Topic 2.

City Life and Informal Settlers

Learning Objectives

At the end of the lesson, you should be able to

1. Explain the development of city life

2. Identify the different events and incidents that altered cities
3. Understand how informal settlers develop in urban places
4. Recognize alternatives and programs that can deliver equality to informal settlers.

Presentation of Content

The growth of informal settlements, slums and poor residential neighborhoods is

a global phenomenon accompanying the growth of urban populations. An estimated 25% of the
world’s urban population live in informal settlements, with 213 million informal settlement
residents added to the global population since 1990 (UN-Habitat, 2013b: 126–8). Informal
settlements are residential areas where (UN-Habitat, 2015b; Brown, 2015):

 inhabitants often have no security of tenure for the land or dwellings they inhabit ‒ for
example, they may squat or rent informally;

 neighborhoods usually lack basic services and city infrastructure;

 housing may not comply with planning and building regulations, and is often situated in
geographically and environmentally sensitive areas (see Topic Guide on Provision
and Improvement of Housing for the Poor, Patel, 2013).

A number of interrelated factors have driven the emergence of informal settlements: population
growth; rural-urban migration; lack of affordable housing; weak governance (particularly in
policy, planning and urban management); economic vulnerability and low-paid work;
marginalization; and displacement caused by conflict, natural disasters and climate change
(UN-Habitat, 2015b).

Many governments refuse to acknowledge the existence of informal settlements, which

undermines city-wide sustainable development and prosperity. These settlements continue to
be geographically, economically, socially and politically disengaged from wider urban systems
and excluded from urban opportunities and decision-making (UN-Habitat, 2015f). City
government attitudes to informal settlements range from opposition and eviction to reluctant
tolerance and support for legalization and upgrading. Upgrading informal settlements, through
tenure regularization and provision of infrastructure, is widely accepted as preferable to
relocation (Devas et al., 2004), helping to sustain social and economic networks considered
vital for livelihoods.
Living in informal settlements disproportionately affects certain groups. Informal settlements
often sit on the periphery of urban areas, lacking access to markets and/or resources. For
women, for example, this can heighten barriers they face in accessing livelihood opportunities.
Home-based workers also face challenges to entrepreneurial activity (Chant, 2014). Women in
informal settlements spend more time and energy accessing basic services than other urban
counterparts, limiting their ability and time to earn through paid employment (UNFPA, 2007). In
addition, the prevalence of male-biased land tenure policies and restrictions on women’s rights
to own property decreases the likelihood of alternative housing options. Poor quality housing, or
eviction and homelessness, can also increase the risk of insecurity and sexual violence (Chant,
2013; McIlwaine, 2013).

Countering the negative aspects of informal settlements requires governments to recognize the
challenges residents face and actively include them in wider city systems. However, the
regularization of settlements may not overcome the stigma associated with living in certain
areas. UN-Habitat (2015b: 6-7) identifies a number of key drivers for action:

 Recognition of informal settlements and human rights. Urban authorities that adopt

rights-based policies and integrated governance create prosperous, sustainable and
inclusive cities.

 Government leadership. National governments must provide enabling environments to

develop and implement appropriate policies to bring about change. Government at all
levels must connect key stakeholders, harness local knowledge, enact policies and
plans and manage incremental infrastructure development.

 Systemic and citywide/at-scale approaches. Initiatives work best when they capitalise on
agglomeration economies; use innovative financing and taxes; ensure equitable land
management; recognise multiple forms of employment; reintegrate informal
settlements with infrastructure and services via planning and design; clarify
administrative responsibility for peri-urban areas; and undertake sensitive planning to
avoid exposure to environmental hazards.

 Integration of people and systems. Governments must develop and coordinate broader
integrated frameworks that are underpinned by urban planning, legislation and finance
arrangements; are supported by interconnected institutional arrangements; and ensure
the inclusion of marginalised groups and key stakeholders. Participation must be at the
heart of this approach, ensuring an understanding of economic and social community
dynamics.

 Housing. The provision of affordable, adequate housing, including in situ upgrading and
avoidance of forced evictions, security of tenure and livelihood and employment
generation, all play a role in urban prosperity.

 Long-term financial investment and inclusive financing options. Sustained investment in

affordable housing and upgrading programs is critical. This includes pro-poor housing
plans and financing support for all tiers of government.

 Developing participatory, standardized and computerized data collection. Residents of

informal settlements should be engaged in local data collection. Data collected at
community level must be standardized and linked to city, regional, national and global
 comparative indicators. Data collection must also be embedded in monitoring and
evaluation processes.

