IDSEVIDENCE REPORTNo 220
Inclusive Urbanisation and Cities
Inclusive Urbanisation and Cities in the 
Twenty-First Century
Eric Kasper, Gordon McGranahan, Dolf te Lintelo, Jaideep Gupte, Jean-Pierre Tranchant, 
Rajith Lakshman and Zahrah Nesbitt-Ahmed
February 2017
INCLUSIVE URBANISATION AND CITIES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST 
CENTURY
Eric Kasper, Gordon McGranahan, Dolf te Lintelo, Jaideep Gupte, Jean-Pierre Tranchant, 
Rajith Lakshman and Zahrah Nesbitt-Ahmed
February 2017
This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted 
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are clearly credited.
First published by the Institute of Development Studies in February 2017
© Institute of Development Studies 2017
IDS is a charitable company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No. 877338).
The IDS programme on Strengthening Evidence-based Policy works across seven key themes. Each theme 
works with partner institutions to co-construct policy-relevant knowledge and engage in policy-influencing 
processes. This material has been developed under the Inclusive Urbanisation and Cities theme.
The authors wish to acknowledge Sheela Patel, Susan Parnell, Aromar Revi and Steve Commins for their 
expert comments and guidance at various stages of this research. They also wish to acknowledge Charlotte 
Bilo and Samuel Nickell for able research assistance. Any errors and shortcomings are the authors’ own.
The material has been funded by UK aid from the UK Government, however the views expressed do not  
necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies.
AG Level 2 Output ID: 715
1 
 
Contents 
 
 
 Abbreviations 2 
 
1 Introduction 3 
 
2 Key concepts: urbanisation, cities, inclusion and exclusion 4 
2.1 Urbanisation 4 
2.2 Cities 6 
2.3 Inclusion (and exclusion) 6 
2.4 Situating inclusion within academic and donor discourses on urbanisation       
and cities 9 
2.5 Concepts of the city 9 
2.5.1 World/global cities 9 
2.5.2 Charter cities 10 
2.5.3 Prosperous cities 11 
2.5.4 Inclusive cities 11 
2.5.5 Smart cities 12 
2.5.6 Planetary urbanisation 12 
2.5.7 Sustainable urbanisation 12 
2.5.8 Rural–urban linkages 13 
 
3 Analysis 15 
3.1 Violence and order in the city 16 
3.2 Informality and IUC 18 
3.3 Migration and the city 21 
 
4 Conclusion 23 
4.1 Urban violence 24 
4.2 Urban informality 24 
4.3 Migration and the city 25 
4.4 Effecting IUC in the twenty-first century 25 
 
 References 26 
 
 
Tables 
Table 3.1 How key framings of cities and urbanisation consider inclusion in terms of 
processes and outcomes 15 
 
 
 
2 
 
Abbreviations 
 
CPI   City Prosperity Index 
EU  European Union 
GDP  gross domestic product 
ICT  information and communications technologies 
IUC   inclusive urbanisation and cities   
SDG   Sustainable Development Goal 
UN-Habitat  United Nations Human Settlements Programme  
US  United States 
WHO  World Health Organization 
 
  
3 
 
1 Introduction  
 
In academic and policy discourse, urbanisation and cities are currently receiving a great deal of 
attention, and rightly so. Both have been central to the enormous transformation the world has 
been going through during the past few centuries. Many parts of the world have experienced 
and are experiencing an urban transformation. While these processes have taken distinct 
regional forms across Latin America, East and South Asia, and Africa, it is clear that, globally, 
the urban transformation has coincided with major societal and ecological changes. Some of 
these developments have been heralded as progress – notably millions of people being lifted 
out of poverty – while others, such as entrenching inequalities and accelerating climate change, 
are alarming. In recent years the pro-urban voices have been louder, but accounts of the 
wonders of cities (for recent examples see Barber 2013; Glaeser 2011) need to be balanced 
with a recognition of the violence, inequity and environmentally destructive forces that cities can 
embody and reproduce. Equally important is to explore how cities and urbanisation can be 
made to contribute more to human wellbeing and to international and local development goals. 
This report is particularly concerned with whether and under what conditions more inclusive 
urbanisation and cities (IUC) can support these development goals.  
 
Inclusion has only recently become a popular aspirational term in development discourse. There 
were only two references to inclusive/inclusion in the Millennium Declaration (United Nations 
General Assembly 2000), and none in the titles of the Millennium Development Goals. Fifteen 
years later the (roughly five times longer) text of the 2030 Agenda has 45 such references, 
including six in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) titles (United Nations 2015), while the 
draft of the New Urban Agenda that was agreed on at the Habitat III conference (17–20 October 
2016) has 45 (United Nations 2016). Moreover, what has often been referred to as the cities 
goal among the SDGs is that by 2030 cities and human settlements become ‘inclusive, safe, 
resilient and sustainable’. In effect, the term ‘inclusive’ bears most of the weight of the social 
aspirations for future cities, despite it being relatively recently coined and poorly defined.  
 
This report follows on from another in this series (McGranahan 2016) that focused explicitly on 
the role of cities and urbanisation in achieving development goals. In that report, it was argued 
that cities and rapid urbanisation have contributed more to achieving economic than social and 
environmental development goals, but that this imbalance can and should be rectified. It also 
argued that more IUC could become an important means of reducing the trade-offs and 
contradictions amongst these goals. This, however, requires a more critical understanding and 
synthesis of how inclusion in the context of cities and urbanisation is currently understood.  
 
Section 2 briefly examines the concepts of urbanisation, cities and inclusion, what IUC denotes, 
and some of the different registers through which the inclusion of urbanisation and cities needs 
to be interpreted. Section 3 gives a brief analysis of inclusion (and exclusion) as a process and 
an outcome within various key framings of cities and urbanisation. In Section 4, we apply a 
conceptualisation of IUC to demonstrate its potential to illuminate a small selection of key urban 
issues (i.e. violence, informality, and migration). 
 
A question underlying much of this report is whether a focus on IUC is a useful perspective 
through which to advocate for the pledge made by nations signing up to the 2030 Agenda that 
‘no one will be left behind’. In other words, how should we conceptualise IUC to guide the 
actions needed to counter the rising in-country inequalities that so often accompany 
urbanisation, and arise from social and environmental goals frequently being sacrificed to short-
term economic ends.  
4 
 
2 Key concepts: urbanisation, cities, inclusion 
and exclusion  
2.1 Urbanisation 
Over half the global population is now urban, and though there are conditions under which a 
country’s population share in urban areas may decline (Potts 2012a, 2012b), the trend to 
greater concentration of people in towns and cities is likely to continue for the rest of the twenty-
first century. The United Nations estimates that by 2050 two-thirds of the world’s inhabitants will 
be urban, with the vast bulk of future population growth occurring in the urban areas of low- and 
middle-income Africa and Asia (United Nations Population Division 2015).  
 
Urbanisation is widely viewed as key to achieving economic growth (Spence, Annez and 
Buckley 2009) and in recent decades there have been rapid theoretical, methodological and 
applied advancements concerning the forces of agglomeration, including the nature of 
neighbourhoods and human capital externalities, the foundations of systems of cities, the 
development of local political institutions, agglomeration and regional growth (Duranton, 
Henderson and Strange 2015; Henderson and Thisse 2004; Krugman 2011). Rapidly urbanising 
countries whose governments are generally keen on economic growth are concerned with their 
populations becoming spatially imbalanced, and many are making an effort to curb rural–urban 
migration (United Nations 2013). This may be in part because economic growth does not always 
flow from urbanisation, while it can be politically difficult to accommodate large numbers of 
migrants in cities and towns already growing rapidly due to natural population growth 
(Brueckner and Lall 2015; Liddle and Messinis 2014). Equally important, the failure to plan 
proactively for urban population growth can yield symptoms of over-urbanisation, including the 
growing unplanned settlements, creating more resistance to accommodating the new 
population, and further planning failures.  
 
Policy debate and research on urbanisation is often made confusing by differing interpretations 
of what urbanisation is. In common parlance, urbanisation is the process of becoming more 
urban, but that meaning is unsatisfactory. Demographers define urbanisation as the increasing 
urban population share of a country or region, and this is widely accepted as the official 
definition: the share of a population that is urban is the level of urbanisation and the annual 
percentage increase in the share is the rate of urbanisation. These represent crude measures of 
the shift in population from smaller and more dispersed rural settlements towards larger and 
denser urban settlements. Most of this shift is the result of a net migration from rural to urban 
areas and the (often associated) expansion of urban areas.  
 
An urban population is the people living in urban areas, but the criteria for being an urban area 
can seem rather arbitrary. The ‘urban’ label is typically applied to settlements that are larger 
(with cut-offs, when they are explicit, between 5,000 and 15,000) and denser (with cut-offs 
harder to compare) than rural ones. However, the definition of urban areas varies country by 
country and often includes administrative and other criteria such as the share of the population 
engaged in agriculture (McGranahan 2015; United Nations Population Division 2015).  
 
The rural–urban dichotomy once helped to distinguish settlements where people were engaged 
principally in agriculture, from larger settlements where other economic or political activities 
predominated, but even in less urbanised countries the overlap between spatial form and 
livelihoods is increasingly blurred. It was also believed to capture other critical differences in 
5 
 
culture (e.g. gemeinschaft versus gesellschaft) and polity (e.g. lower versus higher 
administrative functions) but such distinctions are also no longer so closely associated with any 
rural–urban divide or continuum. Just as the globalisation of economic production and financial 
flows has tended to diminish the significance of national borders, they also diminish the 
significance of the rural–urban divide. 
 
Nevertheless, the shift in the spatial distribution of population towards larger and denser 
settlements, and the migration this involves, remains one of the most important and challenging 
developmental transitions the world is going through. It is particularly significant in low-income 
countries where natural population growth rates are also high, contributing to what are often 
extremely high urban growth rates. The rural–urban distinction and estimates of urbanisation 
may be crude, but still provide revealing indicators of this critically important demographic 
transition. 
 
Among non-demographers, including many urbanists, ‘urbanisation’ is often used more loosely. 
At various times it may be used to refer to: (a) urban population growth rather than the growth in 
the urban population share; (b) a growing share or quantity of a country or region’s land or 
economic activity that is becoming urban; (c) complex and multidimensional processes whereby 
many things, possibly but not necessarily including people, are becoming more urban; and      
(d) sometimes the environmental, cultural or even economic impacts that urban activities 
increasingly have on rural areas – as with the concept of planetary urbanisation summarised in 
Section 2.5.6.  
 
There are problems with the widespread use of contradictory definitions of urbanisation, 
particularly when urbanisation is being blamed for the ‘explosive’ growth or expansion of cities. 
Equating urbanisation and urban population growth means ascribing all that population growth 
to urbanisation. But most countries experiencing the urban transition, from predominantly rural 
to predominantly urban populations, are also going through the demographic transition and 
experiencing rapid overall population growth. Urbanisation, defined conventionally as the 
growing urban population share, often only accounts for less than half of urban population 
growth, the rest being the result of natural population growth (McGranahan and Satterthwaite 
2014). Migration accounts for an even smaller share of urban growth, though it is often blamed 
for it, a mistake facilitated when the difference between urbanisation and urban growth is 
ignored.  
 
Conventionally defined urbanisation accounts for an even smaller share of the growth of urban 
land areas, since urban densities are in decline globally (Angel et al. 2010). It can be especially 
confusing when the term ‘urbanisation’, conventionally meaning a shift towards denser 
settlement patterns, is used to refer to a phenomenon of urban expansion that, at least in more 
affluent countries, is driven primarily by sprawl.  
 
Alternatively, when urbanisation is treated as a multidimensional but poorly specified urban 
development phenomenon, it is all too easy to ascribe to it changes that could actually be 
amplified by attempts to curb urbanisation, more narrowly defined. For example, a rising urban 
population share is often associated with rising inequality, and this is often treated as part of the 
urbanisation process but, somewhat perversely, inequalities are often amplified by attempts to 
make it difficult for poor migrants to gain a foothold in successful cities. Moreover, defining 
urbanisation as a process of urban change rather misses the point that the shift in population 
towards urban living is also a process of rural change. 
 
 
6 
 
In this report, we keep people central to the meaning of urbanisation, and by and large follow 
the conventional definition. On the other hand, urbanisation can only be understood within the 
context of a broader set of transformations, including the demographic transition and the 
economic shift away from agriculture. Moreover, both the challenges and the consequences of 
urbanisation depend heavily on what is driving it and how it is situated within the local, national 
and international contexts, as well as to other ongoing transformations. And when it comes to 
achieving development goals, how urbanisation is proceeding is a critical focus for action, while 
the rate at which it is proceeding is less so. 
2.2 Cities 
Cities are conventionally defined as important and/or populous urban settlements. They typically 
have their own governance structures, have formally demarcated boundaries, and possess a 
relatively coherent ‘identity’ as a city. As with conceptualisations of the urban, there is no 
consensus around what constitutes a city at the international level, or often at the national level. 
Most empirical research on cities focuses on particular cities or particular types or sizes of cities. 
Once viewed as typically monocentric and clearly bounded, cities are increasingly understood to 
be inherently polycentric, and inclined to merge into urban regions (Forman 2008; Hall 2009; 
Hall and Pain 2006; Jones and Douglass 2008). Even as the settlement form is becoming less 
distinct, the city is gaining more recognition in international policy discourse, with some claiming 
that we need to look more to city governments and leaders, what with globalisation and other 
forces undermining the pre-eminence of the nation state (Barber 2013). While cities are often 
described as vanguards of economic growth, and various other sources of wellbeing, it is vital to 
stress that they are also marked by extreme and often mounting inequalities (Chant and 
Mcllwaine 2015: 29). Indeed inequality – as well as exclusion – has become a major emerging 
issue for cities, as the gap between the rich and the poor in most countries is at its highest level 
in 30 years (UN-Habitat 2016). How urbanisation takes place not only influences the levels of 
inequality, but also the extent to which they arise within the urban population, rather than 
between the rural and the urban populations.   
 
