Link to Session Platform

Chairs(s):

Pearl Puwurayire, Brandenburg University of Technology

; Christian Rosen, Brandenburg University of Technology

Description:

The study of infrastructures and their patterns of production and use forms one of the central elements for analyzing urban development processes in cities of the Global South (Marais/Cloete 2016). Social science research often demonstrates a direct link between improved living conditions and better access to infrastructure services (Jerome 2012). The provision of technical as well as social infrastructures is therefore understood today as a central challenge in planning and development (Rana et al. 2017). In this context, it has often been noted that the transfer of conventional notions about the availability of urban infrastructure, such as uniform public provision with egalitarian access, strongly assumes North-Western ideals that do not automatically apply in the Global South or address the actual challenges only to a limited extent (Lawton et al. 2018; Monstadt/Schramm 2017).
At the same time, infrastructures for the distribution of goods and services always represent important reflections of social orders and power relations (Olivier de Sardan 2010; Jaglin 2017). In this context, they prove to be ordering elements and form nodes or connection points that produce new social contexts and exclusions (De Boeck/Plissart 2015).
Infrastructures can be understood as "complex assemblages that bring all manners of human, non-human, and natural agents into a multitude of continuous liaisons across geographical space" (Graham 2010: 11). Accompanying this definition is the recognition that infrastructure development is not just a technical or financial challenge, but also a political and social process. Practically, Olivier de Sardan (2010: 5-6) therefore proposes to examine the delivery configurations of infrastructures. He understands this to mean the actors and institutions, the equipment and resources, and the different forms of co-production, from direct to indirect collaboration and temporary or permanent arrangements. He also suggests analyzing the function of infrastructures as substitutes, competitors, or complements to existing structures. By focusing on these dimensions of inquiry, it is possible to overcome the boundaries of public and private, legal and illegal, commercial and non-commercial, technical and social, and to examine infrastructures in their actual complexity and different perceptions by the actors.
Increasing urbanization in cities of the global South does not necessarily lead to an equal increase in wealth for the entire urban population, but often to a widening of wealth disparities between different population groups (Avni/Yiftachel 2014). Reasons for this are seen primarily in the increase in informal urban development and associated processes of exclusion, which Yiftachel (2009) understands as "gray spaces." Informality is not understood as a counterpart to formality, but is relationally conceptualized: "Informality is not 'outside' formal systems, but is instead produced by formal structures and always intimately related to them." (Porter 2011: 116).
In recent years, calls have grown louder for a distinct theory of planning that integrates the diversity of cities in the global South and different conceptions of what urban development means (Watson 2012; Miraftab 2009). Each neighborhood can be understood as essentially unique in its mix of formal and informal structures, distribution of wealth and poverty, statistical population structure, and everyday practices carried out on the ground (Simone 2009). This results in the need for a case-based and small-scale perspective (Healey 2012). Nevertheless, it has been pointed out, it should still be possible to learn from the experiences of cities studied and use them to develop transferable solutions for other cities with similar conditions (Leitner/Sheppard 2016). Subsequently, more attention is paid to the processes of urban development and not only to its goals and outcomes.
Infrastructure research responds to these demands, with various works devoted to the relationship between formal and informal practices for the production and use of infrastructures. As a critique of the Networked City model (Tarr/Dupuy 1988; Graham/Marvin 2001), they note that cities in the Global South are characterized by great heterogeneity and thus local socio-technical problems cannot be addressed with standardized development concepts (Coutard/Rutherford 2016). Instead, they investigate hybrid arrangements of network and non-network infrastructures, of public and private as well as planned and evolved structures.
Urban development processes are permeated by formal and informal structures. Case studies reveal the simultaneity, the often permanent juxtaposition and coexistence of formal and informal processes, i.e. also the gray spaces in cities of the global South, and examine their relationship to social inequality (McFarlane 2010). These approaches turn away from the perspectivization of hybridity only as a starting point towards a "better", wholly formalized development strategy. They address questions about the diversity of local manifestations, their preconditions and their consequences for the inhabitants.

Non-Presenting Participants Agenda