 Peer learning platforms. Platforms that draw on stakeholders’ knowledge should be

prioritized to facilitate peer learning. These platforms may include a range of
communication strategies and multimedia mechanisms.

 Overview of Internal Migration in Philippines

The total population of the Philippines, as recorded by UNESCAP in 2016, stands at

just over 103 million. • The Philippines’ annual population growth rate is 1.5% and its fertility rate
2.9, both in decline (UNESCAP 2016). • Internal migrants in the Philippines constitute a
significant population. Approximately 2.9 million Filipinos changed residence between 2005 and
2010. 50.4% were long distance movers (had changed province), 45.4 % were short distance
movers (had changed city), and 4.2 % were international immigrants (Philippines Statistics
Authority 2012). In 2017 there were just under 5.7 million Filipinos living abroad (UNDESA
2017), though the increase in the number of Filipinos living abroad from 2005-2010 was 1.1
million, slightly over just a third the volume of internal migrants in that period (Ogena 2015). •
The Philippines has undergone rapid urbanization which continues to this day. From 2000- 2010
the urban population increased at an annual average of 3.3%, making it one of the fastest
urbanizing countries in the Asia-Pacific. In the last 50 years the urban population has increased
Philippines Context © Shutterstock/Phuong D. Nguyen | 3 by over 50 million, and in 2050 102
million people (over 65% of the total population) will reside in cities (World Bank 2017a). In
2010, 41.9 million of the Philippines’ population of 92.3 million lived in urban areas (Philippines
Statistics Authority 2013),1 cities accounted for over 70% of GDP, and the seven largest urban
areas hosted 54% of formal jobs (World Bank 2017a). • Urban poverty has remained persistent:
in 2003 17.8% of the urban population lived at less than US$ 3.10/day/PPP, and in 2012 this
proportion remained high, at 17.4%. Nonetheless overall poverty in urban areas (13.2%) is
significantly lower than in rural areas (39.4%). (World Bank 2017a). • Rural and agricultural
poverty has driven internal migrants to seek opportunities in urban areas (IOM 2013).
Agriculture’s share in total employment declined from 43% to 27.7% between 1991 and 2017
(World Bank 2018), and its contribution to the country’s GDP dropped from 23.2% in 1990 to
13.9% in 2010 (IOM 2013) and 9% in 2017 (Philippines Statistics Authority 2017). • The main
destination for long-distance movers is Calabarzon, which absorbs 27.7% of them, followed by
Metro Manila (19.7%) and Central Luzon (13%) (Philippines Statistics Authority 2012). • The
high volume of migrants to cities has strained housing, infrastructure, and basic services in
major cities. As a result, informal settlements have proliferated: the number of informal settlers
in the Philippines has increased from 4.1% of total urban population in 2003 to 5.4% in 2012,
when 2.2 million lived in informal settlements, of which 1.3 million were in Metro Manila alone
(World Bank 2017a). • An archipelago of 7107 islands with high levels of climactic variation, the
Philippines is one of the 12 countries in the world most vulnerable to disasters and the effects of
climate change (Germanwatch 2017, UNICEF 2012). Natural calamities affected 109 million
people between 1980 and 2009 and 60% of the Philippines’ 1,500 municipalities and 120 cities
are located along coastal shores. Many of them, like Metro Manila, include areas below sea
level (UNICEF 2012). Such vulnerability hugely affects migration patterns in the country. In
2013, the Visayas region was devastated by typhoon Yolanda, displacing over 4 million
(Norwegian Refugee Council 2013b). Similarly, in 2012 Typhoon Saola displaced 197,345
individuals in Northern Philippines, and Tropical Storm Washi displaced over 285,000
individuals in 2011 (Norwegian Refugee Council 2012; 2011). 1 The 2010 Census asks “In what
city/municipality did ____ reside on May 1, 2005?” (Philippines Statistics Authority 2010). It is
therefore possible to measure internal migration based on whether a person’s current residence
is different to their residence five years earlier. As a result, no information is provided on
migrants who may have moved between the reference year and date the census took place but
returned to their original destination by the time the census was held. There is also is no way of
knowing if a migrant moved on multiple occasions with this definition. ©
Shutterstock/ArtPhaneufPhotography.com 4 | • Violent conflict has also resulted in large-scale
internal migration. For instance, the conflict in Mindanao has caused significant involuntary out-
migration, primarily in the form of displaced Moros and Lumads peoples from conflict zones
(Tigno 2006), with displaced Lumads in particular locked into a cycle of poverty (Norwegian
Refugee Council 2013a). In 2013 around 327,000 people in Mindanao fled their homes, about a
third of whom fled within Zamboanga Province, where clashes between government forces and
the Moro National Liberation Front were especially intense (Norwegian Refugee Council 2013b).
The precise extent of protracted displaced is not known, but data suggests that half of the
461,000 displaced by conflict and disasters as of the end of 2014 had fled their homes more
than a year before (Norwegian Refugee Council 2015). Migrants’ Characteristics • Evidence
