Gated Communities and Spacial Inequality in Dhaka, Bangladesh
July 22, 2022
July 22, 2022
Article: “That’s the Area of Affluent People Where We Have No Access”: Spatial Inequality, Gated Communities, and the End of Public Space in Dhaka, Bangladesh"
Author: Lutfun Nahar Lata
Published Online: 27 April 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.1905023
What is the relationship between gated communities and state-enforced discrimination? Lutfun Nahar Lata’s case study of a gated community in Dhaka, Bangladesh suggests that local governments enforcing the rules of gated communities results in spatial segregation, or the unequal access of public space among different societal groups.
The Rise, Benefits, and Harms of Dhaka’s Gated Communities
In Dhaka, the gated community—defined as a residential area enclosed by a physical barrier to entry—has become a popular housing model for developers as the city continues to urbanize. The literature on gated communities suggests many reasons, both structural and political, for their rise, including:
However, critics also blame these gated communities for increased social inequality. Gated communities allow for the legal restriction of access to public streets, walkways, and other public spaces for non-residents (Brown, 2013, 2015; Harvey, 2010; Soja, 2010). Local governments therefore allow for the exclusion of those living outside of these communities, often the urban poor, from sharing public space (Lefebvre, 1991).
While many urban sociologists study the relationship between urban development and social exclusion, little research has been done on the effect of these gated communities on the different social groups of Dhaka. In “That’s the Area of Affluent People Where We Have No Access”: Spatial Inequality, Gated Communities, and the End of Public Space in Dhaka, Bangladesh”, Dr. Lata begins to fill this gap with a study analyzing the relationship between gated communities and the differentiation of citizenship, a form of discrimination occurring when the state supports one group’s claim of power over another, affecting the civil, political, socioeconomic, and cultural rights of the other.
Methods
From 2015-2019, Dr. Lata conducted a qualitative case study of the gated community of Niketon and its nearby neighbor, the Sattola slum. The gated community of Niketon contains businesses and schools in addition to residential spaces. Niketon is monitored with security cameras and security guards who check residents and hawkers before allowing them entry. The security guards in turn are supervised by a police officer. The space permits only residents to enter at night, with only one of its five gates remaining open for entry. In contrast, the Sattola slum consists of many dilapidated structures and streets too narrow for cars to pass down, and most who live there run businesses informally (i.e., without a license).
Dr. Lata used purposive and snowball sampling techniques as well as assistance from NGOs such as Women’s Health, Rights and Choice, popularly known as Shokhi, Dushtha Shasthya Kendra (DSK) and Building Resources Across Communities (BRAC), to select residents from both communities for in depth interviews and observations. Additionally, the study examined policy documentation and local government regulations regarding housing. Between 2015 and 2019, Lata interviewed:
Dr. Lata interviewed both Sattola and Niketon residents questions regarding the business practices of the slum residents and their relationship to the security card system that limits vendor access to Niketon. She also interviewed security guards about their security practices. Finally, she interviewed the Niketon Housing Society members, government officials, NGO officials, and the academic expert about policy and regulations around housing and access to public spaces.
Findings and Conclusions
The residents of the Sattola slum need access to Niketon both to sell goods within the space and to use the road that passes through the gated community to travel to work in the Gulshan and Hatirjheel areas nearby. However, their ability to access Niketon is very restricted. In order for vendors to access the Niketon community to sell goods, they need to pay a registration fee as well as purchase an ID card, and need to have both letters of recommendation from their local councilors and the permission of the Niketon landlords. In addition, they must wear a t-shirt and jacket issued to them by the Niketon Housing Society. Those hoping to travel to work via Niketon must use a small pocket gate and leave identification details with the guards. The main entrance gate has been closed to the public with the permission of the local police since 2016 following a militant attack on the Holey Artisan café in Gulshan (though none of the militants involved were residents of Sattola).
Most of the Niketon residents as well as members of the Niketon Housing Society whom the author interviewed expressed approval for the registration card access system on the basis that by limiting access to only “trusted” vendors (i.e., those who can afford the fees), it prevented loitering and crime within Niketon. Residents explicitly linked crime and poverty, saying for example that “Poor people are poor because they are lazy. They do not work hard, rather they get involved in criminal activities such as stealing and hijacking.”
The author found that the restriction of vendors’ access was enforced in an arbitrary manner. Most vendors that did have access to Niketon were not from Sattola at all, but rather from other nearby slums, and were granted access to Niketon around the time the community was first developed. In fact, most Sattola vendors interviewed were not aware that they could apply for a registration card, and those that were aware had little interest due to the limited hours of business that they could work in Niketon. Some workers enjoyed exceptions to Niketon’s entry restrictions based on humanitarian grounds or convenience for residents; one vendor was allowed entry after many years of vending in Niketon despite not being able to pay the registration fee, and the maids who worked for Niketon families were allowed entry to the gated community without any registration card.
The author observed a stark contrast in the way Dhaka’s local government treated the residents of gated communities and the non-residents who live in slums nearby. In addition to allowing the main entry gate to Niketon to be closed to the public following the Holey Artisan attack, the Gulshan police also provided its own personnel to supervise Niketon’s private security guards. Meanwhile, in the Sattola slum, these same police continue to evict residents while the local government fails to provide any resources for resettlement. The DNCC (Dhaka North City Corporation) continues to redevelop the Niketon area; in the slums, the DNCC does not maintain the public space and instead allows it to depreciate, refuses to license vendors attempting to sell their wares in Dhaka, and has yet to provide a legal means of accessing electricity and water for residents.
These findings reveal the multiple ways the government permits and subsidizes the exclusion of poor residents from gated communities in the context of Dhaka, Bangladesh. They show how private governance may rely on public authorities and systems to segregate space, provide infrastructure, and exclude undesirable residents in the name of security. These practices create significant challenges to building an inclusive and equitable city.
The Rise, Benefits, and Harms of Dhaka’s Gated Communities
In Dhaka, the gated community—defined as a residential area enclosed by a physical barrier to entry—has become a popular housing model for developers as the city continues to urbanize. The literature on gated communities suggests many reasons, both structural and political, for their rise, including:
- Securitization of space from urban crime (Caldeira, 2000)
- Fiscal benefits to local governments when services are privatized (Morshed, 2014; Morshed & Asami, 2015, Farzana, 2005).
- Efforts to de-densify city centers, manage traffic congestion, and curb pollution (Svampa, 2001)
- Lifestyle preferences for quiet, privacy, and green space (Svampa, 2001)
- The gated community as a status symbol (Caldeira, 2000; Roitman, 2013).
- Imitation of foreign housing models in an effort to increase foreign development (Hirt, 2012; Wu & Webber, 2004),
However, critics also blame these gated communities for increased social inequality. Gated communities allow for the legal restriction of access to public streets, walkways, and other public spaces for non-residents (Brown, 2013, 2015; Harvey, 2010; Soja, 2010). Local governments therefore allow for the exclusion of those living outside of these communities, often the urban poor, from sharing public space (Lefebvre, 1991).
While many urban sociologists study the relationship between urban development and social exclusion, little research has been done on the effect of these gated communities on the different social groups of Dhaka. In “That’s the Area of Affluent People Where We Have No Access”: Spatial Inequality, Gated Communities, and the End of Public Space in Dhaka, Bangladesh”, Dr. Lata begins to fill this gap with a study analyzing the relationship between gated communities and the differentiation of citizenship, a form of discrimination occurring when the state supports one group’s claim of power over another, affecting the civil, political, socioeconomic, and cultural rights of the other.
Methods
From 2015-2019, Dr. Lata conducted a qualitative case study of the gated community of Niketon and its nearby neighbor, the Sattola slum. The gated community of Niketon contains businesses and schools in addition to residential spaces. Niketon is monitored with security cameras and security guards who check residents and hawkers before allowing them entry. The security guards in turn are supervised by a police officer. The space permits only residents to enter at night, with only one of its five gates remaining open for entry. In contrast, the Sattola slum consists of many dilapidated structures and streets too narrow for cars to pass down, and most who live there run businesses informally (i.e., without a license).
Dr. Lata used purposive and snowball sampling techniques as well as assistance from NGOs such as Women’s Health, Rights and Choice, popularly known as Shokhi, Dushtha Shasthya Kendra (DSK) and Building Resources Across Communities (BRAC), to select residents from both communities for in depth interviews and observations. Additionally, the study examined policy documentation and local government regulations regarding housing. Between 2015 and 2019, Lata interviewed:
- (n = 91) informal workers who live in the Sattola slum
- (n = 6) residents of Niketon
- (n = 3) members of the Niketon Housing Society
- (n = 6) Niketon vendors
- (n = 5) Niketon security guards
- (n = 16) government officials
- (n = 3) NGO officials
- (n = 1) academic expert
Dr. Lata interviewed both Sattola and Niketon residents questions regarding the business practices of the slum residents and their relationship to the security card system that limits vendor access to Niketon. She also interviewed security guards about their security practices. Finally, she interviewed the Niketon Housing Society members, government officials, NGO officials, and the academic expert about policy and regulations around housing and access to public spaces.
