Over the past two decades, we have witnessed an exponential rise in number of transnational grassroots organizations and internationally oriented civil society actors. An entirely new range of social movements, networks, and organizations has surfaced internationally. For many researchers, the emergence of such organizations often collectively- and somewhat inaccurately-described as “global civil society,” was interpreted as a cause–effect spiral generated by the new economic realities of globalization. Under this view, globalization from above is countered by globalization from below. Nonetheless, one can rightly claim that such transnational organizations have managed in recent years to reformulate to a certain extent the question of urban poverty from the perspective of poor communities. Through which ways the urban poor - the forgotten ones of the globalization process- have gained a worldwide voice in the international development arena?
While public policy analysis has studied extensively the role of advocacy networks within national politics, few studies have looked at the role of transnational advocacy networks. Keck and Sikkink (1999) define such systems as networks including actors that work internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse and dense exchanges of information and services. This description fits well into new urban slum upgrading developments undertaken by federated local community groups through enhanced support from government institutions (local or state) but also international development aid actors such as the World Bank, UN-Habitat and powerful foundations (Gates, Rockefeller).
The Slum Dwellers International (SDI) was born under specific circumstances related to the failure of government policies and/or other Indian based organizations to take action against urban poverty in Mumbai, India. Although created in 1974, the event that triggered the greater community reaction was the 1976 bulldozing of the Janata Colony in Mumbai. This colony had endured a long fight to avoid demolition by the Indian government. Despite assurances issued by the Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi, the settlements were ultimately destroyed. After the demolition, Jockin Arputham, a community leader from Janata and founder of National Slum Dwellers in India, initiated the effort that would become the National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF) of India and later on would grow into a transnational network of grassroots communities.
In many ways, the approach undertaken by SDI bears the characteristics of the “movement infrastructure model” developed by Andrews (2001). The movement is based on differentiated leadership structure that ranges from local community leaders to international directors lobbying at the international level. Such differentiated leadership allows communication to various audiences. The different communities are bounded by an organizational structure that relies on enhanced ties that cross geographic, cultural and social boundaries. Ultimately, the resources (financial but also in species for instance sweat equity etc) benefit from the support of its members but equally from significant donations from international and state agents.
This type of organization seemed to have made use of specific tactics when confronted with a project destined to ameliorate railway performance within Mumbai. Initially, similar projects have relied on extensive relocation of slum dwellers, far from the areas they were squatting. In the specific case of the Indian railways this strategy seemed logical: the slums were located such that they slowed train speeds and resulted in thousands of annual deaths and injuries on trains that carry more than six million passengers each way in daily commutes of more than an hour in trains that are often filled to 250 percent capacity. Through the use of the different tactics presented by Keck and Sikking, SDI managed to take a leading role in the process of relocation. The use of information politics through slum censuses provided a useful tool in order to start up negotiations with the State of Maharashtra. Equally, the coalition through active mobilization and usage of symbolic politics managed to present a positive image of the usually excluded slum dwellers through stories that can have an impact beyond the local. In addition, the strategic coalition leveraged the support of the WB, main funder of the project. Finally, the enhanced weight of the coalition has successfully leveraged guarantees that the government will fulfill its promises by providing housing for the displaced households.
While many questions remain as to what extent this heterogeneous network coalitions (grassroots organizations, development agencies) can move beyond the ephemeral, it seems that in many ways the approach undertaken by SDI has many of the characteristics developed by earlier social movements at the national level. More specifically, Andrews’ description of the tactics undertaken by the Mississippi Civil Rights movement, where action and reaction was combined to access-influence models bears many similarities to the philosophy and strategies of SDI.
While public policy analysis has studied extensively the role of advocacy networks within national politics, few studies have looked at the role of transnational advocacy networks. Keck and Sikkink (1999) define such systems as networks including actors that work internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse and dense exchanges of information and services. This description fits well into new urban slum upgrading developments undertaken by federated local community groups through enhanced support from government institutions (local or state) but also international development aid actors such as the World Bank, UN-Habitat and powerful foundations (Gates, Rockefeller).
The Slum Dwellers International (SDI) was born under specific circumstances related to the failure of government policies and/or other Indian based organizations to take action against urban poverty in Mumbai, India. Although created in 1974, the event that triggered the greater community reaction was the 1976 bulldozing of the Janata Colony in Mumbai. This colony had endured a long fight to avoid demolition by the Indian government. Despite assurances issued by the Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi, the settlements were ultimately destroyed. After the demolition, Jockin Arputham, a community leader from Janata and founder of National Slum Dwellers in India, initiated the effort that would become the National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF) of India and later on would grow into a transnational network of grassroots communities.
In many ways, the approach undertaken by SDI bears the characteristics of the “movement infrastructure model” developed by Andrews (2001). The movement is based on differentiated leadership structure that ranges from local community leaders to international directors lobbying at the international level. Such differentiated leadership allows communication to various audiences. The different communities are bounded by an organizational structure that relies on enhanced ties that cross geographic, cultural and social boundaries. Ultimately, the resources (financial but also in species for instance sweat equity etc) benefit from the support of its members but equally from significant donations from international and state agents.
This type of organization seemed to have made use of specific tactics when confronted with a project destined to ameliorate railway performance within Mumbai. Initially, similar projects have relied on extensive relocation of slum dwellers, far from the areas they were squatting. In the specific case of the Indian railways this strategy seemed logical: the slums were located such that they slowed train speeds and resulted in thousands of annual deaths and injuries on trains that carry more than six million passengers each way in daily commutes of more than an hour in trains that are often filled to 250 percent capacity. Through the use of the different tactics presented by Keck and Sikking, SDI managed to take a leading role in the process of relocation. The use of information politics through slum censuses provided a useful tool in order to start up negotiations with the State of Maharashtra. Equally, the coalition through active mobilization and usage of symbolic politics managed to present a positive image of the usually excluded slum dwellers through stories that can have an impact beyond the local. In addition, the strategic coalition leveraged the support of the WB, main funder of the project. Finally, the enhanced weight of the coalition has successfully leveraged guarantees that the government will fulfill its promises by providing housing for the displaced households.
While many questions remain as to what extent this heterogeneous network coalitions (grassroots organizations, development agencies) can move beyond the ephemeral, it seems that in many ways the approach undertaken by SDI has many of the characteristics developed by earlier social movements at the national level. More specifically, Andrews’ description of the tactics undertaken by the Mississippi Civil Rights movement, where action and reaction was combined to access-influence models bears many similarities to the philosophy and strategies of SDI.
RSS Feed