suggests female migration is very significant in the Philippines, especially in ruralurban
movement. In rural Midanao, females constitute 56.3% of the out-migrant population
(Quisumbing and McNiven 2006).2 • Data from the 2000 Population and Housing Census
indicate that 52% of working-age migrants are aged 20-39. (Perez 2015). • 46% of migrants are
single or unmarried, and 24% of migrants have at least graduated from high school (ibid.). •
Different types of migrants are attracted to rural areas, poblaciones,3 and urban areas. The
latter two attract the better-school, in part because young people migrate for education or to
seek better employment prospects. Migrants to rural areas move primarily for farming and
marriage (Quisumbing and McNiven 2006). • Having contacts in the destination area is an
important factor for migrants. First-time movers rely on family and friends for financial support
when looking for work in their new destination and often live with relatives in the destination
area, whereas subsequent moves are generally self-financed. Migrants also end up living with
their own offspring and spouses on subsequent moves (ibid.). 2 This paper relied on data from
the Bukidnon Panel Study, which follows up 448 families in rural Mindanao who were first
interviewed in 1984–85 by the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Research
Institute for Mindanao Culture, Xavier University. It should not be taken to be representative of
internal migrants in the Philippines as a whole. The study interviewed the original respondents
and a sample of their offspring, both those who have remained in the same area and those who
have moved to a different location. Parents (original respondents) and children who formed
separate households in the same locality were interviewed in 2003; offspring that migrated to
other rural and urban areas were interviewed in 2004. 3 Poblaciones are the central business
and administrative districts of larger municipalities. © Shutterstock/gary yim | 5 • In Mindanao,
migrants’ reasons for moving differ by destination and by gender. Most male firsttime migrants
to rural areas migrate to start a new job (21%), or to get married (18%), while female first-time
migrants primarily move to rural areas for marriage (35%), or to start a new job (23%). On the
other hand, first-time migrants to poblaciones and urban areas, both male and female, move
either to start a new job or to access better schooling. For the most recent move (as opposed to
the first move) more males (53%) to rural areas migrate for economic reasons than for lifecycle
or family reasons, while most female migrants to rural areas migrate for family reasons, with
marriage accounting for 54% of female migrants. But for migrants to poblaciones and urban
areas, both male and female migrants primarily move for economic reasons, with the next most
important reason for moving being schooling for females and marriage for males (ibid.). •
Migrants’ occupations vary substantially based on whether or not there are male or female and
if they are moving for the first time. - Men tend to work in farming, crafts and trades, manual
labour and transportation in both their first and most recent moves. - In contrast, women who
have moved more than once tend to work in housework or childcare, and are less likely to work
in manual labour or transportation. This suggests that women who work in the latter occupations
when they first move switch occupations on their subsequent move(s) (ibid.). • Females are
more likely to move to urban areas if they have more siblings. A possible explanation for this is
that siblings who have already migrated provide pre-existing support networks for younger
sisters in families (ibid.). • Women also migrate to escape abuse within marriage and to avoid
the pressure that comes with marrying early, and young people tend to see life in urban areas
as exciting. Many migrants to Manila use it as a stopgap measure and intend to organise a
further international migration from there. They use their time in Manila to accumulate funds,
make administrative arrangements for overseas travel, and gain work experience (Anderson et
al. 2017). • Climate change affects agricultural migration. Temperature rises and typhoons
negatively affect rice yields, and cause greater outmigration from agriculturally dependent
provinces that have large rural populations. Males, the better-educated, and younger individuals
are especially sensitive to the migratory effects of climate change (Bohra-Mishra et al. 2016). ©
Shutterstock/Phuong D. Nguyen Working and Living Conditions in the New Setting • At least
75% of migrants find jobs in their areas of destination (Perez 2015). • The predominance of
female migration in the Philippines indicates that women have a degree of economic freedom,
but their concentration in gendered work suggests a lack of diverse employment options
(UNICEF Philippines and Scalabrini Migration Center 2013). • The majority of female migrants
end up in domestic work in the cities (UNICEF Philippines 2013) or work as street vendors and
in factories associated with the textile industries (Anderson et al. 2017). They are more likely
than male migrants to work as professional or managerial staff in urban areas, and in
poblaciones they are more likely to work in sales occupations (Quisumbing and McNiven 2006).
