Chapter four covers social organization and participation within colonias. Highlighting the differences between settlements and communities, Ward argues that colonias tend to exhibit settlement-like qualities. This is in part due to the individualized nature of land contracting, the low population densities and absenteeism, and the lack of a perceived outside enemy (due to limited government action). Furthermore, colonias lack informal social infrastructure, which is defined as “networks of communication and habitual contact between individuals” (166). Formal social infrastructure, by contrast, are the institutions created externally to meet social needs, such as health and education. This distinction is expanded by looking at horizontal (informal, individual relationships) versus vertical (resources/linkages beyond community’s reach) forms of social integration. According to Ward, horizontal integration must occur first in order for a community to develop. However, both forms of integration must occur in order for physical improvements to be made.

Essential to Ward’s analysis of social organization is the concept of community participation. This is the residents’ awareness of, and involvement in, the community decision-making process and it is essential to building a sense of community. Whether an area is considered a community or settlement also affects the way in which it will be viewed by government and NGOs. Settlements are seen in spatial terms of physical structures and demographics; programs are therefore short-term and are implemented from the outside onto settlements. Communities, on the other hand, are viewed as containing internal cohesion, a set of common goals and are approached in a holistic manner where NGOs or government work with community organization. This approach requires more time, however it more successfully needs community needs and eventually lowers costs.

In looking at the degree of horizontal and vertical integration within Texas colonias, Ward examines migration patterns, levels of poverty, local leadership, land supply mechanisms, availability of information and the degree of political recognition. In order to create a strong horizontal integration, Ward claims that colonias must contain community participation, independent leaders, and interactions with other colonias. In terms of cross-colonia interaction, Ward points out that this type of organization is usually generated from outside NGOs. While NGOs in Texas colonias do help communities develop political and communication skills, they are also criticized for being paternalistic and increasing colonia dependency.

In terms of recommendations, Ward argues that colonia self-sufficiency and long-term needs should be the goals of NGOs. In terms of horizontal integration, organizations should foster community participation (through voter registration campaigns, recreational activities, etc.); responsible leadership (through transparent, simple elections); and cross-colonia initiatives (through civic representation of local needs and goals). Looking at vertical integration, Ward recommends fostering external links through simple means of information distribution; maintaining unaffiliated, independent leadership; institutionalizing external links and providing legitimacy colonias through cross-colonia mobilization; and fostering NGOs.

A brief overview of Chapter 5 on social services analyzes the difference between top-down and bottom-up service provision. Ward claims that social services are extremely important, however they are often (erroneously) viewed as independent of, and sequential to, the provision of physical infrastructure. This is due in part to the more visible nature of physical services. Also, residents tend to prioritize physical services as more urgent (although Ward believes this is partly because of constructed perceptions of state willingness to provide these services). Further more, physical services are cheaper and it is therefore easier to justify direct investment. Other factors include funding sources and the political leverage that accompanies being identified with visible physical projects. Ward effectively argues that stronger links should be created between physical and social services; one way this can be accomplished is by investing in “human capital” of colonia residents, instead of waiting for the development process to “come to them.”

Based on her own experience in US colonias and academic research, Donelson analyzes the differences between local NGOs and NGO networks and their respective impact upon US colonias. She claims that NGO networks began “responding” to colonias in the 1980s, when professional organizers began working with church leaders to recruit primarily female community members. These networks created “spin-off” NGOs to resolve local disputes and policy problems, to foster community leadership, and to provide basic services, community centers and affordable housing. However, Donelson does state that local residents were also responsible for seeking the assistance of “intermediary” NGO networks. She claims that these networks have allowed colonias organizations to gain more political leverage and awareness.

In comparison to NGO networks, Donelson looks at local NGOs within the colonias, which she claims are rarely successful. For a variety of reasons, these NGOs “lack administrative staff, legal incorporation and clearly defined missions” (336). Not only do they lack the technical expertise and resource availability, but they are also prone to self-serving community leaders. Furthermore, these smaller NGOS only focus on service provision. In addition to the constraints imposed by federal funding (which earmarks funding to be used for service provision), colonias residents are also reluctant to engage in more political activities that do not provide immediate improvements.

Unlike local NGOs, Donelson claims that NGO networks focus on structural problems and political organization. The advantages offered by these networks, which she examines in greater detail, include negotiating with “centres of power;” the development of local NGOs; and solidarity among multiple, heterogeneous colonias. However the goals of NGO networks can also conflict with those of local NGOS. Furthermore, local NGOS risk losing their autonomy as well as their accountability with local residents.

