Studies in Comparative International Development

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 365–378 | Cite as

Reflections on “The Politics of Informality”: What We Know, How We Got There, and Where We Might Head Next

  • Diane E. DavisEmail author


Building on the methodological and empirical contributions of the various authors in this special symposium, this concluding reflection acknowledges the important role that informality plays in urban and national politics in the global South, even as it proposes a range of alternative ways, this critical topic could and should be inserted into contemporary scholarship in comparative politics. It begins with a discussion of two decades of research on urbanization and economic globalization, thus introducing a wider set of disciplinary concerns than merely urban servicing into the study of informality, ranging from the transformation of property rights regimes in the context of ascendant neo-liberalization to the recent emergence of more decentralized political structures for claim-making and governance. The essay then suggests that greater historical and contextual specificity in the study of informality, along with the methodological innovations highlighted in the papers, will further help reveal the range of responses to informality seen across the different case studies. Specifically, it proposes that closer attention to divergent urban and national pathways of democratization, attention to institutional variations within and across democratic regimes, political party dynamics at the local and national level, and the existence of urban violence, among other factors, will help explain how and why bureaucrats and elected officials may choose to deal differently with the existence of informality. The essay concludes by arguing that informality should be considered as both a form of governance and a means of enacting citizenship. It thus asks scholars to question the longstanding conceptual dichotomies that permeate much of the literature on informality, including the stark conceptual divide between the formal and informal, and instead to recognize that complex, interactive, and iterative relationships between citizens and the state in the arena of informality are what drive urban servicing and sociopolitical change.


Informality Urban governance Citizenship State capacity Democratic politics Party dynamics 


  1. Angel S et al. Making room for a planet of cities. Lincoln institute of land policy, Cambridge, MA; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. Azuela A. Low income settlements and the law in Mexico City. Int J Urban Region Res. 1987;11(4):522–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beall J. Surviving in the city: livelihoods and linkages of the urban poor. In: Devas, N., (ed.) Urban Governance, Voice, and Poverty in the Developing World. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA; 2004. pp. 53–67. ISBN 1853839922.Google Scholar
  4. Becker KF. The informal economy: fact finding study. Sida: Department for Infrastructure and Economic Co-operation; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Boudreau J-A, Davis DE. Introduction: a processual approach to informalization. Curr Sociol. 2017;65(2):151–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis DE. Informality and state theory. Curr Sociol. 2017a;65(2):315–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis DE. Rethinking the role of social, spatial and political conditions in the study of informality. In: Hernandez F, Becerra A, editors. Marginal urbanisms: informal and formal development in cities of Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Scholars Publishing; 2017b.Google Scholar
  8. De Alba F. Challenging state modernity: governmental adaptation and informal water politics in Mexico City. Curr Sociol. 2017;65(/2):182–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glaeser E. Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey D. The right to city. The New Left Review; 2008; 53.Google Scholar
  11. Hassan A et al. How to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) in urban areas. Environ Urban, 2005; 17/1.Google Scholar
  12. Martine G et al. editors. The new global frontier: urbanization, poverty and environment in the 21st century. Earthscan, London; 2008.Google Scholar
  13. Naqvi. Governance as an emergent compromise: modernization and flexibility in the Pakistani electrical power sector. Curr Sociol; 2017. 65/2 195208. Google Scholar
  14. Olds K. Globalization and the Asia-Pacific region: captial, culture, and Pacific rim mega projects. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Porter M. The economic performance of regions. Reg Stud. 2003;37(6–7):549–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Romer. The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks. American Economic Review, Am Econ Assoc; 2010. 100/3: 763–801.
  17. Roy A, AlSayyad N. Urban Informality: international perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. Lexington Books, Langham, MA; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. Satterthwaite D. The transition to a predominantly urban worlds and its underpinnings. International Institute for Environment and Development, Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series, Theme: Urban Change –4; 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Schavelzon S. El nacimiento del estado plurinacional de Bolivia: Etnografía de una asamblea constituyente. La Paz: Plural Editores; 2012.Google Scholar
  20. Sharma A, Gupta A, editors. The anthropology of the state: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. de Soto H. The mystery of capital. Finance and Development; 2001: 31/1.Google Scholar
  22. Yamauchi F et al. Human capital accumulation, migration, And the transition from urban poverty: evidence from Nairobi slums. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of DesignHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations