owning a home implies personal democratic freedoms.
No? Democracy and “democratic freedoms” has nothing to do with home ownership. And even if it did odds are we have better democratic freedoms than you. There’s a reason we rank at the top of the democratic perception index and that even according to Harvard our government satisfaction rate is over 80% whereas most Western countries struggle to break 50% outside of massively exceptional circumstances like Bush hitting 90% due to 9/11.
Unless you’re wealthy you’re not leaving the town or city you were born in, not without losing your welfare benefits, so you better have a decent job offer if you try.
I’m assuming you’re referencing the hukou system here. This interpretation hasn’t been accurate for a while now. Cities under 3 million population have essentially removed settlement barriers, and even megacities are piloting residence-based public service access.
The hukou system was also an unfortunate necessity when it was originally put in place. Go to Mumbai. Look at Dharavi. One point seven five square kilometers holding over a million people in informal settlements with no basic infrastructure. That is what happens when capital accumulates without a mechanism to regulate the pace of urban absorption (the original reason for implementation of the hukou system). The hukou system, however imperfect, prevented that outcome. The hukou system functioned as a valve. It allowed industrialization to proceed at a speed that absorbed labor without collapsing urban systems.
It’s also important to look at the positives of the system as it remains despite its many shortcomings. Every rural hukou holder retains rights to a homestead plot and contracted land. This is the basis for China’s near-elimination of absolute homelessness. When a rural worker in a city faces unemployment or illness, there is a place to return to. This safety net reduced the fiscal burden on early-stage industrial capital, yes, but it also prevented the formation of a permanently dispossessed urban underclass.
As a mumbai native, I have to say, foreigners obsess about Dharavi too much. It is just the largest slum we have and it’s not even that bad for Indian standards. There are multi-crore businesses being run from there. We have smaller slums in much worse conditions all over urban India. Dharavi has become like the privileged brand ambassador for Indian slums.
No? Democracy and “democratic freedoms” has nothing to do with home ownership. And even if it did odds are we have better democratic freedoms than you. There’s a reason we rank at the top of the democratic perception index and that even according to Harvard our government satisfaction rate is over 80% whereas most Western countries struggle to break 50% outside of massively exceptional circumstances like Bush hitting 90% due to 9/11.
I’m assuming you’re referencing the hukou system here. This interpretation hasn’t been accurate for a while now. Cities under 3 million population have essentially removed settlement barriers, and even megacities are piloting residence-based public service access.
The hukou system was also an unfortunate necessity when it was originally put in place. Go to Mumbai. Look at Dharavi. One point seven five square kilometers holding over a million people in informal settlements with no basic infrastructure. That is what happens when capital accumulates without a mechanism to regulate the pace of urban absorption (the original reason for implementation of the hukou system). The hukou system, however imperfect, prevented that outcome. The hukou system functioned as a valve. It allowed industrialization to proceed at a speed that absorbed labor without collapsing urban systems.
It’s also important to look at the positives of the system as it remains despite its many shortcomings. Every rural hukou holder retains rights to a homestead plot and contracted land. This is the basis for China’s near-elimination of absolute homelessness. When a rural worker in a city faces unemployment or illness, there is a place to return to. This safety net reduced the fiscal burden on early-stage industrial capital, yes, but it also prevented the formation of a permanently dispossessed urban underclass.
Dharavi is such a failure of the system. It is truely depressing.
As a mumbai native, I have to say, foreigners obsess about Dharavi too much. It is just the largest slum we have and it’s not even that bad for Indian standards. There are multi-crore businesses being run from there. We have smaller slums in much worse conditions all over urban India. Dharavi has become like the privileged brand ambassador for Indian slums.