(In)Security and everyday life in the suburbs of Mexico City's east

(1)

(2)

i

Acknowledgements

I want to thank my supervisor Frank Müller for his guidance and patience during the last eight months, which provided me with the relevant inputs and the freedom to fully engage with the subject. I also want to express my gratitude to my friends Daniel, Noemie and Karim for their indescribable moral support in the last weeks. I’m thankful for Dan’s honesty and straightforwardness from the first day of studies onwards, Noemie’s strength and faith in the good, and Karim’s infinite generosity and for always making me laugh. Last but not least, I am grateful for the encouragement of all the other friends I was lucky enough to encounter in the Netherlands and elsewhere over the last years.

Des Weiteren möchte ich mich bei meiner Familie bedanken. Meiner Mutter, dass sie mich jeden Tag aufs Neue mit Sonnenstrahlen versorgt und mir zeigt wie wichtig es ist Gutes zu tun. Und meinem Vater, indem er mir mit seinem Ehrgeiz und Mut lehrt niemals aufzugeben. Ohne ihre bedingungslose Liebe und Unterstützung hätte ich niemals dieses Studium beginnen geschweige denn beenden können. Zusätzlich gilt mein Dank meinen Geschwistern Andreas, Elisabeth, Lukas und Caroline sowie ihren Partnern und meinem Neffen Johannes, dafür, dass sie mich niemals vergessen lassen wo mein zu Hause ist. Dies gilt auch für meine Freunde zu Hause in Wien. Theresa, für ihre geistige und emotionale Geschellsaft auf allen meinen Wegen und ihren einzigartigen Mut, sowie allen anderen die mich mit Loyalität und moralischen Beistand unterstützen. Außerdem widme ich diese Arbeit Thomas, dessen Heiterkeit und Lebensfreude ich niemals vergessen werde.

Para finalizar, quiero dar también toda mi gratitud a mi supervisora Cristina Bayón, que gracias a sus consejos y constante apoyo, hicieron de mi estadía en México, una increíble experiencia. Dar gracias también a Valeria, por su compañía en mis visitas a Neza, definiendo el inicio de una amistad valiosa. Mis gracias son dirigidas para todos los participantes de la investigación, los transcriptores y mis amigos en México, que sin sus contribuciones, mi investigación no hubiese sido posible. En estos agradecimientos quisiera remarcar en especial a Maribel y Reina, por su constante esfuerzo en el soporte a las comunidades, y mi profunda admiración por su fuerza y coraje por lo que hacen.

(3)

ii

Abstract

Insecurity and its related concepts in the global South are often associated with the instable and destructive nature of dictatorships, civil or drug wars, extreme levels of violence and crime, or lacking response during natural disasters on behalf of governments. However, lacking stability, uncertainty and risk are not only present during extraordinary or pervasive events. Forms and faces of (in)security are often reflected in day-to-day social narratives and reactions, which so far found minor consideration in security studies. Following De Certeau’s perspective on practices of everyday life, the objective of the research was to trace the impact of insecurity on residents’ daily life in Mexico City’s Eastern suburbs, characterized by a lack of public services, dense population and high crime rates. Three months of micro-ethnographic research were followed by an extensive analysis underpinned by social theories on practices and everyday life, as well as the refined Copenhagen School (in)security model. The identified narratives reveal that residents in this region face constraints in their perceptions of the urban, social and symbolic environment due to perceived and experienced victimization steering the most banal elements of everyday life, including the choice of working schedules or the commute to school. What is more, their day-to-day behaviour bears mostly unintentionally naturalized security practices, which are based on social cohesion and the representation thereof, emphasizing the relevance of such tactics. The identified insights highlight the need to further examine scales and consequences of (in)security in the light of everyday life, portrayed in everyday practices.

(4)

iii

List of Acronyms

CIESAS Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios

Superiores en Antropología Social

CONAPO Consejo Nacional de Población

CONEVAL Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la

Política de Desarrollo Social

CS Copenhagen School

DF Distrito Federal (Federal District)

FD Federal District

FGD Focus Group Discussion

ICESI Instituto Ciudadano de Estudios Sobre la

Inseguridad

INEGI Institutio Nacional de Estadística y

Geografía

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation

and Development

SEGBOB Secretaría de Gobernación

SESNSP Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema

Nacional de Seguridad Pública

UAM Universidad Autonoma de México

UN United Nations

UNAM Universidad Nacional Autonoma de

México

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and

Crime

UPREZ Unión Popluar Revolucionaria Emiliano

Zapata

ZMVM Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México

(Metropolitan Zone of the Valley of Mexico)

(7)

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Estimated number of registered crimes in Mexico between January and June 2017 Figure 7-1-2: Securitzation Processes

Figure 3-2-1: Monument „Cabeza de coyote“ in Nezahualcóyotl Figure 3-2-2: Invitation to the 30th Aniversary

Figure 3-2-3: Jaime and other representatives of UPREZ at the first anniversary event in Mexico City

Figure 3-2-4: Irregular Market in Nezahualcóyotl at the beginning of the urbanization process (1940-1960)

Figure 3-2-5: Nezahualcóyotl (Colonia Romero), photographed by the end of 1940

Figure 3-2-6: Density of intentional homicides per municipality or district in ZMVM in the first half of 2016

Figure 3-2-7: Sign attached to house wall that indicates presence and effects of police patrols Figure 3-2-5: Nezahualcóyotl today

Figure 4-1: Avoidance (evitar)

Figure 4-2-2: Choosing the „right“ spot in the bus Figure 4-3: Alleviation

Figure 4.4: Appropriation

Figure 4-5: Acknowledgement and Action

Figure 6-2-1: Billboard in Nezahualcóyotl: „Por tu seguridad, ya cuentas con 183 nuevas patrullas“ Figure 7-1-3: Security Practices and Securty Move (Perceptions of Insecurity based on Narrative One and Two)

Figure 7-1-2: Securitzation Processes

List of Tables

Table 4-1: Avoided Places and Practices

Table 4-2-1: Not to expose oneself and objects (possessions)

Table 4-2-2: Not to expose oneself and behaviour (no provocar el malestar) Table 4-2-3: Not to expose oneself, and community and company

Table 4-3-1: Alleviation: Trivialization

Table 4-3-2: Alleviation and acceptance (ignorance) Table 4-4-1: Appropriation and expressing property right Table 4-4-1: Appropriation and expressing property right Table 4-4-2: Appropriation: punitivism

Table 6-2: The Relationship between Participants’ Perception of Insecurity and the Police

(8)

1

Introduction

“In the Valley of Mexico man feels himself suspended between heaven and earth, and he oscillates between contrary powers and forces, and petrified eyes, and devouring mouths. Reality – that is, the world that surrounds us – exists by itself here, has a life of its own, and was not invented by man (…). The Mexican feels himself to have been torn from the womb of this reality, which is both creative and destructive, both Mother and Tomb. He has forgotten the word that ties him to all those forces through which life manifests itself. Therefore he shouts or keeps silent, stabs or prays, or falls asleep for a hundred years” (Paz 1961: 20).

Our view on security practices and perceptions of insecurity are shaped constantly by a plethora of news, reports, stories, and rumours based on word of mouth. This information shapes political discourses and affects everyday conversations, which become saturated with unfiltered and often-time misinformed statements and hence raise questions about the nature of security, social and societal reactions to crime, and the role of authority in this context. Indeed, from a historical perspective, insecurity in the Global South is often associated with provisional and improvised state leaderships, and periods of devastation and reconstruction. In this regard, Mexico’s experiences’ with disquiet can be exemplified by an on-going drug war (Reuter 2009), the 1968 massacre of hundreds of Mexican students (Paz 1961), or the earthquake of 1985 (Moreno Murillo 1995). While these dreadful events and resulting reactions certainly indicate an absence of stability and security as well as depict a lack of capacity on behalf of relevant authorities; the extreme repercussions, the failure on behalf of the government carrying the relevant authority to act, and the resulting societal reactions call for a careful contextualization. In this sense there is a need for broadening the understanding of how people perceive insecurity and how it affects everyday life. Insecurity is a phenomenon or affect forged in the process of securitization, revisited for instance in the media, and in certain actions or utterances as the ones mentioned above. Thus, insecurity as a matter of perception as much as of action is not only present during extraordinary albeit pervasive events like the earthquake or the massacre. Besides, its forms and faces are banally reflected in the

(9)

2 habits and practices of everyday life, constituted as uncertainty about victimization, and to a notable extent in the world’s ever-changing and growing metropolises (Zeiderman et al. 2015).

The challenge then lays in finding a convenient entranceway to the analysis of daily experiences with and reactions upon insecurity in an urban environment. The present research provides an approach of such an entranceway by taking into consideration what constitutes insecurity and urban daily life in Mexico City’s Eastern suburbs.

1-1 Background and Context

Latin America “is the most highly urbanized region in the global South” (Perlman 2010: 46). Therefore, urban issues such as the uncertainty of victimization are particularly apparent in the region’s urban domains (Müller 2016). In Uncertainty and Urban Problems (2015), Zeiderman et al. attempt to examine urban issues by analysing “the urban” (2015: 282) in different cities of the global South. The authors depict uncertainty as the common denominator, the main dimension, in the planning, building, governing and living in cities that share “the frenetic tempo, the unbounded multiplicity, and the infinite complexity” (Simmel 1969: 53). According to Zeiderman et al., “uncertainty [is] an important dimension of urban life (…) in opposition to what they assumed to be the regular, stable, and familiar routines of rural existence, the city was defined as a fundamentally unknowable and unpredictable environment” (2015: 281). In megacities the tempo of life (Tempo des Lebens), also termed by Simmel (1983), is accelerating, stimulating the psyche incessantly.

(10)

3

For “the majority of [Mexico City’s] inhabitants, crime was an integral part of everyday life” (2001: 3), so the historian Pablo Piccato. In his work he portrays previously unused data from the 1930s, and since then the prevalence of crime and violence, and need for solutions have not ceased to exist. High levels of inequality, poverty and crime mark Mexico and its population. Mexico is the second most unequal country in the area of OECD with a Gini coefficient of 0.459 in 2014 (OECD 2016)1

. The richest one per cent of the Mexican population holds as much income as the poorest 46 per cent. In Latin American metropolises, including Mexico City, inequality is visible in distinctive fields, including political power, provision of public services or access to socio-economic resources. Moreover, Central America is the region with the highest homicide rates2

. In Mexico, about 21.5 per 100,000 inhabitantsbecame victims of intentional homicide in 2012 (UNODC 2013). As depicted in Figure 1-1, the estimated number of registered crimes in the State of Mexico between January and June 2017 accounts for almost 136,000 (SEGOB 2017). According to Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, at least 51 Mexican citizens per day lost their life in 2015 due to intentional homicide. Another four people per day have been kidnapped. Mexico City (Distrito Federal, Federal District or DF) is located in

1_{A Gini coefficient of 0 expresses minimal inequality, indicating that income is evenly distributed. Maximal} 2_{The authors in the indicated reference (UNODC 2013) classify Mexico as a part of Central America and not as}

part North America.

State of Mexico

ZMVM

Figure 2-1: Estimated number of registered crimes in Mexico between January and June 2017 Source: SEGOB 2017

(11)

4 the central region (región centro) with the highest incidence of serious crimes in 2014 and 2015 (ONC 2015).

Order in an urban environment relies on equality and security as much as on social control. In Mexico City, where capital is both spatially and socially unequally distributed, the population’s majority faces difficulties in affording goods including security and infrastructure services. These goods are of particular importance for social control and therefore notably crucial in an urban environment. High rates of inequality and crime disrupt social order and aggravate peaceful cohabitation. This being said, the incapability on behalf of authorities to provide all its citizens with a safe living environment gives reason for concern (Jaffe and de Koning 2015).

Neoliberal developments and globalisation are essential drivers of inequality (Müller 2016, Bayón and Saraví 2013). Market powers and supra-national governance institutions such as the World Bank or the IMF have replaced a broad range of the state’s sovereign capacities in the precedent thirty years (Keil 1998, Hofer et al. 2006). Thus, various public goods have been transformed into market-dependent commodities and therefore into goods whose purchase depends on the availability of “sufficient” means.

A crisis developed in the urban context, indicating a restriction of infrastructure services and an enclosure of space otherwise assumed accessible by all citizens (Sheinbaum 2008, Atkinson and Blandy 2005). Urban space, often associated as merely physically constructed spheres in the city, simultaneously acts as social and symbolic domains (Wacquant 2015). Thus, a crisis of public space also entails the development of socially and symbolically contrasting and conflicting living environments. Social entities experience unequally distributed availability and access to capital and (public) goods, in addition to a rendered perception of the urban and social environment. In this regard, authors follow with terms as social homogeneity, reciprocal isolation, reciprocal closure, mutual indifference and stigmatization and fear (Bayón and Saraví 2013), which rise up to spatial segmentation and social segregation.