In order to create a balance between community mobilization and service provision, NGO networks must work carefully with local NGOs. While they do offer access to greater resources and the means to increase political leverage, networks can often leave community residents feeling mis-represented or simply ignored. In order to effectively to transform colonias into “mutual aid communities of hope” (342), NGO networks must work to clearly express their goals and philosophies. They must also “help small NGOs maintain accountability by encouraging them to preserve their ‘smallness’” (342). Finally, networks must constantly work towards leader-development and self-sufficiency of colonias. Donelson’s recommendations are certainly useful in terms of thinking about the relationship – and differences – between NGOs within the colonias. However, I would like to examine the negative aspects of NGOs networks further. It might be helpful to look at how NGO networks as well as local NGOs are structured administratively, how they receive funding, etc.

Ward provides a useful overview of a variety of aspects of the colonias in Texas and Mexico.  I plan on reading the entire book, however his introduction to his case studies and the processes of land use and development will provide a helpful introduction to the colonias.  His view that “colonias are actively produced and articulated, rather than being a residual outcome of rapid urbanization” (Ward 9) is an insightful way of approaching and understanding the development of colonias – and communities like VES.

In 1996, there were nearly 1,400 colonias with a total of 350,000 residents along the Texas-Mexico border.  According to Ward’s research, colonias tend to integrate with paved roads, services and two-story dwellings within 15-20 years.  In terms of characteristics, 80% of the residents have incomes at or below the national poverty level.  Anywhere from 65-80% of adults are U.S. citizens and 33% do not speak English.  Colonias lack basic services such as water services and sewage disposal. This clearly leads to serious health problems, such as Hepatitis A and shigellosis; Ward also points out that the colonias became an issue for state and local governments only when the health problems related to inadequate water services began to affect city life.  He also emphasizes the way in which water (or lack thereof) came to embody the definition of a colonia.  This limited definition not only ignores the social and income aspects of colonia life, but also affects the way in which governments go about “solving” the problem.  The lack of an integrated housing policy leads to the colonias being seen as an environmental or health care concern – not as a housing problem.  Although public task forces are created to address issues within the colonias, they tend to see the problem in partial, restricted terms. 

In contrast to their Mexican counterparts, colonias in the U.S. tend to be smaller in physical size and population density.  This makes intervention more costly and low voter registration translates into less political influence for colonia residents.  Furthermore, Ward claims that low population densities and high levels of owner absenteeism also limits a sense of community.  Informal and formal “community organization structures are weak or nonexistent, especially during…settlement” (Ward 5)  This aspect, which Ward covers in depth in later chapters, could provide an interesting contrast to the community organizations in VES. 

In his chapter on land and housing production, Ward relies on development trends of Mexican colonias to explain the Texas phenomenon.  Much like the development of other shanty towns, the colonias were a product of the inability of the market, public sector and government to provide housing for individuals with low wages and limited credit-worthiness.  Ward also claims that rapid urbanization, the growth of the economy and demand for labor, as well as the integration of the low wage formal sector are all aspects of colonia development.  Much like Gilbert, he claims that population growth was in sync with economic growth.  Chronologically, the 1940-50s were a time of import-substituting programs and rapid urbanization in developing countries.  Up until the 1960s, government viewed shanty towns as illegal and substandard.  Such communites were either eradicated by the government or simply ignored.  Influenced by scholars such as Turner and Mangin, the 1960-70s gave way to government-sponsored “sites-and-services” and upgrading programs, and the regularization of land titles.  The 1980s, however, saw a decrease in direct involvement as governments focused on making the market work smoother via infrastructure projects, removing “bottlenecks” on land markets, and so on.  

In terms of Texas colonias, Ward claims that the government is relatively passive.  Unlike Mexican government, the federal and state governments in the U.S. support home ownership for a number of reasons.  Public housing is therefore limited and socially stigmatized.  In addition to less federal support for supplying housing, state regulations are much higher than in Mexico.  With the end of the Bracero Program in 1964, employers no longer had to provide housing for laborers.  Real estate developers and landowners responded by capitalizing on consumer demand, idle agricultural land, lax land development regulations and the Contract for Deed (CFD) mechanism.  Unlike shanty towns elsewhere, this form of land development is usually legal, albeit exploitative.

