The Middle Classes: urban poverty and apathy
in Mumbai
Responsible Development in a Polycentric World
Inequality, Citizenship and the Middle Classes
23-26 June 2014, Bonn
Poverty and the Middle Classes
Meera Tiwari
Manish Kumar Jha
1
Introduction
• The literature
– A northern perspective
– The rationale for this paper
– The Indian Context
• The case studies
– Mumbai
– Patna
• The apathy index
• Tentative conclusions
The literature: a northern perspective
• Marxist discourse and the binary conceptualisation- the
missing class
• Weberian class structure and the emergence of the middle
class – petty bourgeoise and the intelligentsia
• Education, assets and character/status to preserve
• Moore (1967, 1993): Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy
– Middle class the vibrant political community
– Drives the political process
• Easterly (1999): higher the class (middle) homogeneity the
better the human capital and institutional capital
accumulation
The rationale for this paper
• Problematic proposition:
– Interchangeability of ‘diversity’ with polarisation
• Lack of engagement with asymmetries in access to
resources and opportunities, use of public goods
• A contentious definition
– The old literature
– The recent discourses
• Rapid expansion of the middle classes in the new middle
income countries with continuing large poor populations
remains unexplained
– Drivers of change
– Impediments to progress
– Indifference
Literature: the Indian context
• Macaulay’s class (1895): The colonial legacy and emergence of the
middle class
– Landed gentry, bureaucrats, post-independence political class
– the class – caste influence and class formation (Jaffrelot, 2008)
• Fernandes and Heller (2011):
– NEP: new middle class influenced by consumerism
– Tangible and significant
– Amorphous class
– Class in-practice: reproduces its privileged position
• Harris (2005): activism (middle class), politics (the poor)
• Civil society engagement with politics:
– Anna Hazare to AAP
• Upadhya (2008): reshaping middle class identity
Case Study: Mumbai
A city of contradictions
• Place and space for poor and the middle classes
• Right to the city:
– legality/illegality,
– migrant vs native
• Politics of the city and the role of the middle
class
Ward
HDI
Rank
Slum population % (2001)
A
0.58
13
28.9
B
0.71
5
13.3
C
0.89
2
0.00
D
0.96
1
10.0
E
0.54
14
11.9
F
0.52
FN: 21, FS: 8
FN: 58.1, FS: 35.8
G
0.57
GN: 18, GS: 11
GN: 55.8, GS: 33.1
H
0.55
HE: 20, HW7
HE: 78.8, HW: 41.1
K
0.67
KE: 9, KW: 10
KE: 58.3, KW: 45.1
L
0.29
23
84.7
M
0.16
ME: 24, MW: 22
ME: 77.5, MW: 68.5
N
0.52
16
70.2,
P
0.51
PN: 19, PS:12
PN: 63.6, PS: 48.1
R
0.68
RC: 3, RN: 6, RS: 15
RC: 33.7, RN: 46.6, RS: 55.3
S
0.51
17
85.8
T
0.76
4
35.2
Total
0.56
54.1
Source: Mumbai Human Development Report, 2009, MCGM
The Apathy Index (AI)
• What is apathy?
• Literature on apathy: mid 20th century
– Political apathy: Gans, 1952; Rosenberg, 1954; Dean, 1960;
Greenberg, 2010
– Student apathy, Kaiser, 2010
– Apathy in education sector: Bishop, 1989; Richey & Petretti, 2002
– Citizen apathy towards environment: Zavestoski et al (2004)
– Apathy towards ‘others’/beyond my/ comfort zone/my world
• Why the apathy index
– Silos don’t exist
– An interconnections in societies: inter class connection and influences
– Awareness of the linkages
• Methodology
– Factor analysis
– Dimensions
– Weighting
Methodology for AI: UDRI – Development plan for Mumbai
http://www.mumbaidp24seven.in/reference/WARDWISE_COMPARISION.pdf
V1 LIVING IN MUMBAI SINCE BIRTH
V2 WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT HOUSING
V3 WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT EDUCATION
V4 WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC SPACE
V5 WHO HAS CONSISTENT SAFE POWER SUPPLY
V6 WHO NEVER EXPERIENCE POWER FAILURE
V7 WHO THINK MUMBAI SHOULD INVEST IN WIND ENERGY
V8 INTERESTED IN PRESERVATION OF HERITAGE BLDGS.
