Intra-urban Mobilities and Inequality: The Role of
the Matatu Paratransit in Nairobi, Kenya
‘Building a public transportation system that offers more choice for the majority, in addition to making cities healthier, more accessible, and livable for all, is also critically important to challenging historically entrenched inequalities in access to urban space and opportunities’ (Klopp, 2012, p. 2).
Saana Mirala | 11734272
MSc Thesis International Development Studies
Graduate School of Social Sciences | University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Professor Dennis Rodgers Second Reader: Francesco Colona MSc
1
Abstract
Mobility can be understood as a form and a vector of inequality which is particularly prevalent in the daily mobilities of city dwellers. These uneven mobilities can be influenced through implementation of various forms of public transportation. In Nairobi, Kenya, a city with overall high inequalities, a ‘public service’ is being provided by private operators mostly in the form of ‘matatu’ minibuses, known for being unreliable and unsafe. The system conceptualised as paratransit public transport has its unique characteristics, most importantly the various actors and institutions shaping it. Political choices that contribute to the construction and maintenance of public transport can have the power to create or alleviate various forms of inequality and exclusion. Drawing on the mobilities research paradigm, this research examines if and how the various institutions address uneven mobilities and aim to provide mobility to all of the city’s inhabitants, through the analysis of physical infrastructure, means and modes of movement and the institutional apparatus. By conducting interviews with the key players shaping the paratransit system and analysing policy documents, this research contributes to a wider understanding of the actors, their roles and institutional challenges in providing a comprehensive transport service. These interviews are further supported by interviews with young passengers on their perception of access to transport as well as to the city, in order to gain an understanding of the realities young residents of Nairobi face. Furthermore, detailed observations were made on the organisation of terminals, routes, passenger information as well as physical infrastructure. Through a social and political understanding of the intra-urban public transport system, this study contributes to a broader understanding of mobile inequalities in a city operating a paratransit system, finding that the lack of a clear vision and overlap in responsibilities result in a weak institutional setting, which does not directly address issues of inequality. On the other hand, infrastructure is highly selective largely serving the urban elite, with the means and modes of movement portraying and causing further social polarisation. Moreover, this research brings the matatu industry into international development discussion, which it has rarely been included in.
2
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisor Prof Dennis Rodgers for sharing his knowledge, providing enlightening insights and giving feedback on my work in progress. I greatly appreciate his patience and the encouragement and motivation he provided after each of our meetings. I would also like to thank the IDS department and the GSSS more generally for enabling such a research project. I also received academic advice from staff members Dr Patrick O. Asingo (Political Science), Dr Romanus Otieno Opiyo (Planning) and Prof Evaristus M. Irandu (Geography) at the University of Nairobi. Thank you for spending time and sharing your expertise with me. I would like to acknowledge especially Prof Winnie Mitullah and Ms Paschalin Basil from the Institute for Development Studies, for discussing my research in depth, lending reading material and helping me establish contacts for interviews. I am grateful also to Ms Naomi Mwaura from ITDP for sharing her thoughts and putting me in touch with potential interviewees.
I wish to thank Chairman Joseph Ndritu of PUTON for putting me in touch with conductors for the ‘observation days’, who then allowed me to travel with them all day, talking to passengers. Moreover, this research would not have been possible without the collaboration of each interviewee. I greatly appreciate all the assistance I received from each interviewee, sharing aspects of their everyday work and lives with me.
Lastly, I wish to acknowledge my grandad Leo for his financial contribution towards my fieldwork fund and the rest of my family for otherwise supporting me during this research project. Thank you to my dear friends in Kenya, from the IDS programme in Amsterdam and elsewhere for the moral support along the way; and Mark, for always listening to my sometimes unstoppable rants about urban inequality, transport and anything I could potentially associate with either. I would like extend a special thank you to my father Petri whom I spent the last week before submitting this thesis with. Thank you for the encouragement, pizzas and cups of tea as well as the hours you spent proofreading this thesis.
3
Table of content
Abstract ... 1
Acknowledgements ...2
Table of content ... 3
List of Boxes, Figures and Tables ... 6
Abbreviations ... 8
1 Introduction ... 9
1.1 Urban Mobility as a Development Issue ... 9
1.2 Research Aim and Relevance ... 10
1.3 Thesis Outline ... 13
2 Research Context and Location ... 14
2.1 Historical Development of the Matatu Industry in Nairobi ... 16
2.2 Matatus as the main form of public transport in Nairobi ... 18
2.3 Matatu business strategies, characteristics and regulatory compliance ... 19
3 Theoretical Framework ... 21
3.1 Urban Inequality ... 21
3.2 Mobility and Inequality ... 22
3.2.1 Mobility as a form of inequality ... 23
3.2.2 Mobility as a vector of inequality ... 24
3.2.3 Mobility as a right ... 25
3.3 Urban Public Transport Systems: Global Trends ... 26
3.4 Institutional Environment for Transport Development... 28
3.4.1 Institutions for development ... 28
3.4.2 Institutional arrangements ... 29
4
3.5 Youth and Mobility ... 31
3.6 Conclusion: Theoretical Framework ... 32
4 Methodological Framework ... 35
4.1 Research Questions ... 35
4.2 Operationalisation ... 36
4.2 Units of Analysis ... 38
4.3 Data Collection Methods ... 38
4.3.1 Participatory observations ... 38
4.3.2 Semi-structured interviews with public transport institutions ...39
4.3.3 Semi-structured interviews with matatu users ... 40
4.3.4 Document analysis ... 41
4.4 Data Analysis Methods ... 42
4.5 Ethical Considerations ... 42
4.6 Potential Limitations ... 43
4.7 Methodological Reflection on the Quality of Research ... 44
5 Institutional Environment ... 47
5.1 Institutional Presence ... 48
5.2 Networks, Interactions and Power Structures ... 49
5.3 Policies, Regulations and Opportunities ... 52
5.4 Institutional Ideologies, Vested Interests, Lack of Commitment, Blame Game and Corruption56 5.5 Regulatory Compliance, Enforcement and Corruption ... 58
5.6 Other Institutional ‘Failures’: Capacity Building, Cashless System, Missing Policies ... 59
Case Study: Attempted Matatu Ban in CBD ... 62
5.7 Discussion and Conclusion ... 63
6 Physical Infrastructure ... 66
6.1 Overall Spatiality of the City ... 66
5
6.3 Stages and Terminals ... 69
6.4 Connecting Infrastructure ... 71
6.6 Discussion and Conclusion ... 73
7 Means and Modes of Movement ... 75
7.1 Vehicle Design, Ease and Comfort ... 75
7.2 Connections, Flexibility and Speed of Travel ... 78
7.3 Pricing ... 81
7.4 Safety and Fear ... 83
7.5 Passenger Information ... 87
7.6 Discussion and Conclusion ... 87
8 Discussion and Conclusion ... 89
8.1 Answering the Main Research Question ... 89
8.2 Conceptual Reflections ... 91
8.3 The Way Forward: Recommendations for Policy and Further Research ... 91
References ...93
Appendices ... 100
Appendix A: Participant observations ... 100