Understanding cities in their diversity requires thinking in multiple ‘registers’ (Amin and Thrift 
2007; Parnell and Pieterse 2016). They can be seen as: (a) sites where things happen; (b) hubs 
in wider networks and systems; and (c) concentrations of people and groups with the potential 
to effect change. In these terms, an urban spatiality register recognises the importance of 
concentrations of social, economic, architectural, and physical processes that transform places 
into entities with social meaning and power; a systems register recognises cities as sub-
systems within larger complex systems that support the emergence of cities as entities with 
character traits that endure over time; and a socio-geographic register recognises the 
collaborations, conflicts and the emergence of cities as experienced and transformed by those 
who live in them.  
2.3 Inclusion (and exclusion) 
The term ‘inclusion’ came into development discourse from France by way of European social 
reforms of the 1990s (de Haan 1998; de Haan and Maxwell 1998). There has been some 
resistance to applying the concept of inclusion in very different settings, and particularly to 
where poverty is being driven by processes that could be termed ‘adverse inclusion’ (Du Toit 
2004). In its defence, inclusion became popular as a term to refer to inclusion into social 
relationships of support. It has been used as a means of calling attention to the need to address 
multiple deprivations, and to move beyond unidimensional measures such as income poverty, 
which are often criticised by more socially minded development researchers (Alkire and Foster 
7 
 
2011; Wratten 1995). Moreover, as pointed out by Amartya Sen (2000), inclusion and exclusion 
are relational terms, and can be used to broaden the focus of research on deprivation beyond 
outcomes, to include the relations and mechanisms that create these outcomes. With some 
care, it has proved possible to adapt the concepts to better fit development politics (Hickey, Sen 
and Bukenya 2014) and the challenges of chronic poverty (Nevile 2007).  
 
There are problems that arise, however, when concepts like inclusion become aspirational 
terms in the development lexicon. First, aspirational terms used in declarations and reports on 
development tend to lose any precision to their meaning, and come to be good by definition 
rather than by implication. In the 1990s, it was observed that inclusion had been adapted 
differently in different settings, and at least three paradigms had been noted (Silver 1994). In 
France, with its history of Republicanism, inclusion was intended to support the extension of 
social solidarity and the rejection of liberalism, and inclusion was called for along with the 
demand that public institutions assume responsibility for necessary social aid (ibid.: 537).  
 
As the concept spread and developed, however, an alternative liberal interpretation emerged, 
with an emphasis on removing discriminations. Elsewhere, the concept was adapted more to 
social democratic principles, evoking citizenship rights and the need to address inequalities. 
However, from a contested concept, inclusion has become a concept that many agree is good, 
partly because they do not agree on what it is.  
 
In response, this report adopts a definition of inclusion that recognises it as ranging from 
removing discrimination, to enhancing voice in existing institutions, to securing people’s human 
rights (McGranahan, Schensul and Singh 2016). These can be roughly interpreted as three 
levels of inclusion, but it should not be assumed that securing people’s human rights necessarily 
involves improving the terms of inclusion or eliminating discrimination, or for that matter that 
improving the terms of inclusion involves elimination of discrimination. As with the different 
paradigms of inclusion that Hilary Silver (1994) identifies, some may be more radical or set their 
heights higher than others, but this does not always mean their approach to inclusion 
accomplishes more. Moreover, inclusion and exclusion can mean very different things in 
different countries and different places within countries, and the simplified use of the terms 
within the 2030 Agenda and even in this report should not be allowed to hide this (Silver 2015). 
 
Inclusion and exclusion evoke spatial metaphors, and have special relevance to urban 
contestation over land, space and place. Tracing the recent popularity of inclusion in 
international declarations to its French 1960s roots, it is worth noting that Lefebvre first 
published on the right to the city in the radical France of 1968 (Lefebvre 1968), Castells drew on 
this French experience in writing his classic on The Urban Question (Castells 1977), and the 
banlieues housing minority populations on the outskirts of Paris have long been considered 
emblematic of exclusion in France (Silver 1994: 534). Looking more broadly, exclusion from the 
city has itself been a key form of exclusion in poorer countries, and especially those attempting 
to resist mass urbanisation partially driven by rural–urban migration. Moreover, exclusion from 
and exclusion within the city are often interlinked, with many of those excluded within the city 
treated, explicitly or implicitly, as belonging to groups that should be excluded from the city – as 
with the semi-fictional Bombay judge Arundhati Roy describes as justifying the bulldozing of 
unauthorised settlements on the grounds that ‘people who couldn’t afford to live in cities, 
shouldn’t live in them’ (Roy 2014: 1). 
 
Apartheid South Africa must be among the most discriminatory and systematic examples of 
exclusive urbanisation, based as it was on a racial pass system and policies explicitly designed 
to keep black Africans from moving to live in the cities. In some ways, it was just a follow-on 
8 
 
from a common tendency of European colonialists to try to keep ‘natives’ from gaining a 
permanent foothold in the cities, or at least the European part of the city. However, exclusionary 
policies are also linked to resistance to urbanisation in ways that have nothing to do with 
colonialism. China’s hukou1 system, which acted for many years to restrict rural–urban 
migration, and still profoundly restricts the life chances of many urban dwellers with rural hukou, 
is often presented as one of the most egregious forms of social discrimination in contemporary 
China (Chan and Buckingham 2008), though its effects are diminishing. The favelas of Brazil 
reflect a more passive but also very exclusionary resistance to urbanisation (Martine and 
McGranahan 2013). More generally, informal settlements and informal economies can often be 
seen as a compromised exclusion, not as extreme or oppressive as evictions, but supported by 
planning and regulations that are only designed to accommodate those who secure acceptable 
housing or jobs, and in effect exclude a large share of the urban population. 
 
Accordingly, exclusive urbanisation often leaves a socio-spatial legacy, and the townships of 
South Africa and favelas of Brazil remain sites of social deprivation and political discontent, 
emerging out of how they were created as much as how they are now treated (Perlman 2010; 
Turok 2014). Urban exclusion is not the monopoly of cities and towns experiencing or having 
recently experienced rapid urbanisation, however. Nor is it the monopoly of low- and middle-
income countries.  
 
In the United States, the mechanisms and destructive outcomes of urban exclusion can be 
linked to a number of the social injustices that have received attention in recent years, even if 
they are not always described in terms of exclusion and inclusion. In some way the closest 
parallel to the resistance to urbanisation in lower-income countries is the resistance to 
international migrants coming into higher-income countries from those of lower income. Illegal 
migrants form an important part of the urban underclass in the United States, as in many high-
income countries. Their lack of rights and restriction to the informal economy have direct 
parallels with rural–urban migrants in the global South, living in informal settlements and 
working in the informal economy. But many of the more pervasive forms and mechanisms of 
urban exclusion in the United States have little to do with foreign migrants.  
 
Urban policing and eviction have been receiving considerable attention, and both are linked to 
racial discrimination and mechanisms of exclusion that affect already deprived groups. Alice 
Goffman’s widely heralded and controversial book On the Run (2014) documents how and why 
policing has become what amounts to a mechanism of social and economic exclusion in a 
deprived African American neighbourhood in Philadelphia, affecting young black men most 
directly. Alternatively, Matthew Desmond’s equally heralded if less controversial book Evicted 
(2016) shows how and why evictions have become a mechanism of exclusion in the more 
deprived parts of Milwaukee. His research had previously shown that ‘[i]n poor black 
neighbourhoods, eviction is to women what incarceration is to men: a typical but severely 
consequential occurrence contributing to the reproduction of urban poverty’ (Desmond 2012: 
88).  
 