(12)

5 1-2 Aims and Relevance of the Research

On the one hand, this research aims at analysing how citizens perceive the potential of victimization in their immediate neighbourhood and spaces visited on a daily basis. On the other side, it seeks to identify the means of respondents adapting to an environment in which personal (in)security is a component of daily life. In total, the present thesis endeavours contributing to a better understanding of urban issues in relation to (in)security. In this regard, the relevance of the present research is twofold.

Firstly, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. More than three fourth of Latin America’s population is living in the region’s cities (Perlman 2010). In Mexico City a vast amount of individuals share a relatively limited amount of physical, social and symbolic space (UN 2014). The city’s suburbs in the East of ZMVM, the area of the research, consist of mainly marginalized and densely populated neighbourhoods, so-called colonias populares (Müller 2016). The crisis of urban space, as elucidated above, marks infrastructure, public space and cohabitation throughout all areas of Mexico City. However, particularly high levels of crime and violence (SESNSP 2016) and a high concentration of poverty affect the Eastern region adjoining the Federal District (CONEVAL 2010; Bayón 2015).

Secondly, the proliferation and privatization of security concerns is particularly apparent in urban developments, demonstrated for instance by an increase of urban enclaves (Capron and Esquivel Hernández 2005). This gives further insight to the unequal distribution of income and the lack of accessibility to (partly public) security goods. Various researchers, such as Caldeira (2000), Müller (2016) or Dinzey-Flores (2013) scrutinised urban enclaves in Latin American cities and contributed to the understanding of corresponding security practices, social and spatial segregation, securitization actors and the consequences thereof. In Mexico City, we find numerous studies on affluent neighbourhoods that are characterized by these self-help security practices, demonstrated through (architectural) attributes such as gates, surveillance or private security guards (Capron and Esquivel Hernández 2005, Bayón 2015, Müller 2016). However, less is known about citizen’s behaviour in their domestic spheres (neighbourhood, borough, etc.) with the focus on security practices, and particularly those in middle and low-income neighbourhoods.

(13)

6 Hence, the necessity to understand the mechanisms of insecurity in the urban realm, and the literature gap in regard to low-income neighbourhoods represent the relevance of the present research. Before discussing how the subsequent chapters elaborate and analyse these circumstances, the next section outlines the research questions.

1-3 Research Questions and Sub-questions

Using the perspectives of (in)securitization practices and everyday life, harmonized with literature from the fields of security studies and social sciences, the research questions for the present research are as follows:

Which practices do residents in neighbourhoods of Mexico City’s Eastern suburbs adopt and invent in regard to the securitisation of their immediate public surrounding (neighbourhood, everyday routes, borough) and how do these affect their everyday life?

Sub-questions:

1. How do the residents perceive and experience insecurity? 2. Which aspects influence their perception of insecurity? 3. What forms of security practices do residents adopt? 4. How are these practices incorporated into their daily life?

1-4 Thesis Outline

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. Chapter Two draws on distinctive literature from the fields of security studies, psychology, philosophy and social sciences. It introduces a conceptualization of the two main elements of the study, everyday practices and (in)security, by entangling core notions from the conceptions of the above mentioned fields.

(14)

7 Chapter Three outlines the methodological framework, including ontological and epistemological considerations, the sampling strategy, used methods, and data analysis, and concludes with a brief ethical reflection.

Chapter Four, the first empirical chapter, delineates security practices based on affiliation to the locus and social cohesion, identified in residents’ daily life.

Chapter Five, the second empirical chapter, outlines the security (or securitizing) move, constructed by experiences and perceptions of insecurity of residents.

Chapter Six, the third empirical chapter, rounds out the empirical section by presenting the relationship between the respondents and the local police.

Chapter Seven concludes the empirical section by discussing the main findings, answering the research questions and contextualizing them in consideration of urban issues.

Chapter Eight reflects on the theory and methods used, and conclusively explain the importance of ethnographic and daily life-focused research.

(15)

8

2

Theoretical Framework

By using theories from distinctive fields, this chapter conceptualizes practices in the realm of daily life and (in)security. In this regard, the theoretical framework emphasizes in particular the work of De Certeau (1984) and Reckwitz (2002), combining theoretical elements of sociology and philosophy.

2-1 The Construction of Practices

The preceding chapter discusses the proliferation of securitization, and its underlying developments of crime and violence in Latin America and Mexico with an emphasis on urban environments. Political leaders respond to a high concentration of crime by leveraging security mechanisms on top of their agendas. Military intervention, war against terror (Aguiar 2012), and criminalization of the urban poor (Bayón 2015), are contextualized with proliferating surveillance and control and the need for solutions has not ceased to exist. A fair implementation of security policies, whilst valuing human rights is a sensitive and much debated issue, and of particular importance in cities that are increasingly and more likely to be struck by such uncertainties, and furthermore, in countries that mostly lack the democratic and legal institutions charged with the mandate to govern security mechanisms (Müller 2016, Goldstein 2010). Zeiderman (2016) provides a revised paradigm of social and urban thought to address concerns of risk and uncertainty. In the attempt to find inspiring best practices, literature on security studies traditionally focuses on Western societies. Zeiderman directs his research attention to cities of the global South, in his case Bogota. He emphasizes, “the experience of liberal modernity in Europe and North America is not necessarily the best guide for understanding what [a global proliferation of security] mechanisms mean and do in other parts of the world” (2016: 4). In his work, he contemplates this “new political imperative” (Ibid.: 1) to manage and control the present in anticipation of potential future impairment. He studies the impact of uncertainties on governing in Bogota and offers an alternative approach to traditional conceptualizations of urban issues, by looking through the lens of uncertainty.