Appendix B: Interviews with Institutions (audio recorded) ... 101
Appendix C: Interviews with Passengers ... 102
Appendix D: Policy documents ... 103
6
List of Boxes, Figures and Tables
Box 1: Everyday corruption ... 58
Box 2: Theft on matatus ... 85
Figure 1: Map of Kenya; source: www.mapsofworld.com... 15
Figure 2: Map of Nairobi; source: https://www.tuko.co.ke/ ... 16
Figure 3: Matatu routes; Source: (Klopp, et al., 2015) ... 18
Figure 4: Theoretical framework ... 34
Figure 5: Institutional networks ... 50
Figure 6: Traffic in Kariobangi North around 11am and on Thika Superhighway around 2pm, 14th February, 2018. ... 61
Figure 7: Proposed terminal locations (Personal communication, 22nd March, 2018)... 62
Figure 8: Traffic coming into the CBD on Thika Superhighway, around 2 pm on 14th February, 2018 (A). ... 66
Figure 9: People walking in between matatus in the CBD ... 67
Figure 10: Approximate places of residence of young passengers interviewed (Interviewees 4 & 5 live just outside Nairobi County) ... 68
Figure 11: Matatus stopping before official bus stop outside Village Market shopping centre ... 69
Figure 12: Informal bus stop at a sign saying 'Picking and dropping of passengers is strictly prohibited', Waiyaki Way... 70
Figure 13: Road sign forbidding picking of passengers on the pavement: ... 70
Figure 14: Lack of pavements on Waiyaki Way ... 71
Figure 15: Footbridge over Thika Super highway ... 72
Figure 16: New zebra crossings along Ngong Road ... 72
Figure 17: Separated pavement along Limuru Road and a motorcycle driving on the pavement along Uhuru Highway ... 73
7
Figure 18: The interior of a full 33 seater matatu ... 75
Figure 19: An interior of a matatu decorated with pictures of other matatus and music artists ... 76
Figure 20: Decorated exteriors of matatus in Buru Buru, on Jogoo Road and in the CBD ... 77
Figure 21: Matatu waiting for passengers at Sarit Centre, Westlands ... 78
Figure 22: People queueing for a matatu in Nairobi CBD around 5pm... 79
Figure 23: Pricing lists of two different SACCOs ... 81
Figure 24: Standard Digital headlines in relation to carjackings of matatus between May and June 2018. Retrieved: 3rd July, 2018, from: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ ... 86
Table 1: Operationalisation of key concepts ... 37
8
Abbreviations
BRT – Bus Rapid Transit CBD – Central Business District
IDS – International Development Studies INTP – Integrated National Transport Policy KBS – Kenya Bus Services Limited
KURA – Kenya Urban Roads Authority MOA – Matatu Owners Association MWA – Matatu Welfare Association
NAMATA – Nairobi Metropolitan Area Transport Authority NBS – Nyayo Bus Service
NCC – Nairobi City County NMT – Non-motorised transport
NTSA – National Transport and Safety Authority NYS – National Youth Service
PSV – Public Service Vehicle
PUTON – Public Transport Operators’ Union
SACCO – Savings and Credit Cooperative Association UN-Habitat – United Nations Human Settlements Programme UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund
9
1
Introduction
1.1 Urban Mobility as a Development Issue
A personal experience from the fieldwork period in Nairobi demonstrates many of the issues associated with urban mobility and shows its key role in development:
I had planned to visit a friend’s place of work in the Kibera slum in Nairobi. However, it was one of the first days of the rainy season which had started earlier than normal. By 10:30 am she suggested we reschedule the visit: it had taken her 3 hours to get to work that morning, a trip that would normally not last more than an hour. The reasons were simple to her: as it was raining cats and dogs, people had chosen a mode of transport with the least amount of walking outside resulting in more traffic than on a dry day. Furthermore, due to poor infrastructure in places, some roads had been completely swept away. As the matatu1 descended into the valley in which Kibera is located, it became obvious that continuing much longer would become extremely difficult. The matatu stopped as it got to a section of the road where water reached knee-height. The crew announced that they would not continue on unless passengers paid more. The majority of the passengers took their shoes off and continued by foot, through the mud in pouring rain (personal experience from field research, recorded 15th March, 2018).
Urban mobility is increasingly one of the key issues within international development, as various forms of mobility are shaping urban living (Jirón, 2012). However, in many urban environments the infrastructure and transport provision are not keeping up with the rate of urban growth, failing to provide a major urban service (Kamuhanda & Schmidt, 2009; Salon & Aligula, 2012; Sietchiping, et al., 2012). Infrastructure and transport also may have a role in alleviating or exacerbating different forms of inequality (Richardson & Jensen, 2008).
Inequalities are exacerbated in many urban centres, mobility being one of the forms they take. Safe mobility in particular is often a luxury for the select few (Azetsop, 2010). Pirie (2009, p. 22) describes mobility as a development issue, as huge numbers of people across the African continent ‘struggle to mobilise themselves to take part in civil society – to vote, worship, attend school, and participate in cultural ceremonies and festivals’. Mobility is not necessarily any easier in cities than in rural areas, as it can also be time-consuming and costly to travel across the city (Pirie, 2009).
10
However, mobility has an additional characteristic of also being a vector and hence also a vector out of inequality (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009A). From this point of view, public transport can shape the level of access people gain from certain neighbourhoods to employment opportunities, as well as to social, political and cultural spaces (Purifoye, 2017). Moreover, mobilities transform cities and whole countries, as the connections people have shape the landscape physically, economically, socially and culturally (Hannam, et al., 2006).
Many of these issues are captured in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Most importantly, target 11.2 states that by 2030, we should ‘provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons’, demonstrating urban mobility as a developmental issue. The target and wider Goal 11, ‘Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’, inherently include issues of urban inequality (UN, n.d.).
Urban transport is also linked to other, wider, development issues. As it has an impact on environmental factors, public health, opportunities for income generation as well as on overall quality of urban life, transportation plays a vital developmental role in creating safe and equal cities. However, unless planned adequately, transportation can exacerbate issues of land rights, poverty and violence in the city (Klopp, 2012; Dimitriou, 2011).
Mobility can be particularly polarising in Africa where the so called ‘mobility gap’ is often connected to not only current income inequality but to other inequalities and wider opportunities in life (Pirie, 2009). Kenya has been characterised by high inequalities and Nairobi seen as a city of contradictions for decades (Myers, 2015). In particular, Nairobi, as the capital and largest city, faces important transport issues (Klopp, 2012; Salon & Aligula, 2012), and hence this thesis focuses on Nairobi.
1.2 Research Aim and Relevance
As a growing city, with increasing inequalities and exacerbated road congestion (Salon & Aligula, 2012), Nairobi faces significant planning and development issues in the coming decades. As there are grand plans of building a Bus Rapid Transit system while phasing out matatu minibuses (Graeff, 2012), it is important to explore the current approach taken by policy makers and formal institutions as to whether this policy is justified, given the realities of the current transport system.
