SHANGHAIZATION OF MUMBAI: VISIONS, DISPLACEMENTS, CONTESTATIONS BY RAVI GHADGE DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse, Chair Professor David Wilson Associate Professor Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi Assistant Professor Brian Dill ABSTRACT A central question in the field of global studies is how does the development planning of emerging economies address social inequality? The emerging economies have achieved remarkable economic success in recent years; however, this success has also accompanied new challenges of mega-urbanization, new rural and urban poverty and inequality. This has prompted a reexamination of the growth strategies in countries such as India and China who have made “inclusive growth” as their central goal of development planning. In the context of inclusive growth, urban development has emerged as a key problematic that seeks to balance high growth and reduction in poverty and inequality. Growth has fueled national ambitions for increasing power in world politics and the global market and cities are viewed as key actors in sustaining this growth. In this context, growth gets normalized, masking its inequities, unevenness, and contestations. Therefore, any serious discussion about inclusive growth in emerging economies has to take into account the complex urban realities within these societies and the challenges involved in making growth inclusive. Taking Mumbai—India’s “global city”—as a case, this dissertation explores competing claims of urban development among diverse stakeholders in the city (including planners, business associations, civic organizations, activists, and poor peoples’ movements) in the context of the recent national growth strategy in India that gives primacy to cities. I analyze the genealogies of emerging local (urban) development imaginaries, modeled after “successful” Asian cities, particularly Shanghai. In doing so, I focus on the processes, actors, visions, and practices that constitute and contest these urbanization strategies. The study was based on twelve months of field work (archival research, interviews, and ethnographic observation) in Mumbai. The study contributes in problematizing taken-for-granted assumptions of growth in the ii emerging economies and calls for broad-based inclusive development that focuses on the quality and welfare implications of growth. Some of the key findings of the study are: ~Shanghaization as an urban growth strategy was produced and sustained by a constellation of actors operating at multiple scales involving the corporate sector, the national and subnational state, and the urban middle classes. ~As a model of development, Shanghaization is narrowly focused on growth rather than broad- based development. As an entrepreneurial model, it privileges the urban middle-classes and does not address structural poverty and inequality in the city. ~Shanghaization is not merely a metropolitan imaginary, but has emerged as a national urban- centric model of development in India that is premised on uneven development. ~By challenging the narrow economic assumptions in development thinking, the poor people’s movements in the city open up possibilities for ground-up, broad-based developmental alternatives that are equitable and sustainable. iii To Priyam, for her love, patience, and support & Rishaan, for the new adventure…. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..................1 CHAPTER 1: INCLUSIVE GROWTH AND THE URBAN QUESTION...…..…....................23 CHAPTER 2: AN UNEQUAL CITY: THE MAKING OF BOMBAY/MUMBAI…….............50 CHAPTER 3: THE SHANGHAI MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT……………..…….…...........73 CHAPTER 4: SHANGHAIZATION OF MUMBAI: VISIONS OF A “WORLD CLASS” MUMBAI…….........................................105 CHAPTER 5: TRANSFORMING MUMBAI: “THE VIOLENCE OF DEVELOPMENT”……………………………............132 CHAPTER 6: WHOSE CITY IS IT? MUMBAI: A CONTESTED CITY.................................150 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………...…........187 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………........194 v INTRODUCTION ~“Indian cities will be the locus and engine of economic growth over the next two decades, and the realization of an ambitious goal of 9—10 per cent growth in GDP depends fundamentally on making Indian cities much more livable, inclusive, bankable, and competitive.” (Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012), Planning Commission, Government of India 2008:394). A central question in the field of global studies is how does the development planning of emerging economies address social inequality?1 Emerging economies, particularly in Asia, have achieved spectacular economic success in the last few decades (Harris 2005; Nederveen Pieterse 2008b; Prestowitz 2005).2 For years now, growth rates in the global South (particularly in India and China) have far exceeded those of the North (Nederveen Pieterse 2008b). There is a widespread optimism that in this “Global-Asian Era,” the new economic dynamism in Asia, led by India and China, would alter the international political economy dominated by the “transatlantic West,” thereby reshaping the world (Kaplinsky and Dessner 2006:197). Sustained growth in the past few decades has led to significant improvements in living conditions and a decline in extreme poverty in the world.3 However, this growth has also brought with it numerous challenges—mega-urbanization, new rural and urban poverty, and inequality—that threaten to derail the progress of growth and poverty reduction (Commission on Growth and Development 2008; Davis 2004; 2006; Dicken 2003; Mittleman 2006; Nederveen Pieterse 2008b; 2009; Sassen 1999). For example, in India although there has been a decline in urban poverty (largely attributed to the increasing rate of urbanization), the absolute number of the urban poor has increased in recent years. Moreover, the incidence of decline in urban poverty has 1 Some scholars prefer to use the term “emerging societies” to emphasize a sociologically rich understanding of the internal debates within the emerging economies that focus not only on the economic dynamism, but also the social and political processes that shape it and are shaped by it (Nederveen Pieterse and Boike Rehbin, 2009b). This study supports this endeavor. 2 Investment bankers have coined the term BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) to refer to a special category of countries which have sustained high growth rates. See Harris (2005) and Prestowitz (2005). 3 However, some scholars are critical of these dominant claims on poverty reduction. For example, see Wade (2004). 1 not accelerated with the GDP growth (Government of India 2009). Therefore, it is imperative to understand the developmental trajectory of emerging economies. As Nederveen Pieterse (2009b) puts it: How the development path of emerging economies relates to social inequality; what is the relationship between economic vitality in emerging economies and social inequality? Are social inequality and multi-speed economies built into the pattern of accumulation such that if inequality recedes accumulation declines, or is the development path geared towards reducing inequality? Where do the emerging economies lay their growing weight—with growth without equity or growth with equity? (P. 4) However, the uneven and unequal nature of growth in emerging economies has not unnoticed and has recently prompted a reexamination of existing growth policies. As a result of this, “inclusive growth” has emerged as a new development paradigm in many countries that seeks to focus not only on the pace, but also on the quality and pattern of growth.4 Recently, countries such as India and China have made inclusive growth as the center piece of their development planning (Fewsmith 2004; Planning Commission, Government of India 2006; 2011; State Council of China 2006). In planning for inclusive growth, urban development has emerged as a key problematic that seeks to balance high growth and reduction in poverty and inequality. Cities are extremely important for growth. As highlighted by the urban studies literature in the West, due to the agglomerative nature of global capitalism, cities (“world/global cities”) are assuming a more central role in the world economy (Abu-Lughod 1989; Arrighi 1994; Braudel 1986; Friedmann [1986] 1995; King 1990; Renntich 2006; Sassen 1991; 2001).5 Moreover, the shift of global trade toward Asia has led to the spectacular rise of cities in the Asian world and with that a 4 At this point, it is worth mentioning that there is more to development than growth and poverty. Questions of equality, dignity, and justice are vital for development. In this context, refer to Nederveen Pieterse (2002) for a critique of the contemporary poverty-centric approach of development. 5 In 2009, cities accounted for 70 per cent of the world’s GDP (World Bank 2009). In India, 62 per cent of the GDP is generated in towns and cities (Government of India, 2009: xv). 2 renewed interest in urban development in this region (Amin and Thrift 2002; Roy 2009). While the recent financial crisis has somewhat dented the reputation of New York, London, and Tokyo, cities such as Singapore and Dubai have emerged as new centers of global finance (Roy and Ong 2011). Increasing importance of cities in the Asian world has reconfigured national growth strategies, thereby altering the dynamics between