(16)

9 While Zeiderman focuses on uncertainties stemming from environmental hazards, the present research draws on a different form of uncertainty that is the insecurity of becoming a victim of crime. In my endeavour to study security practices I follow Zeiderman’s approach and therefore turn my attention likewise to Latin America, which often is referred to as the hotspot of “proliferation of self-help security” (Denyer Willis 2015: 8) in the light of extreme levels of crime, violence, poverty and inequality (Zeiderman 2016; Bayón 2015). The citizens living or working in the Eastern adjoining suburbs of Mexico City, the area of the research, are facing the risk of becoming a victim of crime on a daily basis, for example, on their commute from home to work or school and vice versa, during the night or when passing certain areas affiliated with delinquency. The potential victimization of urban residents poses a constant form of insecurity and the dominating absence of the state forces them to take over responsibility for their own security. Thus, insecurity in these neighbourhoods is determined as a form of being uncertain if and how crime and violence will occur. Furthermore, the possibilities to overcome uncertainty, be it because of environmental threats or victimization through crime, are determined by levels of poverty and inequality. For instance, in the attempt to shut out the risk of victimization, citizens with higher-levelled economic capabilities enclose themselves in privatized enclaves. Urban insecurity therefore is portrayed as an issue encompassed in the realm of urban uncertainty, as illustrated by authors such as Zeiderman, Kaker, Silver and Wood (2015) and as what it will be treated in this thesis.

Similar to Zeiderman (et al. 2015; 2016), I want to show how insecurity shapes urban life, by looking at residents’ day-to-day comportment through the lens of (in)security. The study of practices entangled with its underlying elements (mental and bodily activities, social surrounding, objects) allows contemplating the context of collective experiences (Reckwitz 2002) of insecurity and uncertainty. Positioning these practices in the daily realm and on a local level exposes the creative tactics of individuals that are often missed by scholars (Winter 2007), and to a great extent in security studies, which tend to focus on more general developments and from the perspective of states (Goldstein 2010).

(17)

10 Thereupon, a reasonable approach in security studies, and urban insecurity in particular, involves the analysis of daily, reciprocal practices. Throughout the subsequent discussion, the daily trait is carefully dismantled. Once undone, it is less complicated to come across the stimuli that engender the feeling or perception of insecurity. Therefore, the present chapter discusses theories on practices anterior to the evaluation of theories on insecurity and (in)securitization.

2-1-1 Practices and Everyday Life

This section first follows a discussion on daily life, taking into account components and significance of everyday practices. These practices consist of an entanglement of routines of bodily and mental activities, of understanding, of desires and of the use of objects that construct the social structure (Reckwitz 2002). The discussion then builds in particular on de Certeau’s Practice of Every Day Life (1984)3

as well as Toward a Theory of Social Practices (2002) by Reckwitz. The social theory by Reckwitz focuses particularly on the components and the origin of a practice, including the symbolic structures of knowledge, which allow the agent to act in a certain way. He concentrates on the processes of interpretation and behaviour of the agent and his environment. His conceptualization provides a tool to contemplate the different elements that are affected by and which affects a subject’s practice, including its mental routine, bodily performances, social structures and objects. By using the theory of social practices and focusing on the specific elements that constitute a practice, I seek to avoid “idealism” and “intellectualization” of culture from a Western, post-Cartesian perspective. Reckwitz stresses the need for such a contextualization of individual narratives because “modern social theory and social philosophy have a tendency to present human agency as a highly reflexive and formally rational enterprise which resembles to an amazing extent the self-images of modern intellectuals and their life-world – in the form of calculating or duty-obeying agents, in the form of consciousness or mental machines, of dominating texts or conversation” (Reckwitz 2002: 258). Thus, in the attempt to picture security practices

(18)

11 of individuals that are shaped by their environment, I follow Reckwitz’s conceptualization that allows an interpretation of the individual narrative as a social expression of collective experiences and practices.

Meanwhile, de Certeau and his collaborators, Luce Giard and Pierre Mayol, take into consideration the “secret of the everyday” (Geheimnis des Alltäglichen) (Winter 2007: 27). Their theory focuses on the contemplation of behaviour that challenges previous forms of understanding reality and elaborates transformative ways of descriptions, images and interpretations (Gergen 2002). De Certeau perceives culture and history as fields of practices linked to certain places. His attempt is to expose the logics of everyday life that are hidden in practices and stories. Creative forms of acting (consuming) in the realm of an economy and on a daily basis are traditionally missed in scientific research (Winter 2007). The consumers are the “governed” (de Certeau 1988: 85 cit. in Winter 2007: 30), which unconsciously incorporate creative tactics and strategies in their daily practices in order to fulfil their interests and desires. The practices are a sui generis form of production due to their heterogeneous (singular and plural), tricky and innovative nature 4

(Winter 2007: 27). Simultaneously, the activities and elements that constitute a practice to convey a feeling of belonging and locality (Winter 2007). De Certeau’s work gives the opportunity to (poetically) include creative and innovative practices in the analysis of behaviour. He assumes the governed to be oppressed by the capitalist system and its governing elite. Every day practices then do not portray a form of opposition against this system but a way to cope with it.

What comes more, de Certeau distinguishes himself from other scholars such as Foucault or Parson in his perspective on the everyday. He illustrates the practice of everyday life as a space for cultural contention, consisting not only of peoples’ tactics to handle the system that was imposed on them but also of mechanisms of persistence and of “not wanting to change”5

(Winter 2007: 29). De Certeau introduces the simplicity of the arts of doing (arts de faire; de Certeau 1988), pointing to the fact that everyday practices make up the greatest amount of being during the day while their relevance is much underrated. As the analysis later in this thesis shows, security

4_{Translated from German} 5_{Translated from German}

(19)

12 practices are not so much extraordinary actions as they are embedded (or embodied) in the everyday life of urban residents. The subsequent paragraph begins with a presentation of the components of a practice.

2-1-2 The Components of Practices

Practice theory recognizes an agent’s behavior based on desires, wants and norms. In the process of a practice, body, mind, objects, motivational knowledge, language and signs, and structure enable the person to express these desires, wants or norms, and to comprehend the surrounding environment (Reckwitz 2002). The actor is provided with order and stability by routinizing these (bodily and mental) activities and by repeating them (on a daily basis).

The next paragraphs describe components considered relevant for the present study. Each of these passages then discusses the component’s meaning in the realms of everyday and (in)security. The aim of disentangling a practice is to prepare for the analysis of the collected data, and to be able to interpret it from an objective point of view.

Furthermore, practice theory is presented as a “heuristic device” or a “sensitizing ‘framework’” (Reckwitz 2002: 257) and does not entail a detailed system for interpretation. Needlessly, it offers a scheme to “light the sphere of the symbolic and the cognitive and (for) asking how these structures give meaning to the world in a contingent way” (2002: 258). Thus, applying practice theory shows that social practices are a complex net of stimuli and activities. Indeed, some interpretations could perhaps give reason for criticism. An example therefore is interpreting interview excerpts based on an informant’s sexed body and assigned “capabilities” (for instance when concluding that a female informant is less likely than a male counterpart to be able to defend herself in a threatening situation) (Wilcox 2011). I attempt not to base these interpretations on presuppositions assigned to gender or sex but on the corresponding informant’s self-representation and my own perception.