11
Public transport in this study refers to any transport within the city used by the masses – not necessarily run by the government or city. Nairobi operates a paratransit system, which is understood as a transport system operating usually in ‘parallel’ to a more formal and large-scale system, with varying levels of competition regulation, service planning, public authority control and business formality. Paratransit systems emerge both in the Global South and Global North, to complement insufficient formal ones. However, in the Global North they tend to account for a small proportion of public transport, whereas in many cities in the Global South they have become the main form of it (McCormick, et al., 2013).
Regarding competition, paratransit can vary from an unregulated, open market to a fairly strict monopoly without ever fully reaching one. It usually means transport which is somewhat ‘flexible’, often operating without fixed schedules or routes, with small or medium sized vehicles. Business formality could range from registered tax-paying companies to informal or illegal operators. It is important to note that with certain reforms, paratransit may achieve high service planning, competition regulation and business formality, making it formal organised transport and not paratransit anymore (Behrens, et al., 2016).
As in many sub-Saharan countries, paratransit has become the main form of transport in Nairobi, being loosely regulated and sometimes illegally operated. However, unlike in many other countries, matatus in Nairobi are not illegal and hence shall be referred to as paratransit, and not ‘informal transport’. More specifically, this research examines the matatu system of Nairobi as a case study of public transport paratransit which excludes modes that can be hired for private use wherein one customer can decide the route and who else travels on it - e.g. boda boda motor cycle taxis, tuk tuks, etc. For the purposes of this research, this definition provides a more specific and novel angle to examine public transport. Thus the use of ‘paratransit’ for short refers in this study to this notion of ‘public transport paratransit’ as defined by Behrens et al. (2016).
Nairobi’s paratransit system has its origins in the colonial past, followed by a failure of formal institutions to provide sufficient mobility to the residents. However, its institutional environment is ever evolving with a variety of actors and groups involved in shaping various aspects of the industry, and how people perceive and use it as a mean of mobility.
12
There is a lack of social and political studies on transport, particularly on Nairobi (Klopp, 2012)2 as it
is often viewed simply as a question of engineering (Graham & Marvin, 2001). In the case of Nairobi, and many other African cities, research has largely focused on the business operations and on issues caused by the barely regulated public transport sector,3 or on the particular mobility challenges faced
by the urban poor4 (Salon & Aligula, 2012). Some larger scale studies have been carried out5
contributing to an overall spatial understanding of the system in Nairobi. In general, higher mobility and better infrastructure are seen as good for development, but the inequalities within them are rarely explored (Pirie, 2009).
It should be noted that the matatu industry has never been a recipient of aid (Mutongi, 2017) and hence has remained largely neglected by international development circles. Sommers (2010) argues that the field of development has mostly focused on rural Africa, and thus it would be important to study the relatively neglected urban life of African cities, as the urban population of sub-Saharan Africa has increased six fold in the last 35 years. Moreover, youth play an important role in the urban landscape in Africa, as they account for a large proportion of the population, as well as being the ones shaping the future. Hence, a particular focus is placed on the urban youth of Nairobi.
As political choices that contribute to the construction and maintenance of public transport can have the power to create, exacerbate or alleviate various forms of inequality and exclusion, this research aims to examine the mismatch between policies and practices of the paratransit system. Hence, it examines whether and how the different formal institutions involved in public transport paratransit address urban inequality and aim to provide mobility to all of the inhabitants of the city, as well as the realities faced by urban youth in particular. Through a social and political understanding of the intra-urban public transport system, this study could contribute towards a more participatory approach to planning (Fouracre, et al., 2006).
Sheller (2016) connects uneven mobility and inequality with transportation through three dimensions. In her conceptualisation, physical infrastructure, means and modes of movement and the institutional apparatus of transport, are all key factors in shaping uneven mobilities. These three themes are utilised in this thesis to explore the intersection of public transport, mobility and inequality.
2 Some examples from neighbouring countries: Goodfellow, T. 2016, ‘’Double capture’ and de-democratisation:
interest group politics and Uganda’s ‘transport mafia’, The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 1568-1583.
3 See: Kamuhanda & Schmidt (2009)
4 See: Salon & Gulyani (2010); Bryceson, et al. (2003); and Venter, et al. (2007) 5 See: Salon & Aligula (2012); and Williams, et al. (2015)
13
Public transport shapes which people from which neighbourhoods have the easiest access, particularly to wider income opportunities (Purifoye, 2017), and as the main form of public transport, matatus play a potential role in this (Klopp, 2012; Salon & Aligula, 2012). Following the line of argument of Behrens et al. (2016), this study argues that the paratransit system of is not yet fully understood, and the potential opportunities currently created by the matatu industry may provide insight into its potential role for the future. Expanding from the notion that uneven mobilities is a form and a vector of inequality (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009A), the role of matatus in alleviating or exacerbating this is a topic of societal relevance to be researched.
1.3 Thesis Outline
This thesis comprises two main sections. Part One describes the research location and the matatu paratransit system of Nairobi, as well as sets the contextual, theoretical and methodological frameworks for the primary research. Furthermore, Part One evaluates the existing literature on uneven mobility, on mobility and inequality, as well as on public transport systems and institutions for development and identifies theoretical knowledge gaps particularly in the connections between them. It also outlines the research questions as well as data collection and analysis methods. Any ethical dilemmas posed by the research as well as the positionality of the researcher are explored and the quality of the methodology reflected on.
Part Two presents the research findings. As the data is analysed thematically based on Sheller (2016), the three themes correspond to the three chapters (5-7), on the institutional environment, on physical and spatial infrastructure and on the means and modes of movement. The sections are linked up in the last chapter, which answers the main research question and reflects on the theoretical and conceptual set up. Urban inequality is understood as something enhanced and also mitigated through transport. Looking at the implementation of the matatu paratransit in Nairobi in the context which is characterised by poor service provision and a certain institutional environment, it is found that young people perceive the system to be good in providing them with mobility. However, various issues still remain and the institutional environment does not effectively address these, or aim to provide mobility for all. Finally, recommendations for further research as well as policy are made.
14
Part 1
Part 1 explores the context of Nairobi and the theoretical literature primarily in the mobilities research paradigm on uneven mobilities and inequality. It is then used to bring together to the way the research design was built and the study conducted.
2
Research Context and Location
Nairobi, the capital city of the Republic of Kenya in East Africa, is a local, national, regional and international hub for economic development and commerce, generating approximately half of the national GDP (UN-Habitat, 2006). Moreover, it hosts a variety of development organisations and international businesses (Graeff, 2012). Nairobi is a rapidly growing city with some of the highest urban growth rates in Africa. Grandiose projects featuring new shopping centres and motorways are constantly being developed. However, these tend not to benefit the majority of the city’s inhabitants (Linehan, 2007; Myers, 2015). Outside the glossy redevelopment projects, Nairobi experiences high rates of poverty with over 60% of its inhabitants living in informal settlements. With an estimated 75% of the urban growth being absorbed by slums, various urban issues as well as all aspects of urban inequality are being exacerbated by urban growth (Klopp, 2012).