Spatial segregation by income and race is an entrenched reality in American cities. There has 
been a great deal of detailed research on the nature, dynamics and consequences of such 
segregation (Sampson 2012). Recent research has demonstrated how important segregation 
and other neighbourhood characteristics are to intergenerational socioeconomic mobility (Chetty 
and Hendren 2015; Chetty et al. 2014a; Chetty et al. 2014b).  
                                               
1 The hukou is a household registration system linking household members to a particular location. It was originally used to restrict 
unauthorised movement, especially between rural and urban locations. It still restricts people’s access to benefits (such as children’s 
education) when they live somewhere without a local hukou.  
9 
 
2.4 Situating inclusion within academic and donor discourses on 
urbanisation and cities 
Inclusion is rapidly becoming a staple concept in donor discourses on cities and urbanisation 
(exemplified by the New Urban Agenda); however, only a handful of research publications have 
explicitly used the concept of ‘inclusive urbanisation’ (see e.g. Choy and Li 2016; Etherington 
2013; Guo, Xiao and Yuan 2016; McGranahan et al. 2016; Shrestha et al. 2014).  
Drawing to some extent on the World Bank’s definition of inclusion as ‘the process of improving 
the terms for individuals and groups to take part in society’ (2013: 3), as well as ‘improving the 
ability, opportunity, and dignity of people, disadvantaged on the basis of their identity, to take 
part in society’ (ibid.), McGranahan et al. (2016: 17) accept the part of the definition that 
describes inclusion as improvements to the terms on which people gain access to the means of 
securing wellbeing, including most notably markets, services and spaces. However, they see 
inclusion as a process which extends ‘from eliminating discriminatory exclusion (a), to actively 
intervening in creating more equitable markets, services and spaces (b), as well as to 
guaranteeing human rights (c)’ (ibid.). This definition could cover overt and covert structural 
forms of discrimination, with IUC involving both process and outcome: inclusiveness in the 
processes of urban change (urbanisation and urban growth), including in social, economic and 
political processes, as well as an aspiration for equitable cities that enable wellbeing and a good 
quality of life for all as outcomes of those change processes. More equitable and just urban 
societies enable disadvantaged groups to politically voice and articulate their concerns, pointing 
to the critical role of urban governance.  
How do ideas on inclusion play out within key thinking on, and framings of, cities and 
urbanisation? In Section 2.5, we conduct a rapid overview of eight framings of the city and 
urbanisation that have recently advanced urban thinking, and discuss these in the light of the 
above. We look at: (i) world/global cities; (ii) charter cities; (iii) prosperous cities; (iv) inclusive 
cities; (v) smart cities; (vi) planetary urbanisation; (vii) sustainable urbanisation; and (viii) rural–
urban linkages. We point out that each of these conceptual framings is associated with 
particular intellectual and political agendas, and we consider the extent to which those agendas 
and their associated insights overlap with IUC. 
2.5 Concepts of the city 
The first five concepts have an exclusive focus on cities: world/global cities; charter cities; 
prosperous cities; inclusive cities and smart cities.  
2.5.1 World/global cities 
The concept of world cities represents the network of interlinked world cities that are central to 
our global economy (Friedmann and Wolff 1982). It emphasises the interconnectivity of these 
cities and stresses their importance for the world economy as hubs for financial capital flow, and 
imbued with tremendous economic power within nation states (McFarlane 2008; Robinson 
2002).2 While world cities are on the one hand the outcome of urbanisation, on the other hand 
they are the sites where the process of urbanisation (and globalisation) takes place. Yet, this 
concept has been critiqued for being Western-centric and privileging the economic aspects of 
contemporary urbanisation. As a result, Saskia Sassen (1991, 2010, 2013) proposed the 
terminology of ‘global cities’. Here too the global city is characterised by the presence of 
                                               
2 The Globalization and World Cities Research Network (www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/) developed the inventory of Alpha, Beta and 
Gamma cities based on cities’ connectivity through advanced producer services. 
10 
 
services that are essential to the international flow of financial capital (banking, accounting, 
insurance); however, these global cities also present sites of conflict, where the ‘disadvantaged 
and excluded can gain presence’ (Sassen 2013: 67). Global cities hence can serve as a venue 
where multiple struggles for inclusion, equity and social justice can come together and reinforce 
each other.  
 
The importance of world or global cities from the perspective of inclusion/exclusion comes in at 
least two forms. Firstly, the world city (or world class city) has become an aspirational term – 
something that mayors of successfully developing cities are meant to aspire to, and the leaders 
of successfully developing countries are meant to help their best cities to achieve. The world city 
is not just wealthy and cosmopolitan; it can afford to flaunt that wealth and has few visible signs 
of poverty. This reinforces a strong bias against making space for the country’s poorer and more 
marginalised populations (e.g. Ananya Roy 2011). Secondly, the economic dynamics driven by 
global cities are themselves often exclusionary. Indeed, Sassen’s (2014) book is entitled 
Expulsions, and she emphasises that exclusion has become too weak a word to capture what is 
happening as the result of some of urban-centred economic transformations. 
2.5.2 Charter cities 
Charter cities is a concept developed by economist Paul Romer (the current chief economist of 
the World Bank) to serve as an ideal city type built on ultra-efficient governance for streamlined 
economic performance and growth. Charter cities have not been well received in either 
academic or policy circles due to some of the extreme assumptions and aspirations of the 
model. It has been controversial from the point of view of inclusion, since it appears to have no 
room for contestation or broad democratic participation in governance processes, which would 
be driven by a single-minded search for innovation and growth.  
 
Modelled after cities such as Hong Kong and Shenzhen, charter cities are, ideally, meant to 
reduce poverty and enhance economic growth in cities in the global South. The concept centres 
on the underlying assumption that corrupt and incapable governments are one of the main 
reasons for poverty and inequality in cities. The idea is for charter cities to be allowed special 
economic zones – with exceptional economic, legal, and political regulations within their national 
contexts – which would create prosperity and pro-poor growth by providing ‘well governed’ 
opportunities for foreign investment. While it is clearly framed as seeing urbanisation as an 
outcome in that charter cities ‘will allow relatively poor countries to catch up with or surpass the 
rest of the world’ (Romer 2010: 10), the concept, however, does not seem to propose a more 
inclusive approach to urbanisation. For example, it focuses on creating economic hubs similar to 
Hong Kong, but it is unclear how, and in what capacity, existing urban residents would 
participate in the process, much less new residents drawn to the city by the prospect of such 
dramatic economic opportunity.  
 
This concept of charter cities puts all the emphasis on one dimension of inclusion – workers in 
the country where the charter city is embedded are in principle free to come and go, and the 
charter city will only succeed to the extent that it can provide more than other parts of the 
country. This is conceived of more as a freedom than a form of inclusion, but it does represent 
an important mechanism through which urban inclusion/exclusion can be secured, and not just 
in charter cities. On the other side, however, the charter city provides no inclusion into politics – 
no right to the city – and presumably no social security for new migrants and hence little in the 
way of rights-based policies.  
 