According to Texas law, land developers must pave roads and provide basic infrastructure for residential land within city limits.  Until 1989, developers used county land close to cities and sold “unimproved” lots at low prices.  Also, until 1985, land titles were only given to the buyer after the entire price of the lot had been paid off; without equity protection, many residents were subject to immediate forfeiture of their land (and improvements they had made) if they were unable to pay monthly fees.  The federal and state governments have passed a number of laws which require basic services in newly sold colonias and limit the exploitative nature of CFD.  However, the laws and federal grants do not cover all colonias.  As stated earlier, many of these grants are designated for water projects within colonias.  This highlights the assumption that once services are installed, the settlement is no longer a colonia.  However, Ward challenges this notion, claiming that a colonia is also constituted by its specific housing production process and embedded patterns of social and cultural organization.

I have primary sources from important scholars, such as Turner, Mangin and Pradilla, however I wanted to take a look first at a secondary source that summarizes and critiques these historical perspectives.  In this article, the authors set out to appraise the arguments used by Marxists and non-Marxists in regards to the housing issue.  They also assess the differences as well as the common ground between both views and their impact on global housing policies, especially as they are promoted by institutions such as the World Bank.

They focus initially on Turner as representative of the “liberal” approach.  They provide a helpful summary of some of Turner’s key ideas:

1.      Housing is a process, not just shelter; housing is a verb

2.      House should be assessed based on its human use value, not its material value; should not be seen as ‘what it is,’ but ‘what it does’

3.      Housing needs change and vary depending on the individual/family; because these needs cannot be generalized, the state fails to adequately meet these diverse needs.  Therefore, dwellers should make decisions about housing.

4.      Without denying dweller autonomy, local governments must facilitate the housing process by providing infrastructure, proscriptive laws and access to building elements (land, materials, credit, etc.)

These ideas were reflective of Turner’s belief that governments should not resort to eradication of settlements; instead, it should view self-help housing as a possible solution to housing problems.

As the authors point out, Marxists soon began to critique Turner’s approach, arguing that it failed to challenge the capitalist economic and social structure which they perceived to be the cause of poverty and underdevelopment.  Rod Burgess was one such individual who argued that Turner’s approach maintained the status quo. 

Burgess’ ideas can be summed up as follows:

1.        Turner fails to recognize the relationship between use value and market value; instead, he incorrectly assumes that use value is more dominant

2.      Turner blames industrialism without recognizing it as a part of capitalism; squatters actually operate within the capitalist system by being part of the ‘petty commodity production’ cycle and perpetuating the cheap reproduction of labor.

3.      Turner’s view of government is “bourgeois” and overlooks class-based issues; he fails to recognize the interests of political leaders and their manipulation of squatters; he forgets that government is supported by capitalism and therefore cannot legislate against its own capitalist interests.

Essentially, Burgess views self-help as a way of lowering wages, reproducing cheap labor, preventing political protest, and converting housing into a capitalist commodity.In looking at the divergences between these two approaches, the authors argue that the two approaches “have a different method of analysis, they start with different questions and refer to different principles” (145).  While the Marxist approach seeks to relate housing to capitalism by positing the issue in a wider urban context, the liberal approach focuses on localized field evidence and empirical data.  As stated by Harloe, each side is essentially trying to answer fundamentally different questions.

In addition to addressing these theoretical differences, the authors argue that the housing issue in developing countries has actually been over-exaggerated.  They support this idea by arguing that that housing is not seen as the most important aspect for low-income groups.  Instead, they tend to focus on economic conditions and services.  Also, even though rural living conditions are worse, urban housing is more visible and therefore attracts more attention.  They also argue that most governments are actually apathetic and rarely implement housing policies in a complete and meaningful way.

After discussing the mistaken identification between World Bank policy and Turner’s theory as well as the role of the state, the authors conclude by arguing that both Marxists and non-Marxists can find common ground.  Interestingly, they point to the often contradictory nature of the state, whereby its welfare nature “represents both the achievements of past working-class struggles and the requirements of capitalist production” (152).  Thus, researchers can – and should – research “positive elements,” such as squatter settlement upgrading, where the state has met the needs of the urban working class.  Such programs can also lead to community organization and increased political power for the settlement dwellers; by achieving these positive benefits, they argue that “upgrading programmes may serve several, often conflicting, interests” (153).