V9 THINK SMALLER BLDGS. SHOULD PROVIDE MORE HOUSE
V10 WHO THINK THAT MUMBAI IS TOO CONGESTED
V11 HAS NO ADEQUATE PUBLIC SPACE NEAR TO RESIDENCE
V12 WHO IS SATISFIED WITH UPKEEP OF PUBLIC SPACE
V13 THINK THAT MUMBAI CONTAINS ENOUGH GREEN COVER
V14 WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE TOILETS DEVELOPED
V15 WANT GARDEN AS OPEN PUBLIC SPACE DEVELOPED
V16 WHO FELL ILL WITH MALARIA IN PAST 3 YEARS
V17 WHO USES PRIVATE HEALTH FACILITES
V18 WHO FIND COST OF PRIVATE HOSPITALS AFFORDABLE
V19 WHO HAS NO HOSPITAL NEAR RESIDENCE
V20 WHO IS SATISFIED WITH QUALITYOF LOCAL HOSPITAL
V21 WHO HAS NO ACCESS TO WATER
V22 WHO IS SATISFIED WITH MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
V23 FOR WHOM PRIMARY WATER SOURCE IS MUNICIPAL
V24 THINK THAT CARS ARE BIGGEST SOURCE OF POLLUTION
V25 NEVER EXPERIENCE GARBAGE REMOVAL FROM AREA
V26 SEVRELY AFFECTED BY POLLUTION IN MUMBAI
V27 WHO THINK THAT MUMBAI SHOULD DESPOSE WASTE
TROUGH RECYCLING
V28 AWARE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN
V29 WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE MORE INVOLVED/ AWARE
V30 NEED FOR MORE CITIZEN PARTCIPATION IN PLANNING
V31 FIND IT DIFFICULT TO INTERACT WITH GOVERNMENT
V32 WHO TRAVELS DISTANCES BY TRAIN
V33 WHO WANTS TO SEE TRAIN SERVICE IMPROVED
V34 WHO TRAVELS DISTANCES BY BUS
V35 WHO WANTS TO SEE ROADS IMPROVED
V36 WHO FINDS PUBLIC TRANSIT ADEQUATE
V37 WHO FINDS PUBLIC TRANSIT AFFORDABLE
V38 WHO THINK THAT PUBLIC TRANSPORT IS NOT SAFE
V39 HOUSEHOLDS WHO OWN A 4 WHEEL VEHICLE
V40 LIVING IN APT. BLDGS.
V41 LIVING IN CHAWLS
V42 PEOPLE WITH NO BATHING AREA IN RESIDENCE
V43 PEOPLE WITH NO TOILET IN PLACE OF RESIDENCE
V44 WHO HAS LESS THAN FOUR PERSON PER HOUSEHOLD
V45 HAS MORE THAN TWO HABITABLE ROOMS PER HSE
V46 GOV. SHOULD PROVIDE HOUSING TO NEEDY
V47 THINK THAT SLUMS PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
V48 SELF-EMPLOYED
V49 EARN-ING LESS THAN 20.000RS./ MONTH
V50 EARN-ING MORE THAN 150.000RS. PER MONTH
V51 WHO TRAVEL LESS THAN 2KM TO WORK
V52 SAVING LESS THAN 10% OF INCOME/ MONTH
V53 PRIMARY SCHOOL AS HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION
V54 SATISFIED WITH QUALITY OF LOCAL SCHOOL
V55 WHOSE CHILDREN DO NOT ATTEND SCHOOL
V56 NO LIBRARY NEAR RESIDENCE
Methodology:
• Factor Analysis: method for data reduction
– Seeking unobservable (latent) variables reflected in
the observed (manifest) variable
– Communalities: Proportion of each variable’s variance
explained by the factors
– Extraction method: proportion of each variable
explained by the retained factors – variables with high
values well represented
– Initial Eigenvalues and Scree plot
• Dimensions: 5
• Weighting: ranking of dimensions based on the socio
economic context in Mumbai
Performance of the18 Mumbai wards:
AI and HDI correlation
Tentative conclusions
• Disjuncture between middle class literature in the North
and the Indian context
• Middle classes in Mumbai appear to exhibit higher levels of
apathy with increasing levels of development
• More research is needed to harness the middle class
human ad social capital towards societal equity
• Thank you!
More Mumbai data:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
54-60 percent of 13 million population live in slums, squatters, pavements
Slum population occupy around 8-11 percent of city’s land area.
Bulk of poor in informal sector work
Urban Capital Accumulation (by dispossession): Interest of developers, corporations
and ‘citizens’ vs ‘Population’ /people
Victims of spatial purification and gentrification- neo liberal influence of development
is all pervasive
Excluded on the basis of migrant/local; legal/ illegal, encroachers
‘Illegal squatters’, ‘encroachers’
Politics of “cut-off” date (reduced citizenship/ fragmentation of poor)
Graduated Citizenship (Ong 2007); differential political subjectivities
Eviction and demolition- refugee in their own city
Everyday life defined by sense of insecurity: illegality as norm, temporality as reality
Located in the North Eastern edge of the city, the neglect of the ward, the
historically low land values, and the presence of undeveloped lands has resulted in
the ward being a refuge for several thousand slum families. Currently, over 77% of
the M–Ward population lives in slums.
– M Ward has the highest (66.47 per 1000 live births) Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)
– The number of health posts in this ward is 11, some of which cater to more than
2,00,000 people, making service delivery a challenge.