Handle with care: navigating the pluriformity of power to enable actionable knowledge for transitions in informal settlements in the global south

This is my summary and reflection on the article: Schipper, K., Silvestri, G., Wittmayer, J.M., Isoke, J.B. and Kulabako, R., 2019. Handle with care: navigating the pluriformity of power to enable actionable knowledge for transitions in informal settlements in the global south. Urban Transformations, 1, pp.1-11.

The central focus

This article delves into the significance of co-producing actionable knowledge for promoting sustainable changes in informal settlements within the Global South. The author underscores the importance of comprehending power dynamics within these contexts. The primary goal of the article is to offer guidance to practitioners engaged in sustainability transitions, aiding them in navigating the various dimensions of power’s role in these transitions.

According to the article, power is a complex and contentious concept that manifests in multiple ways, exerting influence beyond individual actors. The author introduces three key entry points to empirically unravel power dynamics and develop actionable insights. First, gaining a deeper understanding of the diverse organizational frameworks present in informal settlements. Second, analyzing the interdependent relationships among various actors and their intersections. Finally, creating a contextualized understanding of power dynamics within the political system and service delivery.

Methodology

The text represents qualitative research that introduces a perspective drawn from on-the-ground fieldwork and experimental studies in Kampala, Uganda. It draws from extensive field visits, informal and semi-structured interviews, as well as co-production sessions. All these efforts focus on sustainability challenges related to water services in informal settlements. Thus, the article presents original primary research complemented by secondary data from other studies.

Primary recommendations

Based on the perspective of sustainability transitions presented in the article, effective research and solutions for urban challenges hinge on understanding and addressing power dynamics. The author emphasizes the need for engineers, policymakers, scientists, and development workers to critically assess their actions and implementations in order to cultivate power-sensitive actionable knowledge. The article concludes with three essential recommendations based on the three entry points mentioned earlier:

1. Practitioners addressing urban sustainability should familiarize themselves with existing power frameworks and the predominant characteristics of the areas and inhabitants.
2. A comprehensive systematic understanding of the challenges should inform solution options, incorporating dynamic maps of power relationships, intersections, and interdependencies related to specific urban challenges within communities.
3. Interventions should account for power dynamics within the broader political system, ensuring a holistic approach.

Novel concepts

Which established ideas are the authors building upon? The notion of recognizing and addressing power dynamics as foundational knowledge for sustainable transitions resonates as a novel idea. Additionally, the concept of “actionable knowledge” for sustainable transitions stands out, as it denotes empirical knowledge derived from actual fieldwork studies. This form of knowledge proves essential for formulating contextually suitable policies, a departure from the prevalent reliance on theoretical abstract knowledge that might not be effective in specific contexts.

Furthermore, the article advocates for a paradigm shift in how power dynamics are approached, asserting that true sustainable transitions necessitate a reconsideration of established power relations. This idea opposes the tendency among developers to align their efforts with existing power structures, which can hinder genuine transitions. The article challenges planners to disrupt this pattern.

Reflection

The author’s perspective on using terms like “informal” and “disorganized” to describe informal settlements as exclusionary and controlling resonates. The significance of understanding dominant frameworks surrounding these settlements and their inhabitants is also well-founded. I concur with the assertion that questioning existing frameworks is essential to obtain actionable knowledge.

In my view, the article aptly highlights the inadequacy of trial-and-error urban planning, particularly relevant in countries like Iran, part of the “Global South.” The article’s call for historical-contextual analysis to provide a realistic overview of settlements and to understand their unique attributes is sensible. Engaging with locals to cultivate sustainable solutions is a key takeaway, recognizing that power dynamics significantly influence local interactions and shaping within informal settlements.

The article’s critique of the terms “informal” and “Global South” presents a paradox. While challenging the stigmatization associated with the term “informal,” the article employs the term “Global South” in opposition to the “Global North.” This binary classification might hinder a holistic understanding of the world’s challenges and their interconnectedness. Embracing a more nuanced and interconnected perspective could provide a more effective approach to addressing these issues.