The London School of Economics and Political Science Remaking Rio de Janeiro through “Favela Integration” ------------------------------------------------- The Politics of Mobility and State Space Tucker Landesman A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography & Environment of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2016 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 83,388 words. 2 Abstract This thesis examines how states develop and implement urban planning and governance policies and programmes in response to segregation and socio-spatial inequalities. Rio de Janeiro has long been constructed as both a “marvellous city” and as strictly “divided” between the so-called formal city and the self-built favelas that developed into “consolidated” neighbourhoods. While never granted full legal tenure and continuously denied basic rights as guaranteed in the 1988 “CitiZens’ Constitution,” public policy in the late twentieth century recognised the permanence of the favelas and state interventions evolved from demolishing to “upgrading.” Since the early 2000s, the municipal, state-province, and federal governments have all pursued objectives to “integrate” the favelas. These include participatory urban planning interventions, militarised occupation and policing of favelas, implantation of social and cultural infrastructure, and technocratic good-governance projects. I argue that these combined efforts amount to a new paradigm of “favela integration,” and I seek to understand how “favela integration” is produced and contested; in what ways state interventions meant to “integrate” the favelas transform urban space; and how techniques of urban planning and governance establish favela space as legitimate and constitutive of the city. Based on 18 months of mixed-method qualitative fieldwork, and drawing on the literatures of landscape and critical mobilities, I argue that “favela integration” is hegemonically defined through state facilitation and regulation of flows of people, goods, and services in and out of the favelas. Discursively produced based on liberal notions of citizenship and favela residents’ right to the city, I use critical mobilities analysis to reveal how “favela integration” reproduces spatial inequalities. I then consider the paradigm as a state spatial 3 strategy of territory. I build on contemporary theories of state space and territory as effect and consider how planning, technocratic governance, and infrastructure employ social technologies to bridge the favela/city binary and produce the “integrated city.” I engage with literature concerning state spatiality under neoliberalism to examine how “favela integration” follows hegemonic socio-economic ideology, but I argue for a nuanced understanding of the state and discuss how such ideology is contested at various scales. 4 Acknowledgements: Primeramente… I could not have completed this dissertation without the support, mentorship, feedback, friendship, love, encouragement, counselling, and tolerance of a great number of people. I have unending gratitude for my supervisor, Professor Gareth Jones, for his guidance throughout this project. I was not a conventional PhD student, but Gareth expertly guide me through the process nonetheless. I am particularly grateful for his close readings of chapter drafts, insightful comments, Skype calls, early morning WhatsAPP messages of urgent encouragement, and generous mentorship. I would also like to recognise Drs. Ryan Centner, Alessandro Angelini, Sharad Chari, Sandra Jovchelovitch, Jacqueline Priego-Hernandez, Murray Low, Christopher Gaffney, Hyun Shin, and Andreas Chatzidakis for their encouragement, advice, and acts of kindness over the years. Additionally I thank Professors Jorge Luis Barbosa at the Universidade Federal Fluminense and Professor Teresa Peixoto Faria at the Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense for hosting me as a visiting PhD student while I conducted fieldwork in Rio de Janeiro and subsequently returned to write “from the field” that became my home. I am grateful for the generous funding I received from The London School of Economics and Political Science, The Urban Geography Research Group, The Regional Studies Association, The Royal Geographical Society Slawson Awards, and The Society for Latin American Studies. After me, the person most excited, relieved, and grateful that this dissertation is complete is undoubtedly my partner, Vinicius. I imagine he was unaware of what he was walking into when we married seven months before final thesis delivery and two days before a chapter deadline. Thank you for believing in me, pushing me, comforting me, cooking with me, loving me, and building a life with me. Now we can finally talk about a honeymoon. To protect the anonymity of some, I do not name any individuals who granted me interviews, talked with me at length about their work, or introduced me to their colleagues and bosses. But please know that I 5 am very grateful for the time you granted me during my fieldwork. Also in Rio de Janeiro, a number of people made my extended fieldwork possible and enriching. Thank you to Dr. Fernando Oliveira for your friendship and a place to live. To my fellow PhD researchers—Nick Pope, Charlie Livingstone, Stuart Davis and Hector Miranda—thank you for the stimulating conversations, support, tips, and good times. Thank you to my comrades in the LSE Geography & Environment PhD programme who showed me the way and shared in the struggle: Taneesha Mohan, Michal Nachmany, Meredith Whitten, Jayaraj Sundaresan, Andrea Gibbons, Mara Nogueira, Matt Birkenshaw, Claire Brickell, Chris Suckling, Ulises Moreno, Cristina Inclan, and Antonis Vradis. This thesis would not have been possible without the lifelong support of my parents, David and Linda Landesman, who have always encouraged my explorations, curiosities, passions, and academic endeavours. I also thank my sister, who repeatedly offered me her guest room in Los Angeles as a “writer’s retreat” complete with an assortment of foster pups as company (maybe next time!). Dozens of extended family members and friends have offered continued support and encouragement at key moments during my PhD process for which I am forever grateful: my cousin Taylor and his partner Molly, my adoring and adored Grandmothers Ellie and Ruth, the Tea Connection crew Adina, Brian and Laura; mis queridos porteños Pablo, Mercedes, Tati, Luis, Sergio, and Davin (honorary); Luca and Mick in London (who have both generously given me free places to stay while in London between fieldwork), my first London roommates Jorge and Fabrizio; Bruno, Gabriel, Julia, and the extended family of the Comunidade Amorosa. 6 Table of Contents Acknowledgements: ..................................................................................... 5 List of abbreviations..................................................................................... 9 List of figures ................................................................................................11 Chapter 1 – Introduction...........................................................................12 1.1 Arrival to the field and defining the problem....................................13 1.2 Research questions and summary of claims......................................17 1.3 Thesis structure...........................................................................................20 Chapter 2 – Historical and Contemporary Understandings of Urban Segregation, Inequality, and “Marginality” in Rio de Janeiro.............................................................................................................25 2.1 The founding of Rio and the foundations of the favelas.................27 2.2 Urban social marginality – the theory that just won’t quit ...........33 2.3 From marginality to mega-events and “bare life” – contemporary debates...................................................................................................................46 2.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................55 Chapter 3 – Concepts and Theory ..........................................................58 3.1 Constructing “landscape” .........................................................................59 3.2 Pairing a “politics of mobility” with landscape analysis................65 3.3 Redefining the state ...................................................................................69 3.4 State + space (under neoliberalism) ....................................................73 3.5 Territory as effect .......................................................................................77 3.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................82 Chapter 4 – Methodology and Methods ...............................................84