The city struggles with urban service delivery (Linehan, 2007; UN-Habitat, 2006), such as providing transportation options to its inhabitants (Klopp, 2012). Nairobi is known for its serious traffic congestion, although merely 15% of inhabitants own private cars (Klopp, 2012; Salon & Aligula, 2012). However, many cannot afford any form of motorised transport and rely on walking as their main form of transport (Diaz Olvera, et al., 2013; Salon & Aligula, 2012; NCC, 2014). This demonstrates some of the transportation and intra-urban mobility inequalities in Nairobi, which can be seen as a form of inequality (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009A).
Nairobi operates a paratransit system (see chapter 1). The most common form it takes is the matatu, a privately operated local minibus or van, considered to be notoriously unsafe and unreliable (Klopp, 2012; Salon & Aligula, 2012; UN-Habitat, 2006). The matatu derives its name most likely from the Swahili word for the number three (‘tatu’), referring to the 30 cent flat fare which was the norm in the early years of their operation (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015).
15
16
Figure 2: Map of Nairobi; source: https://www.tuko.co.ke/
2.1 Historical Development of the Matatu Industry in Nairobi
Nairobi was founded in 1898 as a railway town and depot during British colonial rule. Thus, transport has been an important facet of the city since its origins (Cirolia & Berrisford, 2017; Klopp, 2012; Kanyama & Cars, 2009). Like in most African urban settlements, the authorities provided no form of public transportation, until the Kenya Bus Services Limited (KBS) was set up in 1934 for intra-urban transport by the Overseas Transport Company of London (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015; Kanyama & Cars, 2009). However, in a highly segregated and restricted city, demand was not high at the time: Europeans settled in the western part of the city, Asians in the north, Africans in the east and the industry was located in the south of the city (Opiyo, 2002). Furthermore, colonial authorities restricted rural-urban migration (Kanyama & Cars, 2009).
After independence, the restrictions were removed, and the city started to grow rapidly, making improved transport options necessary (KBS, 2016; Opiyo, 2002). Provision proved to be insufficient as financial constraints prevented KBS from expanding its fleet (Asingo, 2004) and informal matatus began to provide transportation according to passenger demand and need, as a form of ‘self-help’ (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015).
17
In 1966, the local government bought KBS shares, and the company’s main goal became to provide transport for all, regulate fares and maintain infrastructure, in the only private-public partnership that has existed in the industry in Kenya (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015). However, with the early 1970s’ oil crises, KBS ran into financial trouble as the fares were set too low by the Nairobi City Council while demand continued to grow. This is when matatus began operating on a large scale, serving particularly the eastern and peripheral areas of Nairobi. Consequently, matatu owners and matatu-linked stakeholder groups gained political power. Turf wars emerged as a result of the legalisation of matatus in 1973 and when the KBS started servicing the periphery in the 1980s (KBS, 2016; Opiyo, 2002; Klopp & Mitullah, 2015). This further fuelled a scramble for political power and influence with various organisations and associations emerging within the industry, including cartels and associated gangs, mostly associated with the political opposition (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015).
As a result of deregulation policies in the early 1990s, the matatu sector further solidified its role (KBS, 2016; Opiyo, 2002; Klopp & Mitullah, 2015). The liberalisation and withdrawal of the state led to increasingly pluralistic systems, with many managerial flaws (Werna, 1998). For example, as a result of structural adjustment programmes, a Nyayo Bus Service, operated by the National Youth Service, was established by the government in 1986 to compete with KBS. This variety of actors and overlapping planning has been a key feature of urban services such as transport in Nairobi (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015; Opiyo, 2002). As a result of mismanagement, the Nyayo Bus Service collapsed in 1994. The KBS was also forced to restructure as a franchise under local investors in 1998 leaving the City Council of Nairobi without a direct role in public road transport provision (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015).
Since then, the KBS has also become more paratransit-like, and other companies such as Citi Hoppa have emerged competing with the KBS and with matatus alike (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015). However, matatus remain the main form of transport for the majority of the city’s inhabitants. They are still largely unregulated, bar some restrictions (Klopp, 2012), most notably ‘Michuki Rules’ put in place by the former Minister for Transport, John Michuki. They limited the number of passengers allowed on board and made seat belts, speed governors as well as conductor and driver uniforms obligatory. Having a yellow stripe on the outside to identify the vehicle as a public service vehicle was also made compulsory, as were regular checks of roadworthiness (Klopp, 2012; Klopp & Mitullah, 2015).
The matatu sector has evolved over time, aiming to meet the mobility demands of the residents of Nairobi as formal authorities have failed to do so (Linehan, 2007). Currently, numerous players are involved in the organisation, management and regulation of the matatu sector: governmental regulators, the City County of Nairobi, owners’ and workers’ associations amongst other actors, all of whom are in a position to shape a system which is an essential aspect of urban life in Nairobi.
18
2.2 Matatus as the main form of public transport in Nairobi
In Nairobi, where car ownership rate is about 15%, a large majority uses the matatus as their main form of transport. Two thirds of the adults who cross into a different transport zone (‘travellers’ based on (Salon & Aligula, 2012)) on a daily basis for work or school, use matatus. The matatus are considered to provide a good geographic coverage, partly as a result of operators being able to choose routes with the highest demand (Salon & Aligula, 2012). Out of the approximately 135 routes many follow old formal routes. The Digital Matatus project mapped routes and stops6 resulting in the map in figure 3
(Klopp, et al., 2015; Williams, et al., 2015). However, matatus also improvise when necessary to avoid traffic or the police (Williams, et al., 2015). Matatus are also used for freight, making them even more important for the overall urban economy (Klopp, 2012).
Figure 3: Matatu routes; Source: (Klopp, et al., 2015)
6 Usually referred to as ‘stages’ in Kenya.
19
However, many cannot afford any form of motorised transport, rely on walking as their main mode of transport, and often live in slums close to their place of employment (Diaz Olvera, et al., 2013; Salon & Aligula, 2012; NCC, 2014). These people are particularly vulnerable in the traffic of Nairobi (Salon & Aligula, 2012), as urban planning has largely neglected the users of non-motorised transport. Overall, Nairobi residents are not very mobile, as only 42% are considered travellers. Although this might be a choice, many are likely to be immobile as a result of lack of options (Salon & Aligula, 2012), with many spending 20-26% of their monthly income on transportation (Sietchiping, et al., 2012).
Salon & Aligula (2012) argue that if public transport services are not improved, and non-motorised transport not made safer, the city will continue to experience an increase in car ownership rates, leading to further congestion. They define time, cost, comfort, reliability and safety as the main factors influencing modal choices; access and affordability being the most important for the lower income groups, whereas reliability and safety are prioritised by higher income groups (Salon & Aligula, 2012).