(20)

13 Thus, the following paragraphs will merely outline the components and exemplify features that could have an impact on a (security) practice.

Objects/Things and Discourse/Language

Practice theory implies that objects play crucial roles in the comprehension of social practices (Reckwitz 2002). Likewise, urban and security studies and corresponding contemplation stress the function of objects. Wacquant (2015) for example describes the urban context as determined by its symbolic, social and physical spheres. The city, as a physical sphere, is a “built environment resulting from rival efforts to appropriate material and ideal goods in and through space”, while social indicates “the distribution of socially effective resources or capitals” and symbolic “the grid of mental categories that orient agents in their cognitive and conative construction of the world” (2015: 1084). The distinctive spaces are mutually conversed and connected to one another. Thus, studying social entities and their perceptions in an urban environment emphasizes including the position of objects. In security studies, scholars forge approaches to course, meaning and consequence of securitization processes. During these processes objects are securitized (exemplified by safety precautions at home) or utilized for the same reason (for instance gates, fences or cameras) (e.g. Jaffe and de Koning 2015, Caldeira 1996, Roitman 2013, Low 2004). Reckwitz (2002) emphasizes the relevance of objects in social theory and social order, as agents do not only build up subject-subject but also subject-object relations. Both forms of relations are often routinized within social practices, as are for example bodily activities like walking or writing (see next paragraph: “Body”).

Reckwitz furthermore discusses the concept of discourse or language in practice theory. Discursive practices include ways to accredit meaning to the world through language or signs. These practices consist of bodily patterns, routinized mental activities (understanding and know-how such as rules of grammar and use), motivation and objects that are once more interrelated. Hereupon Reckwitz elucidates that language (or discourse) in practice theory is established through routinized discursive practices of agents who ascribe particular meanings to particular objects.

(21)

14 These objects then are transformed into signs, essential for grasping the meaning of other objects, which is crucial for the agent’s “doing something” (Reckwitz 2002).

As the analysis shows, objects that are assigned with a distinctive value then play an essential role in the interpretation of the environment and the reaction thereupon. Examples therefor are billboards, a cell phone or a car, all of which are often assigned with a certain value or meaning causing distinctive practices. For example, I took this dimension into consideration in the sample process, based on whether informants own (and use) a car or not. Residents would not use their cell phone on the street or would only use the car if they had to leave the house at dawn. Generally speaking, objects like cell phones or cars frequently are constant companions in daily life, and in some cases particularly relevant for security reasons. Thus, objects are both indispensable elements of everyday practices as well as inevitable in the analysis of social practices in regard to (in)security.

Body and Mind

As routinized bodily activities, (social) practices are the product of training the body in a specific way, to use it in order to act. These activities include ways of handling certain objects, “intellectual” (Reckwitz 2002: 251) activities such as talking, reading or writing, or mental and emotional activities. Reckwitz states, “If practices are the site of the social, then routinized bodily performances are the site of the social and – so to speak – of ‘social order’. They give the world of humans its visible orderliness” (Ibid.: 251). A practice furthermore consists of mental routines of understanding the world, desires and know-how. These skills can be trained and routinized and are therefore also closely connected to bodily performances. In this process agents make use of certain ways of interpretation of one’s environment and other people’s behaviour, particular aims or emotional levels that shape or are shaped by bodily performances (Ibid.). This notion is of particular importance for the present research since informants were also selected based on sex and family status. As the subsequent paragraphs elucidate, there could be differences between sexes in regard to bodily activities as well as between a parent and non-parent due to distinctive emotional

(22)

15 activities.

Indeed, it cannot be disputed that not all people write, read or gesticulate with certain objects in the same way. Gender, sex, age or training and experiences, but also interests and self-determination could exemplify the rationale therefor (Wilcox 2011). For instance, a teenager could have less experience and therefore be less skilled in many of the intellectual activities than a retiree. At the other hand, a young adult might be physically fitter than an elder because of biological or routine-related reasons (training). Thus, there could be behavioural differences stemming from biological traits and others that could have a social or cultural reason (and would demand further examination).

Structure/Process

Social practices are routines of bodily activities, of understanding, of desires and of the use of objects that are interconnected and build the social structure in practice theory. Structure therefore is embedded in the nature of action. At the same time the term “routine” entails a temporal characteristic of structure. This implies that social order, since determined by repeated and routinized social practices, can be defined as social reproduction. Subsequently, structures break and shift “in everyday crises of routines, in constellations of interpretative interdeterminacy and of the inadequacy of knowledge with which the agent, carrying out a practice, is confronted in the face of a ‘situation’” (Reckwitz 2002: 255). Actors in a social environment socially reproduce structures on a daily basis that affect the understanding of their surrounding. In regard to security, socially reproduced structures are crucial to the analysis of for example community behaviour. As the empirical chapters show, members in a community characterized by social cohesion often also have similar perceptions of a securitized issue and following reactions. Later in this chapter, I address the concept of social representation that can be linked to this element of a practice.

As stated, other elements of practices, such as knowledge, and agent or individual, are not taken into consideration and instead are partially integrated in the other elements.

(23)

16 This is because there is only so much space in this thesis and further explanation thereof would not provide for a more extensive analysis on the subject’s matter.

2-1-3 Strategies and Tactics

Following de Certeau, I also distinguish practices according to their relationship with space, determining a practice either as a tactic or strategy. He characterizes a strategy as an action that associated with a space or “locus” (1984: 36) determined as its territory. This condition allows the institution in power (for example a business, army, city or scientific institution) to gain “triumph of place over time” (Ibid.: 36) in the form of “a panoptic practice” (Ibid.: 36) or control. The action thus provides “power of knowledge” and exhibits a transformation of “the uncertainties of history into readable spaces” (Ibid.: 36). Thus, the power of knowledge implies a controlling function, and this control relates to the appropriation of space, which tolerates a practice based on a foreseeable outcome within this territory.