Turner is seen by many as a pioneer in self-help housing research. Writing in the last 1960s and later, his work focused initially on Latin America and particularly on Peru and Mexico. However, once invited to work in the U.S., he realized along with other researchers, that his theories regarding housing development were applicable to the U.S. context as well.

This article clearly presents Turner’s argument that squatter settlements “offer uniquely satisfactory opportunities for low in come settlers” (167). Much more flexible than standardized housing policies supported by the government, these settlements actually meet the specific needs of settlers. Challenging the principle of minimum modern standards, Turner argues that “ordinary families in urbanizing countries do…prefer to live in large unfinished houses – or even large shacks – rather than in small finished ones” (167). While it is unclear what he would define as an ordinary family, Turner’s point is obvious. Unlike middle income families who can rely on stable wages and employment to provide social security, lower income families look to property ownership for security. Geographic stability, while an impediment for wealthier groups, is actually an “agent of social mobility” for settlers. Turner also highlights the role that generational concerns play; families tend to view this geographic stability as something which will help their children to “achieve a higher social status” (167).

Even if this geographic stability and possession of land means the settlers must sacrifice and wait for public services, Turner claims that most view the process of self-help as worth it. Before turning to his case study of Pampa de Cuevas in Lima, Turner makes sure to emphasize the incredibly rapid urbanization occurring in Latin American cities. Squatter settlement growth rate of 12 percent per year double rates of city growth; two-thirds of the growth in Peruvian urban population is made up of squatters. Using Pampa as an example, he argues that the majority of individuals prefer illegal squatting to the limited legal alternatives.

Whether unable to find other accommodation or searching for home-ownership, Turner’s settlers are motivated by a variety of reasons and produce a much more diversified social population than state-sponsored housing programs. While urban tenements might be closer to work, the squatter settlements provide for a more complete fulfillment of settlers’ needs. Settlers are able to achieve greater independence at an earlier stage in life (many are young families) and living conditions are constantly – even if gradually – improving. One “physical advantage” of this type of housing is that living spaces are larger than in “instant development” (urban housing programs). “Progressive development,” as Turner calls it, also solves the problem of obtaining credit and struggling with long-term mortgages. Furthermore, he claims that “it…stimulates the investment of nonmonetary resources – those that are in most abundant supply in a developing country” (177) and strengthens social and familial relationships.

Clearly, Turner challenges “instant” housing projects and argues for autonomy in self-help settlements. While Turner’s work can clearly relate to the experience of Villa El Salvador, it also provides an interesting tool for analyzing the government’s involvement in the colonias.

With a strong emphasis on capitalist market structure and class conflict, Harms looks at self-help housing policy from a historical perspective. He differentiates between two interpretations of self-help housing: that held by individuals such as John F.C. Turner which sees it as a positive, autonomy-granting solution to housing problems and that held by individuals who challenge the benefits of self-help housing. Harms immediately adopts a class conflict-based view of self-help housing; he views it, as a practice adopted by dominated groups and as a mechanism used by groups in power to maintain the status quo. Furthermore, much of his discussion is colored by class-based perspectives. He maintains that one’s class determines the way in which an individual will view, and experience, the self-help housing issue.

One interesting point Harms makes involves the commodification of housing. Unlike “precapitalist” societies that were traditionally based on self-help subsistence lifestyles, today’s capitalist society turns houses into commodities, valued for their economic worth on the market. Clearly, this is problematic when looking at the housing needs of the poor; instead of building houses that accommodate lower income groups, houses are built that will sell on the market. For this reason, housing production is directly related to the “stratification of society.”

By looking, first, at the political nature of housing production, Harms makes an argument that self-help housing can either be a tool for collective action, or a tool for controlling public protest against the State. This emphasis on a “struggle from below” and the State’s attempts “to maintain the social relations of production” (20) is reminiscent of Marxist theory.

In terms of economics, Harms seems to disagree with those who view self-help housing as a cost-efficient – and therefore positive – alternative for the poor. Instead, he sees self-help policies as attempts to cut back on social expenditure. It also leads to the devaluation of labor and places heightened economic responsibilities on the individuals who must construct their own dwellings.

Unlike others, such as Gilbert, Harms sees self-help housing as a survival necessity, not as a calculated decision based on cost-benefit analysis. Focusing on the emergence of self-help housing in Latin America, particularly around the time of the Cuban Revolution, he claims that adoption of self-help policies by those in power was a reluctant, gradual process. Only because the revolution challenged the “existing structure of domination in the region” (23) did governments take the advice/instruction of other countries and transnational organizations to address the housing issue. Much like theories of leader co-optation, Harms views self-help housing programs as efforts to control potential protest and contain potential social movements.

