1

The Middle Classes: urban poverty and apathy in Mumbai

Responsible Development in a Polycentric WorldInequality, Citizenship and the Middle Classes23-26 June 2014, Bonn

Poverty and the Middle ClassesMeera TiwariManish Kumar Jha

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 28.9B 0.71 5 13.3C 0.89 2 0.00D 0.96 1 10.0E 0.54 14 11.9F 0.52 FN: 21, FS: 8 FN: 58.1, FS: 35.8G 0.57 GN: 18, GS: 11 GN: 55.8, GS: 33.1H 0.55 HE: 20, HW7 HE: 78.8, HW: 41.1K 0.67 KE: 9, KW: 10 KE: 58.3, KW: 45.1L 0.29 23 84.7M 0.16 ME: 24, MW: 22 ME: 77.5, MW: 68.5N 0.52 16 70.2, P 0.51 PN: 19, PS:12 PN: 63.6, PS: 48.1R 0.68 RC: 3, RN: 6, RS: 15 RC: 33.7, RN: 46.6, RS: 55.3S 0.51 17 85.8T 0.76 4 35.2Total 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 Mumbaihttp://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 AREAV26 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 NEEDYV47 THINK THAT SLUMS PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING V48 SELF-EMPLOYEDV49 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.