Redeveloping Slums or Displacing the Poor?

**Aastha Pandey

Introduction

Mumbai is well known as a city of contrasts and an example of urbanization’s paradoxes. It is a city where towering skyscrapers are seen across the road from sprawling slums. Slum redevelopment policies in the city have tried to address the various challenges posed by slum areas which have been defined as areas unsafe for occupation by its residents or causing inconvenience to the residents of the neighbourhood owing to unstable or unsafe structures, lack of sanitation, overcrowding, etc. per The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and have tried to transform them into planned urban developments. However, these policies have prioritised economic growth and interests  of real estate tycoons over the welfare of residents of informal settlements.

The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has been the central driver of Mumbai’s redevelopment strategy. The model of slum redevelopment in Mumbai is based on a neoliberal approach which tries to resolve the crisis of urban housing shortage in the city through public-private partnerships to redevelop informal settlements in the city. While supporters of this method of development argue that these initiatives offer better living conditions and economic opportunities to all, critics on the other hand, highlight the tendency of these schemes to displace vulnerable communities and rupture their socio-economic networks.

This article critiques Mumbai’s slum redevelopment policy using two theoretical frameworks: Michael Levien’s concept of “dispossession without development,” which interrogates land use changes under neoliberal regimes, and David Mosse’s relational approach to poverty, emphasizing the social and structural mechanisms perpetuating inequality. By examining the policy’s origins, implementation gaps, and impact on marginalized populations, this paper aims to propose alternative approaches that centre the rights and aspirations of slum residents. The analysis challenges the prevailing urban development regime and reimagines inclusive citymaking practices. 

Origins of Mumbai’s Slum Redevelopment Policy:

Mumbai’s slum redevelopment policy has evolved in response to the city’s rapid urbanization, migration and the housing challenges that accompanied it. With over 45% of the city’s current population living in slums, informal settlements have become a defining feature of the city’s landscape. The slums are a symbol of both the resourcefulness and marginalization of its low-income residents, with living conditions being poor but with a thriving informal economy. The effort to address the ‘issue’ of slums began in the 1970s, primarily through programs of slum clearance which were aimed at replacing informal settlements with planned housing. These programs, however, have and continue to result in the displacement of vulnerable communities to the city’s fringes, far removed from employment opportunities and basic services, and cut off from their extensive informal economies.

The Maharashtra government established the Afzalpurkar Committee, which was in-charge of formulating the development plans of Mumbai in the 1990s, in the post-liberalization period. This led to the enactment of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in 1995, which led to the formation of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The new model represents a shift from clearance-based solutions to one of redevelopment led by public-private partnerships. Under this framework, builders and developers were incentivised to construct free housing for residents of informal settlements. In exchange, they got development rights on surplus of the slum land left after they built houses for the residents of informal settlements to utilise for the builders’ own commercial use. The approach is aimed to address housing scarcity, urban planning and beautification, at the same time minimising financial strain on public resources.

The redevelopment process works based on a “cluster approach,” where slum lands are consolidated, and multi-story buildings replace the existing settlement. The rationale for this strategy is two-fold: optimising land use in a densely populated city and providing residents of informal settlements with formal housing and the added benefit of aesthetics and open spaces. However, to begin the redevelopment process, consent from 70% of the residents in a given cluster is required, creating significant logistical and social challenges.

The origin of this policy is deeply rooted in the city’s goals of economic transformation and urban aspirations. As the financial capital of India, there is constant pressure on the city to modernize to attract global investment and establish itself as a cosmopolitan. Slum redevelopment has often been framed as essential to “beautifying” the city and unlocking the economic potential of prime urban land occupied and marred by informal settlements. Over time, this perspective has led to the commodification of slum land, with redevelopment projects catering more to the interests of real estate developers and beauty of the city than the welfare and interests of slum residents.

While the policy was drafted with the goal of providing better living conditions for residents of informal settlements, this has not been seen in its implementation. Developers more often than not have prioritised their own commercial interests, resulting in delays, substandard construction and incomplete projects. The high-rise buildings constructed under the scheme fail to accommodate the economic and social networks integral to slum communities, and the buildings cater more to their commercial buyers. Additionally, the emphasis on legal property rights has excluded many residents who lack formal ownership documents in the slums, and has resulted in the further marginalization of an already vulnerable population.

A prominent example of the challenges of slum redevelopment is Dharavi, one of Asia’s largest slums. Apart from being situated on valuable real estate, Dharavi is also a thriving economic hub with diverse informal industries. Efforts to redevelop Dharavi have faced strong resistance from its residents, who demand inclusive planning and equitable solutions that prioritize their livelihoods and social cohesion. This case highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to slum redevelopment that balances urban development goals with the rights and aspirations of its inhabitants.