Harms’ section on self-help housing in the U.S. focuses on market mechanisms and the “filtering process” whereby housing becomes available to lower income groups once middle to upper income groups vacate the housing for newer, better quality homes. He cites the Great Depression as a moment of economic and political tension; once the market and filtering process broke down, a severe housing crisis occurred, forcing the government to create the US Housing Authority and public housing initiatives. One example from Pennsylvania highlights the success and limitations of state-initiated and big business-funded self-help housing projects.

One aspect to consider for my project might be to look into a 1969 report sponsored by HUD and researched by Turner and the Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, “Self-help Housing in the U.S.” While it deals primarily with inner city self-help issues, it might shed some light on the way in which self-help housing has been viewed historically. According to Harms, the report was a result of political unrest and housing issues during the civil rights era. Reflecting the government’s interest in reducing public expenditure and intervention, the report focuses on income levels to differentiate between independent self-help, organized self- and mutual-help and employed self-help. Independent self-help was characterized by moderately low income groups and represented the majority of individuals participating in self-help. Because of their income level, this group was seen as relatively stable and apolitical. Harms does point out that the report failed to capture much attention from HUD; perhaps due to its relationship with the private building industry, HUD apparently failed to provide technical and financial assistance to non-profit organizations working in the field of self-help.

Written in 1967, Mangin’s article just barely pre-dates the settlements that I am studying. Despite this, many continue to cite his work, his fellow researcher John F.C. Turner, and his argument that squatter settlements are themselves a solution to the problems caused by rapid urbanization and state inability to provide resources to in-migrants. His view of squatter settlements as “solutions to difficult social problems…[and] as a process of social reconstruction through popular initiative” (67) was controversial at the time of publication and is helpful in thinking about the current state of certain settlements.

In addition to continually dispelling numerous myths about the demographics, crime, politicalization, education and general establishment of squatter settlements, he also explains the nature of organization during the moments of invasion. Higher degrees of organization were generally a reaction to either active opposition from police, or conversely, complete inefficiency on the government’s part. While I am not necessarily focusing on the origins of settlement organization, the initial moments of land invasion are important in terms of thinking about the relationship between the residents and the government as well as the connection among all residents. Interestingly, Mangin states that Lima barriadas (which are now called pueblos jóvenes) actually experienced a disintegration in organization once the community became more integrated. My basic background research with VES seems to disagree; however, it could very well be that over a more extended period of time, say 30 years, the community has perhaps become less “organized.” His brief comments on neighborhood associations were particularly interesting when compared to the reading on María Elena Moyano and Cecilia Blondet’s work. While the latter works point to the efficiency and authority of associations, Mangin claims that despite their ability to receive basic assistance, most associations are unable to enforce rules. Later, he goes on to refute the belief that squatter settlements are merely reproductions of rural community life. Instead, he sees them as being a direct result and part of urban structure.

Linked to this concept of association and social articulation is Mangin’s argument that squatter settlements, unlike central city slums, are actually less alienated from the state and more involved with each other (due to their mutual accomplishments.) Mangin consistently repeats the notion that residents actively participate in a calculated decision-making process; in his later section on social satisfaction, it appears that the majority feel safer and more financially secure in squatter settlements than those who live in slums.

Mangin also refutes marginality theory that squatter settlements are a drain on the national economy. Not only have they solved their own housing problem, but their presence encourages investment in housing and land improvement, strengthens the job market (even if they do informal work), increases small business within the settlement, and provides social capital by facilitating relationships with the state and attracting attention from international aid agencies.

Residents are also very active in economic life; not only do they work (oftentimes in the city), but they also patronize areas of entertainment and utilize public transportation. In addition, residents tend to have higher levels of education than those in their place of origin and are remarkably active in social participation. Somewhat similar to one of Alan Gilbert’s points, Mangin states that “they are compelled to acculturate strategically in order…to defend themselves” (79). As stated above, this view of socialization and organization carries over into his argument that associations are generally mechanisms of defense, not reproductions of rural community life. Towards the end of the article, he makes an interesting argument that most residents tend to be politically conservative. Perhaps even more interesting, however, was his claim that “at present they seem capable of mobilization only as a group to defend their homes” (85). Instead, a majority of residents interviewed in a Lima barriada believed that the solution to their existing problems would only come from external organizations or countries; “only 11 of more than 70 replied that they could do anything to solve their own problems” (85).