The second form, tactic, does not inherit this territorial space. However, an absence of assigned space provides the action “with the condition necessary for autonomy” (Ibid.: 37). The space is the space of the other, “the enemy’s field of vision” (Ibid.: 376

), and consequently does allow not so much strategic planning as the use of “opportunities” (Ibid.: 37). This state of “what it wins it cannot keep” (Ibid.: 37) provides it with mobility: “It must vigilantly make use of the cracks that particular conjunctions open in the surveillance of the proprietary powers” (Ibid.: 37). De Certeau concludes by determining tactical practices as the “art of the weak” (Ibid.: 37). This tactical practice is the form constituting security practices in this thesis. The actor, a resident, finds him/herself in the space of the other (public space) as soon as s/he leaves his house. During his daily activities, s/he is confronted with a certain number of such distinctive spaces and – sooner or later – sees him/herself confronted with a threat. The threat depicts an experience with violence or crime. When referring to De Certeau’s approach, it then depends on the strength or form of relationship between the actor and this space, to adopt certain (security) practices. The actor

6_{Dietrich Heinrich von Bülow cited in de Certeau (1984). There is no further information on this quote found in de}

(24)

17 embraces possibilities that can be assigned to the according space. The empirical chapters explicate this by differentiating between practices such as avoidance or alleviation of the threat. While the practice (or tactic) avoiding usually indicates a low-levelled affiliation to the locus, alleviation is liked to residents who have a rather stronger connection to their environment.

The conceptualization of a (security) practice relevant for the present study is now finalized. The next section discusses different approaches to security and the concept used in this thesis, including the distinctive ways to experience or perceive it.

2-2 The Construction of (In)security

Since the introduction of neoliberal models in particular to economics, politics and social issues in the 1980s and 1990s, Latin America’s society became increasingly confronted with income inequality and poverty, deteriorating social services, unemployment and rising crime rates. Specific issues related to crime and violence have led to an inclusion of insecurity into the top of political agendas. In the security discourse, related paradigms are associated particularly with military affairs, war on terror and internal enemies (Goldstein 2010, Aguiar 2012). There are, however, also other ways to contemplate security, such as what some scholars position in the realm of “securitizing democracies” (Müller 2016) or “privatization of security” (Goldstein 2010). The terms refer to the increased democratization of insecurity, and indicate that citizens increasingly (have to) take over responsibility for their personal security. The perspective used in this research is part of the individual or collective handling in security matters “from below”. Yet still, this framing is insufficient, and thus the subsequent paragraphs elucidate an approach to answer Goldstein’s question, “What is security?” (Ibid.: 489).

2-2-1 Definitions and Approaches to Security

(25)

18 approach by the Copenhagen School (CS), security is not a holistically applicable or uniquely defined concept that contains a determined set of practices, but instead is the result of the process of (in)securitization.

For instance, security tends to be used as a slogan or as a “peculiar method through which a dominant group justifies and imposes a political program by assessing who needs to be protected and who can be sacrificed, who can be designated as an object of fear, control, coercion” (Balzacq et al. 2010: 2). The authors refer in particular to security as a means (and end) of speech-acts by which “distinctive linguistic and political tools” are mobilized in order to “add an unprecedented threatening aura to an issue” (May 2015: 3). As such, security can and is often used as a political tool in the process of stigmatizing and generating fear and thus give rise to the discursive production of the other as a threat (e.g. Caldeira 1996, Müller 2016 or Bayón 2015). In this discursive production, the (in)securitisation process is meant to steer towards a maximisation of security, while it also maximizes insecurity, and not minimizing it, as usually assumed (Balzacq et al. 2010). In other words, by contextualizing an issue as a matter of security, the processes tend to implicate increased insecurity.

This process of (in)securitization thus not only depicts the definition and categorization of threat, fear, security, destiny or protection, but also generates actions (in the realm of social environments). Put simply, securitization can be understood as a process that depicts its mistreatment by powerful actors, often states or economic elites, to generate fear as a means to legitimize (exceptional) interventions for the ostensibly greater good of society. By implementing certain policies, the objective is to immediately hinder a “threat’s” development. However, also citizens, or the “audience”, can be or are part of the process of securitization, as the following paragraphs explicate (Balzacq 2009; Balzacq et al. 2010).

The Social Nature of Securitization

The conceptualization’s (securitization as a process) inter-subjective nature emphasizes “a collective understanding of something as a particular kind of danger,

(26)

19 an existential threat to state, society, ‘our way of life’ [and is therefore] fundamentally social” (Goldstein 2010: 492). Another reason why a definition alone is not sufficient and why Balzacq et al. call for a social constructivist approach in the analysis of the process of securitization. Howarth (2006) elucidates in her work that social constructionism depicts a form by which to interpret social representations. This is why, at the end of this chapter, I address the dynamics of social representations in order to explain the origins of ideas that underlie the categorization of a threatening issue. Afore-going, I want to explain in more detail the security approaches by May (2015), Balzacq et al. (2009; 2010; 2011) and Floyd (2011) that constitute the lens of securitization for this research.

Stemming from the banking system, the concept of security was adapted and transformed into the field of International Relations. This perhaps explains why scholars of the CS, Balzacq and May, but also more traditional authors of security studies like Waever et al. (1993) elucidate their approaches to insecurity and (in)securitization with reference to actions and practices of agents which particularly but not explicitly represent states (Balzacq 2009, 2011; May 2015). Goldstein comments on this relation and the overstated “emphasis on the state as the singular locus of and agent for producing security” (Goldstein 2010: 492). Following this thought, it is little surprising that, as mentioned above, security is often seen as a means or end in the conversation about enemies of the state, military and terror. Goldstein calls for a more critical (and) ethnographic approach in the study of security issues since the prevailing mode “marginalizes subordinated groups” (2010: 492) and consequently eliminates valuable input. This underpins the approach in this research, that is to study security practices and the perception of insecurity through a different “security lens” (Goldstein 2010: 495) “from below”, albeit applying the “traditional” theories by Balzacq et al., May and Floyd. The agents in the present research are not states but residents in a certain area, thus differ greatly for instance in terms of power structures and effects of speech-acts. As the following paragraphs show, the core element of May’s approach is still applicable at the “lowest” level, the one of residents, and provides a framework to give audience to those unheard but most dramatically affected (Müller 2016).

(27)

20 2-2-2 The Process of (In)securitization

There have been several adaptions and transformations of the conceptualization of (in)securitization by the Copenhagen School. May (2015) offers a summary of these to operationalize and analyse security and securitizing practices in reference to aforementioned approaches of Balzacq (2009; 2011) and the advancement of the CS security model. The (inceptive) conceptualization describes security as “a dynamic strategic-pragmatic process, constituted by securitizing actors, and actions taken by those actors, understood within a particular [historical, cultural, political and linguistic] context and shaped by audiences and relative power positions” (Balzacq 2011: 4). The following sections elaborate the framework for defining and analysing the genesis of these practices as well as the possible forms of such in an inter-subjective perspective.