11 
 
2.5.3 Prosperous cities 
Prosperous cities are proposed by UN-Habitat as an urban policy and planning framework in 
their State of the World’s Cities Report 2012/2013 – and used in more than 400 cities as a 
monitoring framework.3 While urbanisation and cities are often associated with environmental 
degradation, poverty and social exclusion, they can also become sites of prosperity, where 
people find satisfaction of basic human needs and have access to public services. A prosperous 
city, as conceptualised by UN-Habitat, is the outcome of sustainable urbanisation. Equality and 
social inclusion are put forward as one of the five ‘spokes’ in the ‘Wheel of Urban Prosperity’ 
along with productivity, infrastructure, quality of life and environmental sustainability (UN-Habitat 
2012: 11–12). It highlights the importance of functioning institutions and legal frameworks for 
urban planning, and emphasises the importance of sound data enabling cities to become 
venues of innovative solutions supporting regional and national development.  
 
Prosperous cities are assessed using a City Prosperity Index (CPI), which includes economic 
growth as well as physical, social, political and environmental aspects. In addition, a ‘Wheel of 
Urban Prosperity’ identifies five key interrelated dimensions that underpin a city’s prosperity, 
namely: productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, and environmental 
sustainability. The hub at the centre of the wheel represents government institutions, laws and 
urban planning.  
 
While inclusiveness is a key aspirational feature of prosperous cities, the concept fails to 
adequately address the issue of people who would migrate into the city. The steady arrival and 
integration of these people would need to be accommodated in an inclusive way in order to 
seriously adhere to the stated goals. Urbanisation, almost however defined, is a process that 
extends beyond cities and involves people and places becoming more urban. Central to the 
conventional definition is the shift in population from rural to urban, primarily through net 
migration from less to more urban locations. However, urban growth is also significantly caused 
by natural growth and the debate about migrants often overshadows this. Arguably, the concept 
of inclusive cities tends to privilege existing residents and citizens. But is such a city, acting in 
the interests of its citizens, inclusive? Its urbanisation is unlikely to be, particularly if these 
citizens perceive themselves to have an interest in limiting the ‘floods’ of rural–urban migrants. 
In practice, the exclusion of poor unskilled migrants, from or within the city, is also likely to 
amplify the exclusion of other poor groups within the city. 
2.5.4 Inclusive cities 
The inclusive cities concept is a response to the growing disparities in income and wealth 
experienced in urban areas since the mid-1980s (Espino 2015; Serageldin 2016). This has 
contributed to the erosion of social, economic, and political cohesion. Not all those who live in 
urban areas experience the same levels of access to urban services, and thus experience 
varying degrees of social exclusion (McGranahan et al. 2016; Satterthwaite and Mitlin 2013). 
The inclusive cities concept views urban areas as needing to be more inclusive to marginalised 
groups, such as migrants, children, women, minority groups, and the urban poor, by 
guaranteeing some degree of equality to its citizens. This could be pursued through a variety of 
economic, social, and political measures. These include: increasing and promoting the political 
participation of marginalised groups; allowing marginalised groups to use urban space to voice 
their concerns; promoting universal access to basic services, such as affordable housing, water, 
sanitation, education, basic income security, and rule of law; universal access to social 
protection mechanisms such as social transfers and health insurance; increased urban 
accessibility; increased local and national government accountability; and basic land tenure.  
                                               
3 http://unhabitat.org/urban-initiatives/initiatives-programmes/city-prosperity-initiative/?noredirect=en_US 
12 
 
2.5.5 Smart cities 
The concept of the smart city calls for innovative investment opportunities in physical and 
human urban capital and development (Caragliu et al. 2011; Graham 2002; Hollands 2008; 
Komninos 2002, 2008; Komninos, Pallot and Schaffers 2013; Leydesdorff and Deakin 2011). A 
smart city would pair investment in human and social capital with transport, modern information 
and communications technologies (ICTs) across urban areas to increase quality of life, business 
collaboration and innovation, increased urban service provision, and citizen empowerment. This 
would be achieved through improved administrative and economic efficiency, an increased 
emphasis on urban business development, universal inclusion of urban residents in public 
services, promoting high-tech and creative industries, and understanding the importance of 
social and environmental sustainability.  
 
While the concept of a smart city is fundamentally about the use of technology, it has come to 
represent another aspirational vision of an ideal city type – a shorthand for everything desirable. 
In this way, the concept has been used in a functionally exclusive way. For example, urban 
areas in India that were already developing in exclusive ways have been selected to become 
smart cities, further entrenching the exclusionary dynamics (Datta 2015a, 2015b; Luque, 
McFarlane and Marvin 2014; Gupte 2016a).  
2.5.6 Planetary urbanisation 
Planetary urbanisation refers to urbanisation as it is actually taking place rather than as it should 
be happening, and takes a very critical stance towards this tendency. Inclusion is central to the 
concerns of many writing under the umbrella of planetary urbanisation. This is not obvious from 
the term planetary urbanisation, which is more evocative of concepts such as ecological 
footprints (Rees 1992) or nature’s metropolis (Cronon 1991) that emphasise how urban 
activities should be seen as driving rural transformations increasingly across the whole globe. 
However, in the readings that Brenner (2014) pulled together in a book entitled 
Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization, those closely related to 
radical forms of urban inclusion are central. Indeed, Brenner has put a great deal of emphasis 
on the right to the city, and the work of Lefebvre – though when Lefebvre referred to the 
planetarisation of the urban it was to signal a concern for the third millennium, but was by no 
means the only concern (Lefebvre 2014).  
 
As a critique to Brenner and Schmid (2011, 2015), Caterall (2013) asks for ‘bringing back the 
planet’ to planetary urbanisation theory and calls for developing a multidimensional, 
transdisciplinary, rather than interdisciplinary approach, while Buckley and Strauss (2016) 
consider that planetary urbanisation scholars often fail to pay attention to the gendered ways 
and implications of dismantling the urban–rural dichotomy. Planetary urbanisation may also 
have a blind spot towards the political dynamics of urbanisation more traditionally defined, and 
the challenges of inclusive urbanisation in particular. On the other hand, given its Marxist roots, 
one would expect those researching planetary urbanisation to take a critical stance towards 
inclusion as a progressive concept, as it suggests that marginalised people can become part of 
the prosperous classes through a non-disruptive process. Indeed, inclusion defined or pursued 
in a technocratic way is unlikely to achieve much relevance. Making cities and their urbanisation 
processes more inclusive will inevitably involve resistance and contestation at every turn.  
2.5.7 Sustainable urbanisation 
The idea of sustainable urbanisation draws heavily from the effects of urbanisation on the 
environment (see e.g. Cohen 2006; Girardet 1999; Rees 1995). It points to the world’s growing 
urban population, and its associated resource consumption and waste production, as examples 
13 
 
of increasing strains on the world’s environment. Scholars writing around this concept are 
concerned with how cities and urbanisation could contribute to development that is more 
environmentally sustainable and more equitable. McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2003), for 
example, highlight the important potential of urban centres as having potential to support a more 
sustainable development through the advantages of urban density in reducing waste, increasing 
recycling, and reducing per capita resource use.  
 