2.3 Matatu business strategies, characteristics and regulatory compliance
The privately operated matatus are considered to lack service quality and security (Salon & Aligula, 2012). The fact that matatus wait for the bus to be full before departing, as well as their fluctuating prices, both demonstrate a lack of consideration for passengers. Furthermore, matatu users have reported stories of violence, abuse, harassment and theft (Kamuhanda & Schmidt, 2009). On the other hand, a privately operated transport system enables demand-responsive changes and overall flexibility (Jennings, et al., 2016).
In 2004, the Michuki Rules (see section 2.1) were a major change for the industry (Klopp, 2012). Furthermore, since 2010, each individual matatu is required to be a member of a Savings and Credit Cooperative Organisation (SACCO) or another transport company, as a way to encourage self-regulation amongst the matatu industry (McCormick, et al., 2013).
McCormick, et al. (2016) argue that business strategies determine the regulatory compliance of the matatu industry. These business strategies are shaped by internal factors such as resources available to operators as well as by the institutional environment. Internal factors may vary considerably, with vehicles, knowledge, skills, experience and finance differing greatly between competitors. Overall strategies of matatu owners defined by McCormick, et al. (2016) include ‘operating a public transport business’; ‘diversifying a business’; and ‘earning a daily income’. In general, the first category tends to have the overall highest rates of compliance, whereas the last one has the lowest. However, more
20
specific business strategies such as ‘brand and access’; ‘the informed player strategy’; ‘collective action strategy’; and the ‘resource-driven strategy’, determine more specifically which rules and regulation tend to be followed. For example, collective action strategists use the support of the SACCOs whereas the informed players use their knowledge to comply as well as to fight for their rights. Selective compliance is often practiced as regulations such as compulsory seat belt use may be seen as inappropriate or unnecessary, and some argue that compliance is impossible as a result of enforcement corruption (McCormick, et al., 2016).
21
3
Theoretical Framework
In order to conceptualise the phenomenon of uneven mobility within the context of Nairobi’s paratransit system, it is necessary to discuss the topics and themes that arise from the existing literature such as interrelations between mobility and inequality, the role of urban public transport systems within them, and the institutions that govern the wider system. The relatively new ‘mobility turn’ in the social sciences is used as a key theoretical starting point as the principles of mobility research centres around connections, networks and flows, recognising the inherent inequalities within and resulting from mobilities, and the importance of institutions shaping them. Moreover, the potential and capability for mobility play key roles within mobilities research (Jensen, 2011).
3.1 Urban Inequality
During colonial rule, towns and cities in Africa were built and planned on purpose to exclude and segregate certain groups of people, often based on ethnicity (Goodfellow, 2013; Egan, 2014). European methods in planning, such as masterplans, formation of legal rights and regulations regarding land use, could manipulate what type of development took place, where and for whom (Cirolia & Berrisford, 2017). Also masterplans developed after independence largely underestimated the urban growth that would take place in the coming decades (Goodfellow, 2013).
Recently, African cities have adopted various urban plans, aiming to become ‘world class cities’, ‘sustainable cities’ and ‘eco-cities’ (Watson, 2013; Myers, 2015; Smith, 2017). Watson (2013) argues that these visions may be embedded in a global capitalist paradigm and rely on property and the role of the African middle class, thus ignoring realities in the cities. It can be questioned whether the focus on international investment and planning leave enough room for social development (Linehan, 2007; Watson, 2013). Furthermore, colonial planning traditions often remain in place. These tend to ignore the needs of the majority, focusing instead on the minority who own means of motorised transportation (Klopp & Mitullah, 2015). The need for in-depth historicising of differing mobilities in the context of colonial pasts is recognised within the field of mobility research (Sheller, 2016).
Urban interventions are usually embedded in the traditional urban studies view of urban inequality mainly as spatial and residential segregation (Jirón, 2012). Furthermore, Ohnmacht, et al. (2009A) define the ‘classical conception of social inequality’ as ‘differential distribution of wealth, income, educational attainment and status’. However, given the key networked characteristic of modern cities
22
(through physical, social and information networks) in which physical proximity does not mean socio-cultural proximity (Dimitriou, 2011; Graham & Marvin, 2001), it may be more appropriate to use a mobility lens to understand urban inequality. Hence, urban inequality becomes to mean not only enclaves in which people are trapped into - but rather ‘mobile gradients through the city’ (Jirón, 2012, p. 81).
These mobilities arise and are created through the increased amount of choices available to urban residents generating ‘new forms’ of inequality (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009A). Moreover, Manderscheid & Bergman (2008) suggest that the spatiality and physical distance become less relevant in the networked city, in which connections and the temporal aspect of travel become more important. Bauman (2000, in Manderscheid & Bergman, 2008, p. 46) takes this a step further in suggesting that ‘[i]f all parts of space can be reached in the same time-span (that is in ‘no-time’), no part of space is privileged, none has ‘special value’’, further demonstrating the importance of connections over physical location. However, mobility relies on ‘immobile infrastructure’ such as roads or airports, leaving an important role for spatial and infrastructural analysis (Sheller & Urry, 2016).
Social inequality is understood by Ohnmacht, et al. (2009B, p. 9) as ‘institutionalised difference in access to resources’. They understand such institutionalised difference as a potential stepping stone to social exclusion in which immobility is a key characteristic (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009B).
3.2 Mobility and Inequality
Mobility has arisen as a key matter of equality and equity in recent years and has been researched from various epistemological and disciplinary backgrounds (Büscher, et al., 2016), particularly in the new social science paradigm termed the ‘mobility turn’ (Urry, 2007; Sheller, 2014). With cities that have rapidly grown recently and continue to grow, conflicts over public investments and space have arisen, and road space has become one of the most valuable resources of a city (Peñalosa, 2013).
Particularly in such urban environments, mobility has become a significant developmental and planning question and current transport infrastructure is struggling to keep up with urban growth (Kamuhanda & Schmidt, 2009; Salon & Aligula, 2012; Sietchiping, et al., 2012). The mobilities paradigm understands mobility as a form of inequality as well as a way to alleviate or exacerbate existing inequalities, as they are largely interwoven concepts (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009A; Sheller & Urry, 2016).
23
Furthermore, a ‘mobility justice’ perspective emerges as a key aspect which sees mobility as a human right (Lucas, 2011; Sheller, 2016; Sheller, 2014). In particular, safe mobility tends to be a privilege of certain people, while vulnerable groups - such as pedestrians and public transport users - are the most likely to be involved in traffic related accidents (Azetsop, 2010).
3.2.1 Mobility as a form of inequality
Uneven mobilities exist everywhere in the world, but especially in the Global South, in areas which Ferguson (2006) terms as ‘global shadows’ in the increasingly neoliberal world. Mobilities are restricted often by physical infrastructure (e.g. borders, gates), economic (e.g. pricing), social (e.g. race, class, gender) and institutional (e.g. policing, rules, surveillance) barriers (Sheller, 2016). Moreover, Sheller (2016, p. 16), defines uneven mobility as referring:
‘first to a sovereign terrain for movement in which there are spatial designs, physical infrastructures, and symbolic impediments creating divergent pathways, differential access, and control architectures for partial connectivity and bypassing; second, it refers to the means or modes of movement that have a greater or lesser degree of ease, comfort, flexibility, speed, and safety, and thus signals the disciplining of mobile subjects through affective experiences of moving with more or less friction, noise, danger, fear, or turbulence; and third, it refers to the institutional apparatus and communication media that produce knowledge of such relations of mobility and immobility, speed and slowness, comfort and discomfort, security and risk.’