Theoretical Frameworks for Critique

A. Michael Levien’s “Dispossession without Development”

Michael Levien’s concept of “dispossession without development” provides a lens to examine how neoliberal policies reshape land use and ownership patterns, which often ends up leading to the detriment of marginalized communities. Levien, in his analysis, highlights the transformation of state-led developmentalism into a neoliberal model where land becomes a commodified asset, extracted from vulnerable populations under the guise of “public purpose” and handed over to private entities for profit.

Levien’s analysis stems from his study of land acquisition in India, particularly under the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) framework. He argues that these policies represent a shift from traditional developmental projects like dams and public infrastructure that at least aimed to generate broader social benefits. The slum redevelopment project falls somewhere between these two types of polices, with the aim being both welfare and commercial interests. In contrast, the neoliberal era has seen the state acting as a “land broker,” dispossessing farmers, residents of informal settlements, and indigenous populations without delivering corresponding economic development or public welfare to the disposed class. The dispossession is rationalized by promises of job creation and urban modernization, which frequently remain unfulfilled or are just unsatisfactory.

The emphasis on transforming slum land into commercially viable real estate mirrors Levien’s critique of the state’s alignment with private capital. Residents of informal settlements, often with insecure tenure, are displaced in the name of urban beautification and economic growth, while the promised benefits—adequate housing, improved infrastructure, and sustainable livelihoods—rarely materialize.

Levien’s framework shifts the focus from the rhetoric of growth to the lived experiences of those dispossessed, revealing the structural inequalities embedded in neoliberal urban policies like Mumbai’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

B. David Mosse’s Relational Approach to Poverty

David Mosse’s relational approach to poverty offers a multidimensional understanding of how systemic inequality and exclusion are perpetuated. Mosse critiques conventional poverty frameworks that focus on individual deficiencies or economic factors in isolation, arguing instead for an analysis rooted in social relationships, identity, and power structures. 

Central to Mosse’s argument is the idea that poverty is not merely a condition of low income but a product of adverse social relations. For example, mechanisms like boundary marking, where marginalized groups are categorized as “other” tend to reinforce exclusion of certain communities and limit access to resources. These dynamics are particularly evident in urban contexts like Mumbai, where residents of informal settlements are often stigmatized as illegal occupants or obstacles to modernization. Such narratives justify their displacement under redevelopment schemes, while their vulnerabilities are exacerbated by the loss of social networks and informal economic systems.

Mosse also emphasizes the role of power in shaping poverty. Beyond direct exploitation, he highlights “agenda-setting power,” where the needs and voices of marginalized groups are systematically excluded from policy discussions. This dynamic is visible in Mumbai’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, where the interests of developers and urban elites often overshadow the rights and aspirations of slum residents.

By examining how poverty is socially and politically constructed, Mosse’s framework challenges us to rethink urban development policies that prioritize economic efficiency over equity. His insights call for a shift from top-down redevelopment models to participatory approaches that recognize and address the structural barriers facing marginalized communities.

Critique of Mumbai’s Slum Redevelopment Policy

Using Michael Levien’s framework of “dispossession without development” and David Mosse’s relational approach to poverty, Mumbai’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) can be critically analysed to reveal its systemic flaws. As discussed so far, the systemic flaws in the system are rooted in the socio-political dynamics that have prioritised neoliberal growth paradigms over equity and inclusion, which has led to widespread marginalization of communities it claims to benefit.

1. Commodification of Land Over Development

Levien’s concept of “land broker states” critiques how governments prioritize land as a commodity rather than as a resource for development. The SRS incentivizes private developers to redevelop slums for commercial gains, and often neglect the actual needs of residents of informal settlements. This approach commodifies and turns the area where slums are situated into prime real estate lands. This makes this land nothing more than a commercial resource. This approach fails to recognize land as the home of residents of informal settlements and the hubs of their economy, therefore resulting in redevelopment that fails to provide robust housing, infrastructure, or economic opportunities for slum residents. The disconnect between promises of rehabilitation and actual outcomes underscores the neoliberal prioritization of profit over welfare.

2. Displacement Without Consideration for Livelihoods

The SRS mandates the relocation of residents of informal settlements into high-rise apartments, which disrupts their established socio-economic networks and way of life. Mosse’s framework highlights the centrality of social networks and informal economies in sustaining livelihoods. By resettling communities without adequate support for their economic activities, such as street vending or small-scale industries, the scheme undermines the residents’ ability to sustain their livelihoods, leading to impoverishment which is more nuanced than just shifting residence.

3. Power Imbalances and Agenda-Setting

Mosse’s analysis of agenda-setting power is particularly relevant to the SRS. Developers and policymakers dominate the discourse on redevelopment and rehabilitation. This sidelines the voices of residents of informal settlements in the planning and decision-making processes of their own redevelopment. While the policy does require 70% consent from residents, the process is often coercive, with limited transparency or any genuine community engagement. The result is redevelopment projects that reflect the interests of real estate developers rather than the aspirations of the affected communities.