• The majority of male migrants in urban areas work in jobs that offer low salaries such as crafts
and trades, farming and manual or transportation work (ibid.). • Migrant domestic workers are
particularly vulnerable. They work long hours and are the lowest paid workers in the country.
33% work 9-10 hours per day and 20 % work 11 hours or more. In 2010, the average daily pay
received by domestic workers was approximately US$2.60 (ILO 2011). Although efforts have
been made to formalise domestic work through the introduction of Domestic Workers Act 2013,
this law is very poorly implemented. For the most part, domestic workers are not registered and
labour inspectors are also unable to enter private homes (Anderson et al. 2017). • Data from
trafficking shelters has emphasised the vulnerability of young, especially female, migrants to
being victims of trafficking (ibid.). • The Philippine’s slum population as a percentage of its urban
population is 38.3%4 (UN Data 2014), though data is not available on what proportion of the
slum population is comprised of internal migrants. Informal settlers lack access to basic
infrastructure and services, secure land tenure, protection from natural disasters, and have
limited access to capital, stable employment and 4 The disparity between the percentage
provided by UN Data (38.3% in 2014) and the World Bank Philippines Urbanization Review
(5.4% in 2012) is likely due to the differences in the definition of “slum” used by these sources.
The World Bank uses data from the 2012 Family and Income Expenditure Survey (FIES), which
takes a person to be residing in a slum if they live in a household where consent of the land-
owner has not been obtained or in makeshift housing. It is highly likely that UN Data uses a
much broader definition of “slum” which is similar to those adopted by UN-Habitat or the
Housing and Urban Development Co-ordinating Council (HUDCC). The latter defines slums as
buildings or areas that are deteriorated, hazardous, unsanitary or lacking in standard
conveniences, or the squalid, crowded or unsanitary conditions under which people live,
irrespective of the physical state of the building or area (Ragragio 2003). The UN-Habitat
definition is similarly broad: an informal settlement or slum includes any household that cannot
provide any one of the following characteristics: (1) Durable housing of a permanent nature that
protects against extreme climate conditions; (2) Sufficient living space (no more than three
people sharing the same room); (3) Easy access to safe water in sufficient amounts at an
affordable price; (4) Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private or public toilet shared
by a reasonable number of people; and (5) Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions
(UN-Habitat 2003). The divergence in definitions of “slum” has been noted as an obstacle to
research on slum populations: see HUDCC (2014). | 7 livelihood opportunities. There are also
vulnerable to natural disasters: over 104,000 informal settler families in Metro Manila live in
danger areas exposed to recurrent flooding (World Bank 2017b). • Data from the early 2000s
showed that 35% of Baguio’s indigenous population had stable jobs or sources of income and
had settled permanently in the city. However, 65% of indigenous migrants suffered from
extreme poverty caused by under-employment and joblessness. Many poor indigenous
migrants in Baguio City retained houses in their original village and headed home to do
agricultural work during the planting and harvesting season (Cacho and Carling 2002). It is
unclear if these conditions still hold true today. • Internal migration can generate social tensions.
It is not uncommon for a split to emerge between longer-time residents and new migrants in
urban centres, resulting in the generation of an “us” versus “them” mentality. Deterioration in law
and order, overcrowded facilities, and competition for customers is often blamed on “other” ,
new sub-groups in the city (World Bank 2017a). The Impact of Internal Migration on Those Who
Stay Behind • Migrants to urban areas remit more than migrants to rural areas or children who
stay in the same barangay (Quisumbing and McNiven 2010). • Internal remittances are largely
sent via money transfer operators. 69% of Filipinos do not have bank accounts, and for adults in
the poorest 40% of households, this figure rises to 82%. Transfers are rarely sent through
financial institutions (World Bank Group 2015). • Remittances have had a significant positive
impact on internal migrant-sending households’ expenditures, especially in the areas of clothing,
footwear, and education. Households receiving remittances also are able to accumulate
consumer durables and non-land assets (Quisumbing and McNiven 2010). • Among poorer
households, internal remittances generate more welfare than international remittances (Ang,
Sugiyarto and Jha 2009). However, not all internal migrants attain better jobs after migrating
and can afford to send remittances to their families. • The outflow of the young labour force and
the best-educated individuals from rural areas poses challenges to rural agricultural productivity.
The fact that most remittances are invested in nonland assets strongly suggests that migration
forces a transition out of agriculture (Quisumbing and McNiven 2010).