Occupancy Urbanism: Radicalizing Politics and Economy beyond Policy and Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article proposes a narrative of city contestations beyond policy and programs. It considers why Indian metro elites, large land developers and international donors paradoxically lobby for comprehensive planning when confronting ‘vote bank politics’ by the poor. Poor groups, claiming public services and safeguarding territorial claims, open up political spaces that appropriate institutions and fuel an economy that builds complex alliances. Such spaces, here termed ‘occupancy urbanism’, are materialized by land shaped into multiple de‐facto tenures deeply embedded in lower bureaucracy. While engaging the state, these locality politics remain autonomous of it. Such a narrative views city terrains as being constituted by multiple political spaces inscribed by complex local histories. This politics is substantial and poses multiple crises for global capital. Locally embedded institutions subvert high‐end infrastructure and mega projects. ‘Occupancy urbanism’ helps poor groups appropriate real estate surpluses via reconstituted land tenure to fuel small businesses whose commodities jeopardize branded chains. Finally, it poses a political consciousness that refuses to be disciplined by NGOs and well‐meaning progressive activists and the rhetoric of ‘participatory planning’. This is also a politics that rejects ‘developmentalism’ where ‘poverty’ is ghettoized via programs for ‘basic needs’ allowing the elite ‘globally competitive economic development’. Résumé Cet article rend compte des contestations urbaines au‐delà de l’action publique et des programmes. Il porte sur les raisons pour lesquelles les élites métropolitaines indiennes, de gros aménageurs fonciers et des donateurs internationaux plaident paradoxalement pour un urbanisme complet lorsque la politique de vote bank se heurtent aux pauvres. Ces groupes, qui réclament des services publics et gardent des revendications territoriales, ouvrent des espaces politiques qui s’approprient des institutions et alimentent une économie aux alliances complexes. Ces espaces, dénommés “urbanisme d’occupation”, sont matérialisés par des terrains formés de multiples occupations de fait, profondément ancrées dans les échelons inférieurs de l’administration. Même si elle implique l’État, la politique de ces localités demeure autonome à son égard. D’après cet exposé, les terrains urbains sont constitués de nombreux espaces politiques aux historiques locaux complexes. Cette politique, non négligeable, est source de problèmes pour le capital mondial. En effet, des institutions ancrées au plan local bouleversent d’énormes projets d’infrastructure haut de gamme. “L’urbanisme d’occupation” aide les groupes pauvres à s’approprier les excédents immobiliers grâce à des modes de jouissance fonciers reconstitués pour stimuler de petites entreprises dont les produits menacent des chaînes de marque. Enfin, elle suscite une conscience politique qui refuse la discipline des ONG ou des partisans progressistes bien intentionnés, de même que la rhétorique de “l’aménagement participatif”. Cette politique rejette aussi un “développementalisme” où la pauvreté est “ghettoïsée” par des programmes en faveur des “besoins fondamentaux” qui permettent aux élites un “développement économique compétitif au plan mondial”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".