Sustainable urbanisation implies urbanisation that is environmentally, socially, and economically 
sustainable – with social sustainability, in turn, implying some forms of inclusion. But those 
using the term provide less detail on how inclusion is to be achieved. Sustainability, and 
sustainable development in particular, actually came into development discourse as a means of 
highlighting the importance to the world of maintaining sufficient resources and environmental 
quality for future generations – recognising in effect that they were a vulnerable group in a world 
of (economic) growth maximisation. When applied to urbanisation, this is, to a degree, the same 
concern as that suggested by the term planetary urbanisation, but turned into a more positive 
aspiration. The term is also more suggestive of debate within the development community than 
within the academic community. In the development community, sustainability rapidly evolved 
from a concept signalling the green agenda to a broader concept that also encompasses social 
and economic goals (the social, economic, and environmental that constitute the three pillars of 
sustainability). As a social aspiration, inclusion itself is relatively attractive to development 
discourse as it seems to call for non-disruptive change. For much the same reason, it is unlikely 
to appeal to radical academics. Thus, at least in principle, sustainable urbanisation would seem 
to be a concept that is very supportive of inclusive urbanisation. However, the use of a classic 
definition of urbanisation also imposes a rather clunky meaning to the concept of sustainable 
urbanisation. Why would one want urbanisation (the growing relative share of urbanites in a 
country’s total population) to be sustainable? Some urbanisation surely doesn’t deserve to be 
sustained. In practice, however, in the urban context, the emphasis has been on sustainable 
cities rather than sustainable urbanisation, with the relevant SDG target being to ‘make cities 
and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ (United Nations 2015).  
2.5.8 Rural–urban linkages 
Rural–urban linkages focuses on breaking down and reframing the urban from a range of 
perspectives. Recent literature suggests that the linkages between rural and urban areas, and 
the ability to separate them into two distinct categories, are fraught with difficulty (see e.g. 
Satterthwaite 2006; Satterthwaite and Tacoli 2003; Tacoli 1998, 2003, 2006, 2007; Tacoli et al. 
2015). For instance, municipal boundaries tend to be less meaningful in demarcating the 
transition from urban to rural. Households are often split, with some family members spending 
time or residing across both rural and urban areas. Seasonal migration makes it difficult to 
accurately measure populations. Further, urban residents may participate in agriculture and 
livelihoods based on ecosystem services while rural and peri-urban residents increasingly take 
on non-agricultural employment.  
 
Such nuanced understandings of the relationships between the urban and the rural also 
complicate the framing of what IUC is. The most obvious issue concerns the inclusion of rural–
urban migrants in the urban areas where they settle. Studies show that rural–urban migration is 
not a straightforward process of rural people moving to an urban town or city, but the net result 
of complex movements back and forth between rural and urban areas (e.g. Bryan, Chowdhury 
and Mobarak 2014). Especially at the height of the urbanisation process, many households may 
be bi-local, rural and urban, and thus temporarily achieve inclusion as well as exclusion in the 
city, for instance in terms of accessing urban public services and markets. Indeed, as urban 
14 
 
populations grow, those who remain in rural areas may be increasingly deprioritised and 
excluded from access to infrastructure and investment. Yet, one must be careful not to treat this 
sort of exclusion as a straightforward ‘urban bias’, in part because this misleadingly implies that 
the more disadvantaged urban dwellers, often including family members of rural households, 
are included. In any case, it is clear that to understand IUC it is important to recognise relevant 
rural–urban linkages. 
 
15 
 
3 Analysis 
 
Having given a quick overview of various framings of cities and urbanisation, Table 3.1 
summarises the ways in which these framings discuss (or fail to discuss) inclusion and 
exclusion. Foremost, it shows that the process towards inclusion is hung up on quite different 
aspects, notably stressing the roles of finance capital, technology, governance, urban planning 
and other public interventions in generating human and spatial interconnections that may be 
more or less inclusive. Similarly, the eight framings envisage quite distinct kinds of outcomes for 
urbanisation and cities. Inclusion may be framed in terms of the city rather than its people 
(incorporation of world/global cities in a select network of cities), overlooking existing exclusions 
(smart cities), newcomers (prosperous cities) and the political contestation inherently needed to 
achieve inclusion (charter cities, planetary urbanisation); presenting its intergenerational 
(sustainable urbanisation) and ‘beyond the urban’ angles (rural–urban linkages; planetary 
urbanisation; sustainable urbanisation). 
 
Table 3.1 How key framings of cities and urbanisation consider inclusion in 
terms of processes and outcomes 
 Processes  Outcomes 
World/global 
cities 
Inclusion as the interconnectivity of 
global cities through private finance 
capital flows. 
Aspirations of achieving global city status 
are associated with ‘erasure’ of the visible 
presence of the poor. As an economic 
dynamic, world/global cities inherently 
drive expulsions.  
Charter cities Ultra-efficient governance for 
streamlined economic growth and 
poverty reduction. Contrasts with 
status quo governance.  
A promise of inclusive economic 
participation and growth; poverty reduction. 
Political participation and rights to the city 
are restricted to activities that further 
economic prosperity.  
Prosperous 
cities 
Government institutions and legal 
frameworks for urban planning 
promote inclusion. Monitoring and 
data collection.  
 
Envisages building socially inclusive, 
accessible, pro-poor, equitable and 
gender-sensitive cities for current citizens, 
but entitlements of newcomers (migrants) 
are not clear. 
Inclusive 
cities 
Public interventions (economic, 
social and political) advance equality 
for marginalised groups.  
Envisages a minimum level of equality and 
opportunity for all citizens, including access 
to services, rule of law, income, etc. 
Smart cities Invest in ICTs, physical infrastructure 
and people’s skills for human 
connectivity and business innovation.  
Digitised interactions for efficient 
governmentality and quality of life. Masks 
and entrenches existing exclusions.  
Planetary 
urbanisation 
Foregrounds the interconnections 
between urbanisation and ‘non-
urban’ change.  
Inclusion as a right to the city; but political 
processes of achieving this are 
underdeveloped.  
Sustainable 
urbanisation 
Little active consideration given to 
inclusion.  
Inclusion as intergenerational preservation 
of environmental resources and quality. 
Rural–urban 
linkages 
Breaks down the rural–urban 
dichotomy to highlight mobility and 
commodity flows, market access and 
other interconnections that 
determine inclusion/exclusion 
outcomes. 
Posits that inclusion/exclusion outcomes 
associated with the urbanisation process 
occur in both urban and rural locations.  
16 
 
Viewing cities and urbanisation in inclusive terms implies creating places in which people find 
opportunities and fulfil their human potential. The concepts of charter cities and prosperous 
cities each point to this, but as discussed above, they do not go far enough. It is not sufficient to 
recognise potential; it is necessary to explore the conditions under which the inequalities and 
injustices that persist in cities across the globe can be countered to achieve more equitable and 
inclusive outcomes. Planetary urbanisation and sustainable urbanisation highlight the 
importance of recognising that cities have become, with the preponderance of wealth and 
activity, drivers of global change. In this respect, cities themselves become drivers of change: a 
living subject making itself new every day. Rural–urban linkages also note how processes that 
take place in the city actually extend far beyond the city limits. Seeing a city as a network hub 
can help illuminate how things that may be physically distant are actually nearby in the relational 
space of networks. These processes – again, of all types, including communication, wealth 
transfers, economic production, urban metabolism – depend on the physical infrastructure that 
connects things (like roads and power lines) as well as social infrastructure (policies, rules, 
regulations, norms) to impede or facilitate processes and skew them towards inclusivity or 
exclusivity.  
 