4. Poor Execution and Substandard Housing

Levien’s critique of neoliberal dispossession underscores the lack of accountability in projects which are driven by private interests. Many SRS projects suffer from construction delays, substandard housing quality, and inadequate infrastructure. Residents are frequently resettled into cramped, poorly built high-rises with limited access to basic amenities, contradicting the scheme’s stated goal of improving living conditions. The free houses are generally built half-heartedly and costs are heavily cut, leading to substandard housing for those who are to be rehabilitated. 

5. Loss of Social and Cultural Capital

High-rise resettlement disrupts the community structures that are integral to residents of informal settlements’ survival and identity. Mosse’s relational framework highlights how poverty is compounded by the erosion of social and cultural capital. The lack of communal spaces and the isolation that comes from vertical housing models as compared to community housing of the slums further marginalize residents, stripping them of the solidarity and mutual support systems that characterized their original settlements.

In conclusion, rather than addressing the root causes of urban poverty, the SRS exacerbates existing inequalities. By privileging market-driven solutions, the policy caters to elite interests while displacing marginalized communities. The scheme fails to break the cycle of exclusion and dispossession, leaving residents of informal settlements in precarious conditions, oftentimes worse off than before.

Recommendations for Reforming Slum Redevelopment Policy

To address the flaws of Mumbai’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) and create a more equitable, inclusive model of urban development, the following recommendations are proposed in this article. These suggestions aim to centre the rights and needs of residents of informal settlements, ensure sustainable livelihoods, and foster participatory planning, drawing from the critiques outlined earlier. 

1. Adopt a Community-Driven Redevelopment Approach

The SRS should shift from a top-down, developer-centric model to a more community-driven approach. This approach would entail slum residents taking a more active role in the planning and decision-making aspects of this scheme. This could be achieved by establishing cooperatives or community development organisations that ensure a more participatory planning. 

2. Redefine Eligibility Criteria

The current eligibility criteria excludes a significant portion of slum residents from having a voice or entitlement in the redevelopment schemes on the basis of formal documentation. Any scheme or policy for slum redevelopment must understand how slums work and the de facto tenure of residents and their contributions to the city’s economy. Certain alternative mechanisms, such as participatory enumeration conducted by independent organizations, can help establish more equitable baselines for eligibility.

3. Integrate Livelihood Support into Redevelopment Plans

It is imperative for policies to recognize and integrate in their scheme the interdependence of housing and livelihoods. Redevelopment plans must necessarily incorporate spaces or some forum for informal economic activities, such as small businesses and street vending, which are essential for residents of informal settlements’ survival. Mixed-use housing models, which integrate residential spaces with commercial and industrial space, can allow for commercial and residential activities to coexist, fostering economic resilience and self-dependence. This model would best help replicate the small industry and community-based economy of slums, while offering them a higher and safer standard of living.

4. Provide Robust Social Infrastructure

New housing developments must go beyond basic shelter provision and include essential social infrastructure, such as schools, healthcare facilities, and communal spaces for its residents. These investments will not only improve quality of life but also help rebuild social capital that is often lost during resettlement. Designs for redevelopment should prioritize community-building by including public areas, recreational spaces, and facilities that promote interaction and inclusion.

5. Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms

In order to prevent exploitation and ensure that what is promised is delivered, the policy must also include robust accountability mechanisms for its effective implementation. These mechanisms would include independent monitoring bodies which is made up of representatives from civil society, academia, and resident associations should oversee redevelopment projects. These bodies should have the power to ensure timely delivery, quality control, and compliance with rehabilitation commitments with some recourse like hefty fines or re-allotting the tender for non-compliance. This will somewhat reduce the risks of substandard housing and incomplete projects.

Conclusion

Mumbai’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, while ambitious in its goals, has fallen short of delivering meaningful improvements to the lives of residents of informal settlements. Through the theoretical frameworks of Levien’s “dispossession without development” and Mosse’s relational approach to poverty, this article has revealed how the scheme’s market-driven approach has prioritized commercial interests over community welfare. The policy’s implementation has often resulted in the displacement of vulnerable populations, disruption of social networks, and erosion of economic opportunities. To address these systemic failures, a fundamental shift is needed toward community-driven development that emphasizes participatory planning, inclusive eligibility criteria, and robust accountability mechanisms. This reformed approach must recognize slums not merely as urban problems to be solved, but as vibrant communities deserving of dignified housing solutions that preserve their social fabric and economic networks. Only through such comprehensive reforms can Mumbai achieve truly equitable urban development that serves all its residents, particularly its most marginalized populations.

**Aastha Pandey is a fourth year student (BA LLB Hons) at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.