It has been observed that income and most common mode of transport are usually linked (Salon & Aligula, 2012; Sietchiping, et al., 2012), creating social polarisation of highly mobile and immobile people (Richardson & Jensen, 2008). The differences between highly mobile and immobile people are particularly stark in Africa, where ‘[t]he mobility gap may match the wide differentials of income and life chances’ – ‘it is surely rooted in and expresses gaps in privilege and plenty’ (Pirie, 2009, p. 22). Whereas businesses and many governments strive for ‘hyper-mobility’, there are large groups of people who feel excluded or even negatively affected by such changes (Hannam, et al., 2006). Distances and modes of transport are not the only factors defining equality of access, in systems where waiting and queueing become a form of ‘control architecture’ (Fuller, 2014). While others are able to move rapidly through the city, others are forced to wait, implying ‘being stuck, temporally as well as physically’ (Sheller, 2016, p. 20), demonstrating that uneven mobility occurs at many scales, such as spatial and temporal (Sheller, 2016).
24
Urban fringes in the Global South are seen as places which produce the most uneven mobility (Sheller, 2016). The green and clean functioning spaces in which the urban elite are able to move, are contrasted by the fringes of the cities from which people struggle to gain access to the city due to physical and technical infrastructure as well as the institutional control tools which govern uneven mobility (Sheller, 2016; Jensen, 2011).
3.2.2 Mobility as a vector of inequality
The notion of ability and capability, in relation to mobility, is explored by Kaufmann, et al. (2004) in their development of motility. Motility is defined as ‘the capacity of entities (e.g. goods, information or persons) to be mobile in social or geographic space, or as the way in which entities access and appropriate the capacity for socio-spatial mobility according to their circumstances’ (Kaufmann, et al., 2004, p. 750). It is understood as a geographic and social phenomenon, linked to both ideas of spatial mobility and social mobility, with its key elements being access, competence and appropriation. Moreover Kaufmann, et al. (2004) argue that motility should be seen as a form of capital, which can be exchanged with other forms of capital. However, motility has an additional vertical quality (which other types of capital lack) as it is more influenced by spatial components. Most importantly, motility must be understood as an asset which demonstrates ‘a new form of social inequality’. This research examines the ‘day-to-day displacement’ (daily journeys such as commuting), which is classified as one of the four different types of mobility (Kaufmann, et al., 2004).
Drawing from theories of social geography, Grant (2010) explores urban spatial poverty traps, and argues that they become particularly prevalent in developing countries with rising urbanisation. Informal settlements which may be located along transport routes, city dumps or in periurban areas, often suffer from lack of infrastructural provision, including transportation. Access to basic services translates to ability to pay (Grant, 2010), linking to Ferguson’s (2006) notion of ‘global shadows’. As most jobs tend to be located in the city centre, people living closer have better access to job opportunities (Diaz Olvera, et al., 2013).
Within Nairobi, an estimated 60% of the city’s inhabitants live in such informal settlements and there is no indication of their growth slowing down (Linehan, 2007). As these slums are permanent homes for the majority (Emina, et al., 2011), it is important to include them in spatial urban planning, including transportation, which Grant (2010) suggests as a significant factor in enabling an ‘escape’ from the poverty trap. A lack of transport options can seriously limit the opportunities available to
25
individual city dwellers (Sietchiping, et al., 2012) potentially leading to complete immobility, both physically and socially (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009B). Moreover, ‘being stuck’ physically and temporally also implies other vulnerabilities ranging from environmental hazards, sanitation, food and water (Sheller, 2016). Importantly, uneven mobility capital leads to uneven ‘rights to the city’, a term first introduced by Henri Lefebvre in 1968 (Sheller, 2014).
This relates to Rodger’s (2012) notion of ‘infrastructural violence’, which is an ethnographic term partly inspired by Graham’s (2006) ‘infrastructural warfare’ describing how infrastructure and planning can cause unequal spatial forms in the city. As infrastructure is the key to shaping everyday urban life, and cities are spaces where control tools are easy to apply, planning can - intentionally or unintentionally - target certain groups of people or areas of the city. Making a comparison between the Haussmannisation of Paris and new urban plans in Managua, Rodgers (2012) describes how roads in Paris were built to access and control poorer neighbourhoods, whereas in Managua they are built to bypass such areas, creating a new road network designed for the urban elite. Infrastructure in both cities had an intentional control element as the well-lit wide Parisian boulevards were designed to help contain an uprising while Managua’s roads were designed with plenty of roundabouts to enable a continuous movement of cars to prevent car-jacking. Importantly, ‘institutional power’ ‘fundamentally reflects the institutional capacity of a central state to penetrate its territories and logistically implement decisions’ (Rodgers, 2012, p. 431). This demonstrates how infrastructure, as well as the authorities planning it, can affect mobilities and hence various inequalities in a city.
As different areas of the city are networked via different physical infrastructure and available means and modes of movement, (im)mobilities can produce social differentiation (Jensen, 2011; Sheller, 2016). Moreover, new connections in the networked city, or deterritorialisation, causes reduced mobility, or reterritorialisation, for others (Hannam, et al., 2006), as ‘[w]alls, borders, checkpoints, and gated zones are crucial to the new mobility regimes that produce the securitized corridors, cocoons, and bubbles through or in which certain ‘global’ flows travel, even as they evict, splinter, or slow other flows’ (Sheller, 2014, p. 798). Hence, even physical mobility can be understood as a vector of physical and social mobility and reduced inequalities (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009A; Hannam, et al., 2006).
3.2.3 Mobility as a right
Mobility can be seen as a human right and ‘mobility justice’ as an emerging subfield within mobility research (Sheller, 2016; Sheller, 2014). Globally, mobility has become synonymous with modernity and
26
freedom, and increased potential for mobility hence as something to be strived for (Richardson & Jensen, 2008; Bærenhold, 2013): for example, car ownership is usually considered a status symbol and a sign of freedom. However, as ‘more mobility’ is not inevitably beneficial for the wider society (e.g. private car ownership, pollution and traffic) (Hannam, et al., 2006), it becomes a challenging question as to who or which groups ‘deserve’ this increased mobility. Additionally, when is it sufficient and when does it become disproportionate or unfair to the rest of society – and whether it should be capped somehow for the most mobile? It is not obvious what, if any, mobility rights the ordinary residents of Nairobi hold (Pirie, 2009).