Furthermore, these eight framings present cities and urbanisation in terms of geographic 
locations, network hubs and complex systemic processes of change, nested within larger 
systems of governance (e.g. the national, global) and environmental systems operating at 
different scales. Thus, in low-income urban settings the locus of the most severe environmental 
burdens tend to be relatively local, quick and health threatening, while in highest income 
settings the burdens tend to be global, slow and threatening to human life support systems. 
Additionally, the world/global cities concept frames the city as both a geographic location and a 
hub of networked activity spanning the globe and connecting – through economic activity, 
supply chains, communication, and more – lives lived in one place to others across the world. In 
these hubs, processes of consumption as well as protest and struggle can be leveraged and 
magnified. However, while we speak of cities and their governance as if unitary, in practice we 
often witness plurality. For instance, spatial inequalities within cities persist, having important 
economic, political, social, and ultimately urban wellbeing outcomes.  
 
In Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, we seek to apply some of these insights to an exploration of three 
important contemporary urban themes: violence and order; informality; and migration and the 
city.  
3.1 Violence and order in the city 
The built environment is a complex social production (Lefebvre 1991), where the ideologies of 
order not only segregate urban space, for example along ethnic or class distinctions, but such 
spatial practices also connect with emergent forms of political negotiations (Gooptu 2001). 
Where these negotiations are not managed through governance institutions, negotiations can 
‘tip’ over into violence (Moser and Rodgers 2012). This matters because violence severely 
debilitates development outcomes, particularly for the most marginalised, and when it becomes 
endemic to the built environment, it stands at odds with the characterisation of cities as engines 
of growth. As such, urban violence is invariably connected with political negotiations and 
mediations over the control of power and space in the city (Brenner 2004). The modalities of 
such violence can range by virtue of its motivations (e.g. economic, political, or criminal), its 
pathologies (e.g. armed, physical, sexual, or psychological), by the nature of the victims (e.g. 
gender-based, or youth) as well as the nature of the perpetrators (e.g. by a gang, a mob, or 
even at the behest of the state as it forcibly evicts people).  
 
17 
 
The relative prominence of these characteristics is context-specific, with sociocultural norms 
and prevailing notions of what it means to live well in a city, playing as important a role as the 
locations in which violence is perpetrated (e.g. mega-city vs small towns; inner-city vs 
periphery). For example, widespread public violence, such as rioting, generally takes place in 
cities that provide the physical, social and demographic infrastructure for significant mobilisation 
against marginalisation or state neglect (Beall, Goodfellow and Rodgers 2013). Often, the 
highest levels of urban unrest occur during periods of political contest, including elections and 
other periods of national instability (Raleigh 2015). And yet, the configurations of the built 
environment can themselves become the central ‘objectives to be “taken over”, marked, 
destroyed’ (Humphrey 2013). Urban violence can therefore create spatial discontinuities by 
disrupting not only the city’s reticulate infrastructure, but also its less visible, but continually 
active, social structures (Pullan 2013). As violence can also be constituted within the 
infrastructural processes in the city (Bhan 2016), its legacies also linger by redefining the 
accepted parameters of what is adequate, or acceptable, urban living (e.g. in Beirut in Fawaz 
2014; in Mumbai in Hansen 2001; and in Bogota in Moser and McIlwaine 2004). 
 
As such, there is little doubt that cities themselves have become key loci of violence during the 
past half-century (Rodgers 2009). Analysis of city fragility at a global level shows that while a 
growing number of cities are leading the way in generating global gross domestic product 
(GDP), a vast number of urban areas, both large and small, continue to be left behind (Muggah 
2014). This can be seen both in the context of fragile countries, where violence is not restricted 
to urban areas, as well as in countries that are otherwise considered stable, but where cities are 
the location where violence is concentrated.  
 
Looking at countries that are affected by the violence of war, political settlements, or the 
arrangements by which political power is organised and exercised, during or post-conflict also 
have a distinct connection with the urban space. Eighteen of the 31 most fragile and conflict-
affected countries are projected to be at least 50 per cent urban by 2040, a further five will have 
nearly two-fifths of their populations living in urban areas (Gupte 2016b). When the violence of 
war does occur in urban areas, it is invariably indicative of changing strength ratios between 
rebels and government (see e.g. Holtermann 2014). Even if cities and towns are not the actual 
location of war, control over them can often be the objective (Beall et al. 2013). We also know 
that violence against civilians during civil wars now occurs predominantly in urban areas 
(Raleigh 2012, 2015); urban inhabitants can therefore become targets that need to be 
continually tracked and controlled, during war and even after the onset of peace (Graham 
2011). There are several modalities of urban violence in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, 
ranging from ‘militia activity in Benghazi, Libya; riots and protests in Cairo, Egypt; rebel and 
militia violence in Kismayo, Somalia; to rebels and militias in Bangui, Central African Republic’ 
(Raleigh 2015: 91).  
 
In countries that are otherwise considered stable, the dialectic between urban form and violence 
is continually underpinned by the state’s imposition of ‘order and to constitute [the city] as a site 
for legitimate control by establishing clear-cut boundaries between the legal and non-legal’ 
(Chatterji and Mehta 2007: 129). By defining these boundaries, the state distinguishes between 
urban citizens, who are seen as legitimately possessing rights to which the state is accountable, 
and the ‘population’ (as characterised by Chatterjee 2004), which is a vague and heterogeneous 
grouping without legitimate claims on state provision. This may materialise as the recognition of 
one area as ‘at the margins’ (Shields 1991), and not another, as the recognition of one group of 
people as ‘slum dwellers’ or illegal residents, and not others, or most poignantly, as the 
recognition of some individuals as criminal, and not others (Gupte, forthcoming).  
 
18 
 
Both the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda implicitly recognise that there is a deepening 
crisis of trust between civilians and the institutions that govern the provision of essential 
services like housing, water and security in cities across conflict and non-conflict settings. This 
crisis reflects the acute realities of everyday life, particularly for those groups that are 
marginalised because of their gender, their sociopolitical identity or even their economic status, 
particularly when government actions aim to exert the rule of law through coercive measures. 
We see that when planning, policy or design interventions misinterpret ‘ordered cities’ as 
synonymous with ‘planned’, or ‘smart’ cities, they are likely to create insecurity, not reduce it.  
 