As stated, the process of securitization is constituted by practices, determined by its inter-subjective and collective nature. Furthermore, securitizing practices extract meaning from the corresponding context and their “success” is dependent on the constraints given by this context and by the audience’s preoccupation, including “the nature of; the securitizing practices and tools used, (…) thoughts, feelings, desires, motivations and actions of all actors involved” (Balzcaq 2011, May 2015: 3). Balzacq (2011) thereupon defines a framework consisting of three (interrelated) levels: agents, acts and context. Following this approach and complementing it with Floyd’s (2011) contribution of sincerity as a fourth condition, the securitizing move (or securitizing practice) can be defined as the intentional or unintentional acknowledgment of an actor to ascribe a threatening aura to an issue, steered by perceptions and experiences of (in)security. The security move then bears security practices dependent on context and receptivity of the audience (actor and environment).

In other words, the audiences and their ability or receptivity to adopt or accept a certain securitizing move (or practice) relates to form and consequences (= security practices) of security; or:

(28)

21 The used concept of insecurity, its underlying threats, risks and consequences, is linked to the concepts of violence, delinquency and victimization. Due to methodological and time-related limitations, other forms of insecurity, such as social and economic insecurity, poverty and precarity are omitted albeit happen to be relevant in one or the other exemplification (Umaña 2009).

Agents, Acts and Context

Before proceeding with the aforementioned interpretation of the securitization process, this paragraph briefly explicates the aforementioned three levels in the security framework (agents, acts, context). Agents in this research are the residents who, individually or collectively, experience some form of securitizing move and apply security practices. The research and constituted units of analysis do not include agents who send securitizing moves, albeit indicators thereof are examined in the social representation of a threat by the social environment of the respondents. The social representations as well as the respondents’ experiences then also depict the context, which determines the effectiveness of a securitizing move (Howarth 2006). The social component in the formation and understanding of social representations indicates that such representations are the product of practices and communicative activities. They constitute “a social reality sui generis [and] the more its origin is forgotten, and its conventional nature ignored, the more fossilized it becomes” (Duveen and Moscovici 2000: 27). Collective or social representations, or “phenomena […] are related to a particular mode of understanding and of communicating – a mode which creates both reality and common sense” (Ibid.: 33). Lastly, acts are the security practices, based on Reckwitz’s (2002) theory of social practices and framed by the everyday life paradigm by De Certeau (1984).

Figure 7-1-2: Securitzation Processes Source: Floyd (2010: 54)

(29)

22 2-3 Summary: (In)security + Practice = Security Practice

To sum up, this chapter follows seven steps in the attempt to find new (old) ways of illustrating and interpreting forms and effects of the proliferation of security issues and uncertainty. First, these issues concern cities, unlike rural areas, to a more notable extent because their nature is determined by complexity, multiplicity, unpredictability and chaos, and therefore worth being examined in the urban realm. In this sense Zeiderman’s (2016) approach of urban uncertainty offers reasonable foundations. Second, the insecurity of becoming a victim of crime is a form of uncertainty about if and how such victimization will occur. Insecurity can thusly be seen as a form of uncertainty. Third, practices are constructed and affected by mental and bodily activities, objects and the individual’s social surrounding and therefore stress an examination in relation to these elements. Fourth, these practices are socially constructed excerpts of collective stories and experiences and therefore thoroughly social. Fifth, securitization is a process, consisting of security (securitizing) moves and security practices. Sixth, by positioning these practices in the realm of everyday life, the researcher will find creative tactics of residents that have so far found little attention. And lastly, these tactics and strategies imply a certain degree of familiarity or affiliation to the locus, exemplified by a residents’ house, neighbourhood, borough, school or workplace or any kind of space that is part of quotidian, reciprocal behaviour.

(30)

23

3

Methodology

This chapter starts with a discussion of the ontological and epistemological considerations. Subsequently, it presents the units of analysis and the sampling strategy. I then explain the methods, including the in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion, field notes of the site visits and mental mapping. The chapter closes with a reflection on limitation and ethical considerations.

3-1 Ontological and Epistemological Considerations

Taking a look at the theoretical outline in this thesis already points towards the ontological stance in the research. Ontological considerations are determined as the social nature of studied social entities, and the social entities in this thesis are constructed by perceptions and actions of social actors, therefore referring to the ontological position of constructionism (Bryman 2012).

In the endeavour to study security practices of urban residents, I contemplate two main concepts, social practices and (in)security. Social practices are constructed by mental and bodily activities, desires and objects entangled with an individual’s social surrounding (Reckwitz 2002). Thus, comprehending and interpreting these practices stresses the consideration of the context (consisting of the aforementioned components) that is connected to an actor’s knowledge, understanding and behaviour. Crucial in the examination of (everyday) practices that continuously construct and deconstruct social reality is the consideration of practices as socially constructed narratives that represent collective stories and experiences (Reckwitz 2002, Bryman 2012). The second concept, (in)security, also depicts a process, that consists of securitizing (security move) and security practices. It emphasizes the collective understanding of an issue as threatening and is therefore fundamentally social.

Coming to the epistemological assumption underlying this research, I follow the approach of interpretivism. Unlike positivism and realism, interpretivism respects the differences between social actors and natural objects (natural sciences) and therefore

(31)

24 stresses the elaboration of a different logic in the research. Different to positivisism, which follows the approach of explanation, the interpretivist stance endeavours an understanding of human behaviour (Bryman 2012). The present research aims at understanding how residents of ZMVM perceive insecurity and at elucidating forms of reactions upon insecurity. In this approach I relate to Foster (1995) who conducted ethnographic research with an interpretivist stance about the perception of insecurity in a housing estate in Riverside, London.

3-2 Empirical Context and Access to the Field

The research focuses on the neighbourhoods of and surrounding the municipality Nezahualcóyotl. All research participants determine the municipality as their centre of residence, employment and/or education. The choice of this area was made based on access to the field, urban context, and insecurity and crime.