Finally, Mangin conclude with a recommendation that clearly appreciates the work and needs of residents in squatter settlements. Instead of eradication or public housing programs, he argues for rehabilitation of existing settlements. While Mangin’s work represents the very beginning of squatter settlement research, it does provide an insightful analysis of how to understand and appreciate the complexities squatter settlements.

Ford and Griffin’s model of the Latin American city was clear, concise and will easily apply to the research I am doing on self-help housing and community development in Peru and U.S. colonias. Especially interesting is the point the authors make concerning the dichotomy between preindustrial and modern conceptions of urban development. Their new model of Latin American urban structure involves a “dominant elite residential sector and a commercial spine as well as a series of concentric zones in which residential quality decreases with distance from the city center” (Griffin 405). By proposing this new model, they challenge theories that use models of Anglo American urbanization to explain Latin American urbanization. Their emphasis on culturally specific elements as well as institutional differences that shape urban change is particularly interesting.

In order to support their new model, they introduce an historical overview of the development of traditional colonial cities; geometric grid patterns and the mandate of a central plaza were not only instrumental in the physical layout of the city, but they also became directly related to social and economic status. This “relationship between geographical location and social status” (Griffin 399) is particularly interesting because it insists that urban structure and physical distance (elements I had previously seen as disconnected from the social realm) have large social implications.

One implication of the relationship between urban structure and social status involves the expansion of the “downtown” or central business district (CBD) and residential migration. While the authors acknowledge similarities between the development of CBDs in Anglo and Latin America, they contend that increased industrialization in Latin American cities have lead to the fragmentation of traditional social structure, increased pollution and rising costs of central lots. While industrialized sectors in Anglo American cities do not attract the upper classes, in Latin America, the elite are drawn to the services and advanced infrastructure that accompany industrial areas.

In terms of service delivery, Griffin and Ford argue that the high cost of providing urban services translates to extremely unequal patterns of service distribution; instead of multiple areas with extensive urban services, it is generally the wealthy areas that receive services and maintain a close relationship with economically active areas. Combined with the inability” of cities to accommodate rapid growth these factors lead to the development of the commercial spine and elite residential sector.

Surrounding the spine/sector is a series of residential zones that are in direct opposition to the zones in Anglo American cities. According to this new model, these residential areas are classified as either a zone of maturity, a zone of in situ accretion, or a zone of peripheral squatter settlements. Each zone represents a distinct stage in the urbanization process; while the zone of maturity is one in which a stable population has gradually transformed the district into one that is fully serviced, the zone of squatter settlements is characterized by recent migrants and “is the worst section of the city in terms of housing quality and public services” (Griffin 411). Functioning as a transitional zone, that of in situ accretion “has modest residential quality but shows signs of transition to a zone of maturity” (Griffin 409). Portrayed as a three-tier cycle, these three zones will directly relate to my own research. In addition to understanding how Villa El Salvador and the colonias might be classified, I am also interested in the way in which these zones might represent a prescriptive evolution akin to the “old” model that saw Latin American cities as following an Anglo American model of development. Do my particular case studies strictly adhere to this concept of impoverishment, transition and finally maturity? Is it important that certain squatter settlements might take longer to become zones of in situ accretion and zones of maturity? Is it possible for a zone of maturity to contain elements similar to those found in the zone peripheral squatter settlements?

In terms of housing acquisition, the authors differentiate between filtered-down housing and squatter settlements. In addition to providing the basic characteristics of self-help housing, the authors claim that “the older the squatter settlement, the better and more substantial it is” (Griffin 404). This concept of age and development is particularly important as I compare Villa El Salvador with a colonia that is roughly the same age. Why is it that some communities do not improve despite their age? Additionally, the authors classify improvements in squatter settlements as normal – and almost inevitable. How do these settlements become incorporated? Is the process really that “normal,” or does it require a certain confluence of diverse factors?

