Spatial segregation, inequality, and opportunity bias in the slums of Bengaluru

Abstract The existence of slums or informal settlements is common to most cities of developing countries. In India, slums contain a wealth of diversity that is masked by a high level of poverty and rather insufficient access to resources. Recent studies have identified that the conventional perception of slums as distinctive homogeneous settlements is incorrect, rather slums are diverse and complex systems that cannot be addressed through one-size fits all approaches. In this paper we investigate Tilly's theory on group segregation and how it reproduces or reinforces inequality within the slums of Bengaluru. We apply statistical techniques (correspondence analysis and regression) to novel field data from 37 slums in Bengaluru. First, we find high levels of spatial and group segregation by religion across the slums of Bengaluru. Second, we find that segregation leads to opportunity bias among slum dwellers, which inhibits equitable access to jobs in the labour market. Finally, the results show that insufficient access to resources constrain the income generation and leads to emerging coping strategies. The results indicate that group identity is key to addressing disparity and how solving inequality can drastically impact group identity. Our results show that targeting horizontal inequality (as compared to vertical inequality) may increase the rate of successful interventions for each of the segregated groups of slum dwellers.

[1]  Hervé Abdi,et al.  Correspondence Analysis , 2014, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[2]  William A. V. Clark,et al.  Modeling Categorical Data with Chi Square Automatic Interaction Detection and Correspondence Analysis , 2010 .

[3]  Xuefei Ren Governing the Informal: Housing Policies Over Informal Settlements in China, India, and Brazil , 2018 .

[4]  B. Needham,et al.  Changing ability to pay for housing into effective demand: Evidence of institutional constraints from the slums in India , 2017 .

[5]  Mahmud Mohd. Jusan,et al.  Housing Choice and Preference: Theory and Measurement , 2012 .

[6]  A. Ghimire,et al.  Effect of gender preference on fertility: cross-sectional study among women of Tharu community from rural area of eastern region of Nepal , 2014, Reproductive Health.

[7]  R. Tao,et al.  Son preference in rural China: patrilineal families and socioeconomic change. , 2011, Population and development review.

[8]  R. Ray Poverty, Household Size and Child Welfare in India , 1999 .

[9]  A. Crooks,et al.  Measuring slum severity in Mumbai and Kolkata: A household-based approach , 2014 .

[10]  D. Basu,et al.  Son Preference and Gender Inequality , 2006 .

[11]  Charles Tilly,et al.  Durable Inequality , 2004 .

[12]  G. Singh,et al.  Spaces of Discrimination Residential Segregation in Indian Cities , 2012 .

[13]  Somik V. Lall,et al.  Implications of alternate policies on welfare of slum dwellers: Evidence from Pune, India , 2008 .

[14]  Peter M. A. Sloot,et al.  Modelling the impact of household life cycle on slums in Bangalore , 2017, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[15]  Peter M. A. Sloot,et al.  The emergence of slums: A contemporary view on simulation models , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[16]  Amitabh Kundu Making Indian Cities Slum-Free , 2013 .

[17]  David Rain,et al.  Neighborhoods and Fertility in Accra, Ghana: An AMOEBA-Based Approach , 2010, Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Association of American Geographers.

[18]  L. Kulcsar,et al.  Rural Sociology , 1938 .

[19]  D. Basu,et al.  Son targeting fertility behavior: Some consequences and determinants , 2010, Demography.

[20]  S. Chaplin Indian cities, sanitation and the state: the politics of the failure to provide , 2011 .

[21]  Jai K. Das,et al.  Evidence from district level inputs to improve quality of care for maternal and newborn health: interventions and findings , 2014, Reproductive Health.

[22]  O. D. Duncan,et al.  A METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SEGREGATION INDEXES , 1955 .

[23]  S. Desai,et al.  Caste in 21st Century India: Competing Narratives. , 2012, Economic and political weekly.

[24]  V. Dupont Socio-spatial differentiation and residential segregation in Delhi: a question of scale? , 2004 .

[25]  Anirudh Krishna,et al.  Stuck in Place: Investigating Social Mobility in 14 Bangalore Slums , 2013 .

[26]  Michael Greenacre,et al.  Correspondence analysis , 2010 .

[27]  R. Pande,et al.  Son preference and sterilisation use among young married women in two slums in Bengaluru city, India , 2011, Global Public Health.

[28]  S. Clark Son preference and sex composition of children: Evidence from india , 2000, Demography.

[29]  J. Nijman,et al.  Against the odds: Slum rehabilitation in neoliberal Mumbai , 2008 .

[30]  H. Schenk Living in India's Slums, a case study of Bangalore. , 2001 .

[31]  M. Hill Correspondence Analysis: A Neglected Multivariate Method , 1974 .

[32]  Anirudh Krishna,et al.  Slum types and adaptation strategies: identifying policy-relevant differences in Bangalore , 2014 .

[33]  M. Barke,et al.  A review of slum housing policies in Mumbai 1 the unintended city. (S. P. Modi, quoted by Da Cunh , 1998 .

[34]  G. Van Eijk Unequal Networks: Spatial Segregation, Relationships and Inequality in the City , 2010 .

[35]  Z. Husain Analysing demand for primary education: Slum dwellers of Kolkata , 2005 .