Figure 3-2-1: Monument „Cabeza de coyote“ in Nezahualcóyotl Source: Photograph taken by author

(32)

25 Access to the Field

The intention from to the beginning of the research was to study (in)security in an Eastern region of ZMVM. However, I had not elected a specific neighbourhood in this area in advance to the outset on the grounds that I knew that I perhaps would not have been able to abide by my choice due to inestimable difficulties related to access and safety. Thus, once arrived, I had to use my reasonable endeavour to make the right gatekeepers’ acquaintances, thereupon rely on my capability to approach strangers and build trust.

Figure 3-2-2: Invitation to the 30th Aniversary Source: Author

(33)

26 UPREZ and one of its representative members, Jaime Rello, provided this access (Fig. 3-2-2). UPREZ stands for Unión Popular Revolucionaria Emiliano Zapata and is an organization representing the left-wing populist urban movement in Mexico City and the State of Mexico. Their endeavour relates primarily to issues concerning the housing market, including the right to the city, access to infrastructure services and education. The organization is accountable for the construction of 70 schools in the ZMVM (Rodríguez Aguirre 2009).

I was invited to two events of the organization’s 30th

anniversary (Fig. 3-2-2), one of which was arranged in Mexico City (Fig. 3-2-3), the other in one of the by the union established elementary schools in Nezahualcóyotl. This was the key event for my research. The contacts I made represent the gatekeepers providing me with the required network to reach out to more respondents, and allowing me to follow up with snowball sampling (Bryman 2012). These gatekeepers are Jaime and the rectors of three educational institutes initiated by UPREZ, two in Neza and one in the neighbouring municipality, La Paz. Additional respondents were approached through the support of other gatekeepers, whose contacts were made during my stay in

Figure 3-2-3: Jaime and other representatives of UPREZ at the first anniversary event in Mexico City

(34)

27 Mexico. These include students from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and my friend Aldo who lives in Mexico City.

Urban Context

Nezahualcóyotl (short termed “Neza”) is one of ZMVM’s 76 territories, which consists of 16 districts of Mexico City, 59 municipalities of the State of Mexico and one municipality of the State of Hidalgo (Fig. 3-2-2). The population in ZMVM has been estimated to be around 21,5 million in 2016 (CONAPO 2012), representing almost 18 per cent of the entire population that occupies 0,4 per cent of the overall territory. Nezahualcóyotl’s population accounts for 1,11 million (in 2010) and 226.8 inhabitants per hectare, ranking it as the most densely populated region in ZMVM (INEGI 2010).

Originating as an informal settlement, Neza has been created more chaotically than systematically. In the last fifty to sixty years the municipality experienced rapid and uncoordinated growth through the irregular purchase of land and self-constructed houses (Fig. 3-2-4). The first establishments began in the Southwest of Nezahualcóyotl (Fig. 3-2-5), depicting a continuance of Mexico City’s urban growth, accompanied by population increase and rising demands for work and services.

Figure 3-2-4: Irregular Market in Nezahualcóyotl at the beginning of the urbanization process (1940-1960)

(35)

28 Infrastructure services, such as sewage and water systems, were lacking throughout the area and some regions remain poorly adjusted until today. The official recognition of ownership contracts gradually legalized the informal dwellings during the preceding fifty years. Yet still, from the 1990s onwards, informal housing remained present in Mexico City and neighbouring municipalities due to political changes7

and first stirrings of globalization in Latin America. The first Urban Development Plan for Nezahualcóyotl was established in 1986. The municipality was planned on a sectoral division. The segmentation was based on the main avenues, resulting in three sectors (west, center and east) (Montejano Castillo 2008).

Reaching Mexico in the 1990s, the globalization process led to increasing spatial segregation and longer commutes in the metropolitan zone of Mexico City. These changes in the urban structure are attributed to readjustments in housing and labour markets. The patterns depict human behaviour based on factors such as family and individual migration history, income level, education, and external impacts associated

7_{The oppositional party PRD (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, Institutional Revolutionary Party) took charge}

for the first time in 71 years of PRI (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, Party of the Democratic Revolution) ruling, leading to the alteration of housing, labour and security conditions (for more information see Müller 2016).

Figure 3-2-5: Nezahualcóyotl (Colonia Romero), photographed by the end of 1940 Source: Montejano Castillo (2008)

(36)

29 with culture and physical parameters of daily living. Due to difficulties faced on housing and labour markets, the poorest part of the population, mainly workers, settled on the outskirts of the capital (Graizbord 2003). The population resided in (former) informal settlements like Nezahualcóyotl (Ibid.). High rates of migration within Nezahualcóyotl and the State of Mexico as well as from other states increased the variety of origins (Ibid.). At the same time, from a socio-economic perspective, the municipality indicates a homogeneous pattern, characterized by mainly low- and middle-income population (Ibid.). 39 per cent of the population in the municipality lives in poverty8

, of which 4,7 per cent live in extreme poverty9

(CONEVAL 2012).

The average number of years of education of the population aged 15 and older is 9.5 years. The number of inhabitants aged 5 years or older attending school in 2010 is 280,000 that accounts for 26,3 per cent of these citizens10

. 52.9 per cent of Nezahualcóyotl’s inhabitants at the age of 12 or older are economically active (INEGI 2010; 2015). Commercial activity is the main source of income in the municipality that evolved in accordance with Nezahualcóyotl’s historical development, supporting in particular the textile industry in the metropolitan zone. Today, all kinds of commercial strips are visible in proximity to the main avenues, including stores for clothing, auto-parts and traditional food markets, of which the majority is located in the municipality’s first Settlements area (Southwest) (Montejano Castillo 2008).

Enlarging the existing metro system, the accessibility to the DF from Neza was gradually improved. While this facilitates the life of many residents, the transport within Nezahualcóyotl itself continues to be problematic. Moreover, an extremely high number of people using public transport and driving their cars on the streets of Mexico City and outskirts result in daily traffic congestions (Montejano Castillo 2008). The population growth, accompanied by an increasing motorization grade, result in heavy congestion as a serious problem particularly for the traffic zones in

8_{Reported poverty estimations in the indicated statistic take into account access and disposability of facilities and}

resources to cook as indications for access to basic services in housing.

9_{Extreme poverty is characterized by deprivation based on income (international poverty line of 1$) and on at}

least three of six indicators of basic human needs (food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education).

10_{Due to difficulties in accessing corresponding data, the author calculated the percentage of inhabitants}

attending school. It should be noted that the percentage might not be accurate because it is unclear whether or not official statistics exclude „irrelevant“ population groups (e.g. elders, economically active citizens, etc.) from the category „inhabitants aged 5 years or older attending school“.