These questions will hopefully provide a springboard for future investigation. In addition to the questions already posed, I am interested in the way in which the authors use deliberate language to describe urbanization in Latin America. During their explanation of the zone of squatter settlements, the authors used words such as “denuded”, “scavenge,” “fragile,” and “refugee” to describe these sections of the city. While they challenge outsider perceptions of these zones as “wretched” by asserting the way in which residents value their communities and believe in improvement, I am interested in this concept of outsider perceptions and the way it colors research. In fact, the authors continually reference the chaotic impression that cities such as Tijuana give “to the uninitiated observer” (420). The idea that there is more than meets the eye, that these residents see their communities as just that – as a community and not as a squalid zone of squatter settlements – seems to be important in terms of how I got about doing my research, and how I go about presenting my case studies.

The comparison between Anglo and Latin American cities will be helpful not only because it highlights the need to differentiate between the two, but also because it will inform my research of squatter settlements in Peru and the U.S. In addition to wrestling with important differences between the urban development of VES and colonias, I will also have to deal with the fact that the colonias, despite their high percentage of Latin American residents, are part of the Anglo American city structure.

Gilbert’s book provides a basic overview of the characteristics of the “Latin American city.” For my purposes, I focused on his chapters concerning urban growth, migration to the city, urban work, housing, urban management, and protest.

According to Gilbert, the majority of Latin American cities “look alike.” Major urban cities were not only colonial centers of administration, but they also tend to be relatively young in terms of rapid urbanization. Urban primacy is another characteristic of many Latin American metropolitan areas; as Gilbert points out, it is important to understand primacy in terms of colonial history as well as current implications. While the shared traits among these cities tend to be very broad (such as the internationalization of consumer tastes and histories of international production), these commonalities should be useful in terms of thinking about the relationship between Lima and a border town in the U.S.

Referencing the 1940s as the beginning of rapid urbanization, Gilbert explains the nature of rural life and the reasons behind migration. Claiming that individuals are better of in the urban cities, he claims that rural-to-urban migration is not a result of dire necessity, but rather a matter of calculated choice. Furthermore, young women and individuals with higher levels of education tend to be among those who migrate the most often. Contrary to Gilbert’s assertion that migrants are educated and adaptable, many officials during the 1950s saw the new migrants as “displaced persons” and worried about dealing with their incorporation into urban life. While I appreciate Gilbert’s interpretation of migrant agency and adaptability, I question his claim that migrants learn Spanish and change their style of dress because there is not other alternative; it seems as if he is accepting this rejection of traditional culture as a wholly positive change.

Also, in terms of my focus on social mobilization and protest, he claims that historically migrants did not aim to riot nor did they want to “cause trouble.” Instead, they were politically conservative and wanted “to be inconspicuous.” He goes on to address this issue of urban protest in chapter seven, where he attempts to explain why the urban poor tend to be relatively passive in terms of protest. Conservative community attitudes, the time-consuming nature of political participation, domestic obligations and the fact that most communities tend to become less homogenous as they develop are all factors. He also points to the presence of clientelism, government co-optation of community leaders and repression as additional reasons behind limited protest. These concepts are helpful in terms of thinking about why and how community members organize and petition within Villa El Salvador and the colonias. Furthermore, Gilbert mentions a number of important theorists, such as Manuel Castell, Alejandro Portes and Michael Johns and Burns, who will be helpful in looking at the development of opposition groups as well as the changing attitudes towards social movements within Latin American cities.

Gilbert’s section on urban work was helpful in that it introduced concepts such as the theories of tertiarisation, marginality and over-urbanization. In addition to describing the mutual dependence between the formal and informal sectors, he addresses the gendered division of jobs and the undervaluation of women’s work.

Perhaps most directly linked to my research, chapter five on urban housing provides a detailed history of home ownership and the evolution of self-help housing in Latin America. Much like other researchers, Gilbert cites insufficient housing stock, poverty, unequal wealth distribution and the monopolization of land as factors that lead to self-help housing. However, he highlights the complexity – and uniqueness – of self-help housing in Latin America by pointing out that the poor in other developing cities (in West Africa and India) tend to rent instead of constructing their own homes. In order to make sense of this difference, one must include the development of mass transportation, changing attitudes of Latin American governments towards informal methods of land occupation and the increasing ability of the state to provide advanced services and infrastructure. In addition to these interpretations of self-help housing in Latin America, Gilbert addresses the debate about self-help housing as either a solution or exploitation. I plan on researching theorists such as Charles Abrams, William Mangin and John Turner who argue that self-help housing works, as well as individuals who argue for a deeper, more severe restructuring of society such as Burgess and Pradilla.