and informal urban space which underpins the state's objective of eliminating the visible informality attached to Morocco's shantytowns. The latter is the result of a messy process of ensuring housing affordability through the so-called third-party scheme--a sites-and-services project based on small-scale private investment and land speculation--once this objective is achieved. Characterized by heterogeneous actor constellations, opportunism and flexible regulatory practices, the scheme has not only capitalized but also individualized urban space. Instead of building new formal housing, the scheme has produced splintered informalities and created new uncertainties and arbitrariness beyond the control of a single actor.

Haphazard urbanisation: Urban informality, politics and power in Egypt

“…Debates over what urban informality is continue to rage not only within and beyond the state in Egypt but also in the pages of scholarly journals. Several recent articles have called for urban studies to: ‘transcend urban informality’ (Acuto et al, 2019); understand urban informality as a ‘site of critical analysis’ (Banks et al, 2020) or as ‘splintered’ (Beier, 2021); consider ‘informality as a condition’ (Marx and Kelling, 2019); or think of alternatives, like ‘popular urbanization’ (Streule et al, 2020). In this article, I have not argued for a more precise or fixed definition of urban informality or called for alternative formulations to it, but for scholars and policy makers to be attentive to the political processes through which this uncertain yet powerful concept is produced.…”

“…4 In this framing, urban informality is a mode of power and discipline: ‘informality exists at the very heart of the state and is an integral part of the territorial practices of state power’ (Roy, 2009: 84). In recent years, there has been a collective scholarly effort led by Roy’s (2005, 2009, 2018) writings to interrogate the complex political relationship between urban informality and the state (Beier, 2021; Bénit-Gbaffou, 2018; Haid and Hilbrandt, 2019). Haid and Hilbrandt (2019: 555–557), for instance, have argued that we need to understand the porosity of the state itself and the heterogeneity of practices that constitute it; this includes diversity within the state, the different geographical scales that comprise the state and the conflicting political interests within it and the impact of institutions beyond the state (i.e.…”

THE INFORMAL CONSTITUTION OF STATE CENTRALITY: Governing Street Businesses in (Post‐)Pandemic Chengdu, China

“…It is tempting to see informality as the ‘other’ of formality, regulation or state apparatus (Acuto et al ., 2019), and to highlight or focus on ‘what people are not doing’ (Hart, 2006) or on various negative deviations from being ‘modern’ (Varley, 2013). Instead of engaging with this one‐dimensional stretching of concepts (see Schmid et al ., 2018), we consider the gradually evolving body of literature that explores informality alternatively and focuses particularly on the relationship between informality and the state (Roy, 2005; 2009; Yiftachel, 2009; Devlin, 2011; Hilbrandt et al ., 2017; Bénit‐Gbaffou, 2018a; 2018b; Boudreau, 2019; Haid and Hilbrandt, 2019; Tucker and Devlin, 2019; Beier, 2021; Jin, 2021). In our line of inquiry, we concur with Roy (2005; 2009) that informality is best seen as an idiom or mode of urbanization where a state of deregulation is constructed that is associated with techniques such as unmapping, unplanning and ungoverning so as to attain certain political‐economic ends.…”

Revisiting Stokes’ Theory of Slums: Towards Decolonised Housing Concepts from the Global South

“…Often inspired by the wish to build "slum-free" cities (Huchzermeyer 2011), they mark a disruption from international best practice of participatory in situ upgrading of precarious neighbourhoods. Examples in Africa include the standardised housing provision schemes in Angola (Croese and Pitcher 2019; Gastrow 2017), Ethiopia (Planel and Bridonneau 2017;Keller and Mukudi-Omwami 2017), Morocco (Beier 2019(Beier , 2021Harroud 2019), Rwanda (Nikuze et al 2019), and South Africa (Charlton 2018a, b;Meth 2020). Contrary to Stokes' Theory of Slums, these large-scale housing programmes opt for a shelter-centric approach of urban "integration" that tends to confuse adequate housing with the notion of "material decency".…”

“…informal settlements, "slums", bidonvilles, barraka, etc. ), rather than what it is (Beier 2021;Meth 2020). However, if society confuses adequate housing with "material decency", a denigrating label of "otherness" is likely to persist even after upgrading initiatives and decades of incremental development (Beier 2022).…”