Practices of Legibility Making in Indian Cities: Property Mapping Through Geographic Information Systems and Slum Listing in Government Schemes

Abstract

Property mapping through use of geographic information systems (GIS) and slum listing are practices of official knowledge production in government improvement schemes in Indian cities. Our comparative analysis of these two practices is in concert with recent amplifications of Scott's analytical scheme around the notion of legibility making. In both cases knowledge production in practice encounters an “amorphous state.” Government representatives and interests frequently intermingle with non-governmental representatives and interests. This influences knowledge production in practice with different implications for government scheme implementation and participation in urban governance. We find that slum listing supports scheme implementation better than GIS property mapping. The latter seeks to translate the notion of a clear delineation between state and non-state into organizational and technical design for legibility making. It stops short of reaching larger aims of the scheme and comes to focus on the problem of incomplete knowledge and mechanisms of self-referential monitoring. The more organic practice of slum listing involves dispersed paper and desktop technologies and relies on traditional sites of knowledge production in the city. It is adjusted to and enacted by an amorphous state. The official knowledge produced is temporary in nature, and as such allows for incremental and partially reversible scheme implementation. Slum listing retains channels of negotiation with city administration and politicians, which are vital for poorer sections of the urban populace. Our study is relevant to policy and future research, because as of 2012 the new national slum improvement scheme requires implementation of GIS also for slum data collection and management. The question is, whether the new scheme will run into similar problems as GIS property mapping or whether it puts at risk existing channels of negotiation.

Keywords:

• legibility
• urban governance
• India
• GIS
• listing

Acknowledgments

The authors thankfully acknowledge the many people in Mugdali, Dhabunagar, Kadovali, Bangalore, and Mumbai for their support and hospitality, the Dutch Science Foundation for funding this research in the framework of the NWO-Wotro-Integrated Program “Using Spatial Information Infrastructure in Urban Governance Networks: Reducing Urban Deprivations in Indian Cities,” and the researchers affiliated with the project for the discussions and feedback during the course of this study. We also very much thank the reviewers of the original manuscript for their insightful comments and Dr Karin Pfeffer at the University of Amsterdam for several previous reviews of the manuscript.

Notes on contributors

Christine Richter has a background in Human Geography with main interests in urban studies and cartography. She is currently a Ph.D. researcher at the Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) of the University of Twente. Her research focuses on the implementation and use of Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Data Infrastructure in the Indian administration and implications for urban planning practice and governance.

Yola Georgiadou is Professor in geo-information for governance at the Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) of the University of Twente. Her research interests include the use of geo-information and geo-ICT in governance, as well as the governance of geo-ICT and Spatial Data Infrastructures. She is research collaborator in the research program linking local action to international climate agreements in the tropical dry forests of Mexico and in using spatial information infrastructure in urban governance networks. She is co-leader of the research program Sensors, Empowerment, and Accountability in Tanzania (SEMA).

Notes

1. We opted for fictitious city names in three cases (Mugdali, Dhabunagar, and Kadovali) to retain anonymity, because of informal and intimate research encounters in these cities.

2. Municipal bill collectors collect property taxes from urban residents (not residing in slums). Slum office bill collectors work for the slum board at the district level and collect installments from slum residents, for instance, installments for previous housing and infrastructure schemes, in which beneficiaries have to carry part of the cost.