Contesting Street Spaces in a Socialist City: Itinerant Vending-Scapes and the Everyday Politics of Mobility in Hanoi, Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, Hanoi's municipal government banned street vending from numerous sites, significantly delineating and redefining access to urban space. The ban privileges certain forms of movement by designating streets and sidewalks for the fluid movements of “modern” transportation, rather than the staccato “traditional” mobilities of street vendors who stop frequently to ply their trade. In this article, we explore the everyday mobilities of Hanoi's vendors in light of this ban, focusing on the careful negotiations vendors undertake to secure rights to the city's streets and highlighting how vendor mobilities are socially, politically, and culturally produced and reworked. We combine Cresswell's six facets of mobility with Kerkvliet's everyday politics to form a hybrid everyday politics of mobility. In doing so we highlight vendors' daily experiences of mobility and the politics affecting itinerant vendors compared to their stationary counterparts. Based on eight months of fieldwork in Hanoi, incorporating interviews, mobile ethnographic methods, and vendor journaling, this article contributes an in-depth examination into the politics of (im)mobility in the Global South, considering how mobility is framed and produced in a distinctly socialist context. By focusing on the everyday politics of vending in Hanoi and the tactics undertaken to carve out mobilities in the urban landscape, we illustrate these vendors' daily lived realities as well as their connections with and contestations of local, regional, and global political–economic systems. We find mobility is a mechanism of resistance, as vendors strive to maintain mobile livelihoods despite threats of state sanctions and exclusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".