Findings and Conclusions
The residents of the Sattola slum need access to Niketon both to sell goods within the space and to use the road that passes through the gated community to travel to work in the Gulshan and Hatirjheel areas nearby. However, their ability to access Niketon is very restricted. In order for vendors to access the Niketon community to sell goods, they need to pay a registration fee as well as purchase an ID card, and need to have both letters of recommendation from their local councilors and the permission of the Niketon landlords. In addition, they must wear a t-shirt and jacket issued to them by the Niketon Housing Society. Those hoping to travel to work via Niketon must use a small pocket gate and leave identification details with the guards. The main entrance gate has been closed to the public with the permission of the local police since 2016 following a militant attack on the Holey Artisan café in Gulshan (though none of the militants involved were residents of Sattola).
Most of the Niketon residents as well as members of the Niketon Housing Society whom the author interviewed expressed approval for the registration card access system on the basis that by limiting access to only “trusted” vendors (i.e., those who can afford the fees), it prevented loitering and crime within Niketon. Residents explicitly linked crime and poverty, saying for example that “Poor people are poor because they are lazy. They do not work hard, rather they get involved in criminal activities such as stealing and hijacking.”
The author found that the restriction of vendors’ access was enforced in an arbitrary manner. Most vendors that did have access to Niketon were not from Sattola at all, but rather from other nearby slums, and were granted access to Niketon around the time the community was first developed. In fact, most Sattola vendors interviewed were not aware that they could apply for a registration card, and those that were aware had little interest due to the limited hours of business that they could work in Niketon. Some workers enjoyed exceptions to Niketon’s entry restrictions based on humanitarian grounds or convenience for residents; one vendor was allowed entry after many years of vending in Niketon despite not being able to pay the registration fee, and the maids who worked for Niketon families were allowed entry to the gated community without any registration card.
The author observed a stark contrast in the way Dhaka’s local government treated the residents of gated communities and the non-residents who live in slums nearby. In addition to allowing the main entry gate to Niketon to be closed to the public following the Holey Artisan attack, the Gulshan police also provided its own personnel to supervise Niketon’s private security guards. Meanwhile, in the Sattola slum, these same police continue to evict residents while the local government fails to provide any resources for resettlement. The DNCC (Dhaka North City Corporation) continues to redevelop the Niketon area; in the slums, the DNCC does not maintain the public space and instead allows it to depreciate, refuses to license vendors attempting to sell their wares in Dhaka, and has yet to provide a legal means of accessing electricity and water for residents.
These findings reveal the multiple ways the government permits and subsidizes the exclusion of poor residents from gated communities in the context of Dhaka, Bangladesh. They show how private governance may rely on public authorities and systems to segregate space, provide infrastructure, and exclude undesirable residents in the name of security. These practices create significant challenges to building an inclusive and equitable city.
About the Author
Dr. Lutfun Nahar Lata is an urban sociologist who researches housing rights, urban space, urban governance, urban poverty and inequality. She is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow within the Social Solutions research group at the Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR), The University of Queensland. Her methodological expertise lies in using qualitative and quantitative methods to examine various urban issues, including urban governance processes, from multiple perspectives.
Works Cited:
Brown, A. (2013). The right to the city: Road to Rio 2010. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3),
957–971.
Caldeira, T. (2000). City of walls: Crime, segregation and citizenship in Sao Paulo. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Caldeira, T. P. R. (2000). Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation. In S. Low (Ed.), Theorizing the city: The new urban
anthropology reader (pp. 83–105). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Farzana, F. (2005). Shortages of middle-income owner-occupied housing in Dhaka-failures of government or market?
(Master Thesis). National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Harvey, D. (2010). Social justice and the city (Vol. 1). London: University of Georgia Press.
Hirt, S. A. (2012). Iron curtains: Gates, suburbs and privatization of space in the post-socialist city (Vol. 27). Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Morshed, M. M. (2014). Illegality of private subdivision and access to land for housing by the urban poor in Dhaka.
Habitat International, 44, 386–393.
Morshed, M. M., & Asami, Y. (2015). The role of NGOs in public and private land development: The case of Dhaka city.
Geoforum, 60, 4–13.
Roitman, S. (2013). Close but divided: How walls, fences and barriers exacerbate social differences and foster urban
social group segregation. Housing, Theory and Society, 30(2), 156–176.
Soja, E. (2010). Spatializing the urban, part I. City, 14(6), 629–635.
Svampa, M. (2001). Los que ganaron: la vida en los countries y barrios privados. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
UN. (2017). Country profile: Bangladesh. New York: Author.
Wu, F., & Webber, K. (2004). The rise of “foreign gated communities” in Beijing: Between economic globalization and
local institutions. Cities, 21(3), 203–213.