3.3 Urban Public Transport Systems: Global Trends
Transportation is a part of urban design which gives rise to various inequalities in a city. It also shapes place-making, particularly through differentiated levels of access (Purifoye, 2017). Furthermore, motorised forms of transport are identified by many as a basic need (Salon & Aligula, 2012). Uneven mobilities could be addressed through public transport, which represents a form of democracy, when properly planned (Peñalosa, 2013). It can be a way of progressive distribution, allowing disadvantaged groups to gain improved access to the city (Rode, et al., 2016; Ohnmacht, et al., 2009B). According to Sclar & Touber (2011, p. 174) a good public transport system is ‘as safe, affordable, speedy, convenient and reliable as possible for all users’.
Public transportation in particular often shapes which people, from which neighbourhoods, have the easiest access to financial centres, to cultural venues, or to other key spaces of the city (Purifoye, 2017). Furthermore, public transport gives rise to indirect income opportunities through the possibility of travelling longer distances to work, transporting goods or connecting with people (Kamuhanda & Schmidt, 2009; Ohnmacht, et al., 2009B), as well as providing wider overall access to the city (Lucas, 2011). These opportunities can be seen in terms of geography or volume (Kamuhanda & Schmidt, 2009). According to Peñalosa (2013) ‘in terms of transport, an advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars but rather one where even the rich use public transport’. Sietchiping, et al. (2012) argue that Sub-Saharan African cities must prioritise inclusive transport planning, in order to expand inhabitants’ economic opportunities as well as to aid them in achieving their daily household needs. Public transport is largely understood to benefit not only individuals but all income groups and the city as a whole. From an economics perspective, public transport enables small businesses and entire city economies to thrive. Research demonstrates that wider public transport options have positive
27
impacts on health and environmental outcomes, as well as on decongesting the city (Salon & Aligula, 2012; Sietchiping, et al., 2012). Moreover, studies have shown that the travelling itself is not the only important aspect, but also the social contacts experienced while travelling, as these importantly create new social networks (Kaufmann, et al., 2004, p. 753).
Thus the political choices that contribute to the construction and maintenance of public transport can have the power to create or alleviate various forms of inequality and exclusion (Purifoye, 2017). As Sietchiping, et al. (2012) note, size and scale of the city become very important in implementing feasible public transportation. In other cities7, motorway construction has resulted in urban sprawl, in
which urban dwellers become increasingly car-dependant. Peri-urbanisation has also been observed to increase traffic congestion in Nairobi (Klopp, 2012). A study carried out by the Mastercard Foundation shows that most of the transport infrastructure projects are focused on building more and better motorways (Baghudana & Leis, 2015), and there has been a ‘flurry of road building’ (Klopp, 2012, p. 1). As infrastructure is often seen as a key factor for economic development, many post-independence African regimes have focused on it. However, infrastructure does not equate to good transport (Pirie, 2009), and can cause further inequalities (as discussed in section 3.2.2).
Ideology plays a more significant role as social biases (unintended and deliberate) have throughout history influenced the way in which urban infrastructure is planned. Furthermore, infrastructure is experienced differently by different groups of people. In most European cities, public transport and infrastructure has been viewed as ‘integrators of urban space’, of ways in which cities, regions and nations can be bound ‘into functioning geographical or political wholes’ (Graham & Marvin, 2001, p. 8). Public transport and infrastructure have been widely regarded as something that serves the public interest and, accordingly, need to be provided as a public service, usually through a state or city monopoly (Graham & Marvin, 2001). Consequently, concessionary fares are frequently offered to disadvantaged people such as disabled, elderly or students. In many places in Africa, either resources, political will or institutional capacity have been lacking for the implementation of a similar system (Kanyama & Cars, 2009).
Particularly since the mid to late 1980s and the ‘Washington Consensus’ which increasingly pushed for market led solutions to development issues, new forms of transportation provision have emerged globally. Transport among other public services has since been subject to liberalisation and privatisation. As a result, connecting communities and social groups within a city has not been prioritised anymore; this has led to an increased non-physical distance between residents of a city
28
along socio-economic lines (Dimitriou, 2011; Graham & Marvin, 2001). In fact, Mercier (2009) argues that hierarchical systems of governance may succeed better than the free market in delivering equitable mobility and overall urban life.
Dimitriou (2011) argues that the global trend of privatisation has resulted in the mixing of what might traditionally be considered ‘developed’ and ‘less developed’ countries and cities, as ‘developed’ countries experience exacerbated inequalities while ‘less developed’ countries have and are building what might be considered symbols of modernisation such as motorways and shopping centres. If privatisation and liberalisation of the transport system is viewed as an optimal goal, then many African cities are already a step ahead.
3.4 Institutional Environment for Transport Development
The importance of institutions is recognised widely in the mobilities research paradigm (Hannam, et al., 2006; Jensen, 2011; Bærenhold, 2013; Sheller & Urry, 2016). According to Sheller (2016), both the archaeology and the genealogy of mobility must be examined. This means that the powers which govern mobility are equally important to the on-the-ground practices of spatial and physical infrastructure and the means and modes of movement. Moreover, (as discussed in section 3.3) urban public transport systems are often a matter of ideology and prioritisation. The priorities are largely set by institutions, formal and informal, and are thus important to examine in the context under study, as the power relations have an impact on uneven mobilities (Richardson & Jensen, 2008). Even where institutions do not exist, new ones emerge (North, 1991), shaping and changing the transport sector.
3.4.1 Institutions for development
Institutions are commonly defined as ‘humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interaction’ and are the ‘rules of the game’ (North, 1991). Since the 1990s, economists and economic geographers have realised the importance of institutions for economic growth and development (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). Rodrik, et al. (2004) argue that institutions are more central to economic development than trade or geography, often considered the key determinants. Within mobilities research, Bærenhold (2013) particularly raises questions of how bodies and systems for control produce uneven mobilities at urban, local and national levels.
29
Both formal and informal institutions exist (North, 1991), including in the transport sector (Rietveld & Stough, 2005; Sclar & Touber, 2011). In the case of the matatu industry, formal government institutions, other formal industry-specific as well as informal institutions exist and shape the industry (McCormick, et al., 2016).
North (1991) argues that when formal institutions fail, informal ones take over and shape society. This has been evident in the matatu sector, demonstrating how economic, social and political activities are embedded in an institutional framework (Martin, 2000; Sclar & Touber, 2011; McCormick, et al., 2016). In the matatu industry, gangs and cartels exist and influence the transport scene. In addition, many matatu owners are senior police officers, or in otherwise influential positions (Klopp, 2012).
Furthermore, extensive corruption has been observed and reported within road construction contracts in Kenya. Mobility in many African cities is ‘largely defined by inadequate transport regulations and their effective enforcement (where they exist), transforming urban roads into ‘disputed territory’’ (Sietchiping, et al., 2012, p. 185). Rodríguez-Pose (2013) notes that the role of informal institutions is usually negligible – they are only relevant where formal institutions do not exist, or are insufficient. As informal networks are difficult to penetrate due to their very nature, this research is by necessity limited to assessing mainly the role of formal networks.
3.4.2 Institutional arrangements
The approach of institutional thickness is a tool used to evaluate institutional arrangements. It consists of institutional presence, networking and interactions between different institutions, structures of power, domination and control, and a common agenda. Key actors within institutions, the arenas for discussion as well as networks and discourses determine the overall institutional arrangements (Pemberton, 2000; Sclar & Touber, 2011; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013).
Institutions shape themselves and the institutional arrangements they are in. However, economists often ignore that people are not rational and that institutional arrangements are also shaped by the wider environment in which they are in. Whereas institutional arrangements refer to the factors outlined above, institutional environment refers to a higher level of institutions taking into account factors such as identity and culture (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013).
Cleaver (2001) suggests a concept of ‘institutional bricolage’ in which institutional knowledge is borrowed and reused in the form of new institutions. The informal institutions in particular are highly
30
embedded in social and cultural norms, making institutions highly place-specific (Cleaver, 2001; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). Furthermore, Cleaver (2001) believes that individuals have agency and the power to shape institutions. Hence various ‘bricoleurs’ with complex identities can affect institutional arrangements through their knowledge and power, resulting in a mixture of informal and formal as well as modern and traditional (Cleaver, 2001). Therefore, institutions are understood as complex entities with individual bricoleurs and vested interests.
Sietchiping, et al. (2012) further support the idea of various bricoleurs in that also individuals shape transportation and infrastructure unofficially, as paths as well as vehicle routes form on commonly used routes and/or on vacant land, and as roads are shared between motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Cirolia & Berrisford (2017) describe the same phenomenon using the concept of ‘negotiated planning’, in which many local and international, public and private actors play a role in shaping the city. Moreover, mobility practices are also shaped by the urban inhabitants and users of the transport system (Richardson & Jensen, 2008). This demonstrates the importance of examining both public transport planning, as well as practices on the ground, in order to discover how they alleviate or aggravate inequality within Nairobi.
3.4.3 Institutional change
Institutions are culturally and socially embedded but not static: they can improve but also deteriorate (Sclar & Touber, 2011). In this sense, institutions and power can be seen as being ‘mobile, fluid and relational’ (Bærenhold, 2013, p. 26).
There is no academic consensus on whether institutions are a prerequisite or an outcome of development (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). However, lack of institutional quality is often blamed or used as a reason as to why improvements cannot be made. According to Rodríguez-Pose (2013, p. 1041), ‘[i]nstitutions and economic development co-evolve and are mutually reinforcing, with changes in capacity building and improvements in governance contributing to the development of economic activity and vice versa … and the direction of causality at any given time and in any given territory is difficult to predict’. Bærenhold (2013) further links governance and mobility, in what he terms ‘governmobility’, arguing that mobility is not only governed, but instead mobility increasingly shapes governance.
This evolutionary approach to institutional development means that one is able to examine not only the goal but also the processes involved in the development of improved transportation (Sclar &
31
Touber, 2011). Moreover, institutions can be shaped in the process as what might be considered a ‘good’ institution at one point in time might be ‘bad’ in another (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). Suitable institutions also depend on geography, making local capacity building important (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). Hence, one must also be cautious making universal definitions of what ‘good transport’ might be.
It is widely recognised that any suggested changes must be embedded within the existing institutional environment, as any new form of provision or authority will be effected by its predecessors (Pemberton, 2000; Sclar & Touber, 2011). Sclar & Touber (2011) argue that urban issues must be addressed as they arise taking into account the current institutional setting while gradually improving institutional quality.
3.5 Youth and Mobility
Mobility is experienced differently by people depending on their gender (Jirón, 2012; Ohnmacht, et al., 2009B), age (Porter, et al., 2011; Skelton, 2013), and other factors. For example, in some contexts women are understood to have more complicated patterns of travel because of family obligations, shopping and working as well as factors such as safety concerns (Ohnmacht, et al., 2009B), which may limit their flexibility of travel (Jirón, 2012). Porter, et al. (2011) argue that mobility of young people has not been researched enough in Africa, considering how issues of mobility or immobility affect this significant proportion of the continent’s population.
Skelton (2013) argues that most theorisations of mobility do not take youth into account. Instead, youth are often seen as a separate case study group. However, this should not be the case as young people have different experiences compared to those of other age groups and they can provide important insight into the city as a whole (Skelton, 2013). Moreover, young people form a large proportion of both operators as well as users of the matatu system in Nairobi. Thus, they act as key shapers of the ‘matatu culture’ (Wa-Mungai, 2003).
Predicting population growth is key to successful urban planning and service delivery (Kanyama & Cars, 2009). In sub-Saharan Africa, youth account for a significant proportion of the population, with approximately 200 million 12 to 24 year olds on the continent (Garcia & Fares, 2008). Their share is still growing and not predicted to peak for another 20 years, making youth a key demographic group. They will be a pertinent feature of the continent's future as well as the ones shaping it - particularly as they are healthier and more educated than any other generation before them (Garcia & Fares, 2008; Sommers, 2010). Furthermore, they are significant in the urban setting as youth account for a large
32
majority of rural-urban migrants, contributing to urban growth (Sommers, 2010). Cities provide plenty of stimulating opportunities for them (Sommers, 2010) and young people can be considered one of the main assets of the continent (Garcia & Fares, 2008).
On the other hand, even though young people in Kenya are highly educated in comparison to most other countries on the continent, they struggle to find employment after finishing education with an average of five years of ‘inactivity’ (Garcia & Fares, 2008). Hence, as a result of unemployment, underemployment and other pressures and dangers faced by urban youth, they are running a risk of becoming excluded from society and falling into the immobile group of people. Some argue this might lead to higher levels of urban social disturbance (Sommers, 2010; Urdal & Hoelscher, 2009). Mobilities play a central role in transforming the educational, working and social lives of urban youth (Hannam, et al., 2006).
Youth is a time of change and decisions - by the young themselves or by others - which largely define how the rest of their life will look like. Decisions about education and starting work affect their future lives but also the communities and people around them, hence making it a vital period when a safe and functioning urban setting is needed (Garcia & Fares, 2008). Physical mobility can help youth take advantage of the possibilities that their urban environment can provide and shapes their future through new experiences (Porter, et al., 2011; Skelton, 2013), however, often within the boundaries of household income and parental control (Skelton, 2013).
3.6 Conclusion: Theoretical Framework
As the mobilities research paradigm defines institutions, means of movement and physical and spatial infrastructure as the main dimensions of uneven mobility, these three and their connections to inequality have been examined in the sections above. Uneven mobilities can be understood as a form or vector of inequality. Through differentiated levels of access to mobility and access provided by it, new opportunities may emerge for urban youth. Concepts such as motility (Kaufmann, et al., 2004) explore the potential social and spatial mobility as a form of capital.
Moreover, mobilities research sees institutions and forms of power important in producing mobilities. Institutional arrangements are understood as the roles, relationships and power dynamics within and between formal government institutions, institutions specific to the matatu industry, and informal institutions. It is important to note that these institutions are a collection of individual people sometimes with vested interests, hence they are always space-specific and evolve over time. These