A fundamental question in this regard is whether cities protect women from, or expose them to, 
gender-based violence. The pattern of domestic violence suffered by women in cities is 
contradictory across countries: the World Health Organization (WHO 2005) notes that women in 
urban areas are less likely to report intimate partner violence than their rural counterparts in 
Brazil, Peru, Tanzania and Thailand, but Kishor and Johnson (2004) find the opposite in Bolivia, 
Haiti and Zambia. To explain such disparities, McIllwaine (2013) notes that while some 
underlying risk factors of domestic violence are especially acute in cities, others are less 
prominent. On the one hand, domestic violence is related to stress, and routine violence in 
urban communities aggravates these stressors (Wirtz et al. 2014; Horn 2010; Annan and Brier 
2010). However, cities also provide opportunities for the economic empowerment of women 
(e.g. in Ghana in Mueller and Tranchant, forthcoming), and stronger norms around gender 
equality can help prevent violence against women. For example, women in urban areas are 
consistently less likely to accept wife-beating than women in the countryside (McIllwaine 2013). 
Women are also less likely to be judged when moving outside of their homes, and more likely to 
report cases of domestic violence in cities, with more sources of help at their disposal (Jewkes 
et al. 2002). 
 
A strong case can be made suggesting that well-managed and inclusive governance practices 
in cities, particularly those that address the risk factors that drive domestic violence, can 
revitalise urban spaces that had either been lost to violence or suffered from a lack of access to 
basic services and neglect, and that this can, for example, have a direct impact on how women 
negotiate the city. Effective and inclusive urban governance improves the ability, opportunity 
and dignity of people to take part in society and institutions of governance by overcoming 
disadvantage based on identity or exclusion from markets, services and spaces.  
3.2 Informality and IUC 
Informality is a critical feature to the everyday functioning of cities across the globe. 
Conceptually slippery, we can understand informality using economic, spatial, governance, 
social, epistemological and behavioural lenses (McFarlane and Waibel 2012). Here we highlight 
some key aspects, to argue that approaches towards IUC must work with the grain of 
informality, while rejecting its worst excesses.  
 
Spatial forms of informality, such as urban informal settlements, now house a quarter of the 
world’s countries and a third of developing countries, i.e. over 863 million people (UN-Habitat 
2012). Work in the informal economy is growing globally, contrary to decades of predictions of 
its demise. While work is the most important pathway out of poverty (World Bank 2012), the 
majority of urban jobs in developing countries are informal, i.e. unprotected by labour 
regulations and without social security (Ghani and Kanbur 2013). Developed countries are also 
affected by a major trend of job casualisation (Charmes 2012), with formal jobs disappearing 
and being replaced by new forms of ‘self-employment’ and zero-hours contracts lacking social 
security, including unemployment pay, health insurance, paid holidays and other protections.  
19 
 
 
Informality is also typically associated with poverty. As such, where urbanisation and urban 
population growth are rapid, informality is often taken by the authorities and elites as a symptom 
of there being too many poor people coming to the city. The problem from this perspective is 
that existing regulations – including those whose contravention is so evident in informal 
settlements – are not enforced rigorously enough. The ‘obvious’ solution is to enforce the 
regulations more vigorously, and certainly not to redesign them to accommodate people flouting 
them. However, destroying people’s homes and livelihoods is bound to be strongly resisted and 
often leads to the spatial relocation of the problem, while in the process causing enormous 
damage to lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable urban groups. Most of those living and 
working in this type of informality have nowhere else better to live or work. Whether it affects 
small numbers of households or hundreds of thousands of people, driving anyone out of the city 
is an extremely violent act that undermines the efforts of people to improve their lives.  
 
Those living and working in informality may well agree that the problem is that they do not have 
access to acceptable jobs and housing. They may protest evictions. But they are unlikely to fight 
for the right to live and work in enduringly substandard conditions. For those representing 
informal residents and informal workers politically, the solution is more and better homes and 
jobs, not lower standards, and an acknowledgement of the right to development, to allow people 
to save and invest (e.g. in their housing and businesses) without destructive intervention by the 
state or other powerful actors. Accepting existing living and working conditions would be the 
worst sort of co-optation.  
 
While certain forms of informality are typically associated with poverty, it is important to 
recognise that informality also plays a role in the lives of better-off urbanites, as a practice of 
urban authorities, and as a practice that enables the functioning of formal systems and 
economies. Scholars increasingly critique notions that the formal and informal economies are 
distinct entities. A growing number of studies have demonstrated that informality is not ‘outside’ 
formal systems and regulations, but is instead produced by formal structures adopting informal 
practices (Porter 2011; Roy 2005). Moreover, notions that the informal is the preserve of the 
poor are now vigorously challenged (Roy 2009, 2005). For instance, Ghertner (2008) notes that 
violations of planning or building laws in Delhi are widely prevalent, by both the elite and the 
poor, and that much of the built city can be viewed as ‘unauthorised’. In Mumbai, floods in 2005 
shifted debates to the informal practices of the state and private developers seeking to bypass 
formal regulations (McFarlane 2012).  
 
Roy (2009) similarly argues that in many cities, wealthy elites are able to renegotiate what is 
legal and illegal, authorised and unauthorised, for instance in relation to building regulations and 
planning laws. As such, the argument for addressing urban informality by stricter enforcement of 
regulations is no longer simply about people’s ability to afford living by the law. It remains 
important to distinguish between situations of informality where people are flouting regulations 
that they can afford to abide by and it is in the public interest to enforce, and informality where 
the regulations are designed for wealthier groups and enforcement would further poverty and, at 
most, benefit the better-off. This is central to urban inclusion, as regulations presented as a 
means of pulling everyone up actually often operate as a means of keeping poor groups out. 
 
This also raises the key question of why some forms of informality are criminalised and 
rendered illegal while others enjoy state sanction or are even practices of the state (Ghertner 
2008; Roy 2009). One avenue for addressing this question is to consider the relationship 
between the formal and informal. While ‘remarkably enduring and under-investigated’ 
20 
 
(McFarlane and Waibel 2012: 1), recent studies in the global South (McFarlane 2012; Roy 
2005, 2009) and North (Devlin 2011) show how these relations critically shape the politics, 
economics and the development outcomes of cities, to suggest that managing this relationship 
is critical for achieving inclusive, safe and secure urbanisation and cities where ‘no one will be 
left behind’. 
 
In order to better understand and manage informality towards the goal of IUC, one useful 
starting point is recognising its intrinsic diversity. Chen (2007), for instance, presents a 
segmentation amongst informal workers, visualised in a pyramidal shape. A relatively small 
group of predominantly male and better earning informal employers occupies the top of the 
pyramid. Below this there are segments of informal employees; own account operators; casual 
wage workers; poorly paid, highly insecure women industrial outworkers; and a mass of unpaid 
family workers at the base of the pyramid. To illustrate, in Tunisia, informal employers earn four 
times the minimum wage, their employees earn the minimum wage, while industrial outworkers 
– mostly women homeworkers – earn 30 per cent of the minimum wage (World Bank 2012).  
 
A second starting point is the recognition that the reasons why diverse worker groups and small 
firms operate informally may be quite different. Thus, informal employers may deliberately seek 
exit from formality and its attendant needs to register and pay taxes (Chen 2012). For others, 
like own account operators such as street traders, the state may have raised barriers to entry 
into the formal economy. For instance, in Delhi, a severe rationing of licences condemns over 
95 per cent of street traders to a life of illegality (te Lintelo 2009). Furthermore, labour legislation 
can by design exclude informal workers; burdensome entry regulations prevent enterprises from 
formalising; and firms may not hire workers formally because of excessive taxation and 
regulatory burdens (Chen 2012).  
 
Moreover, it is not unusual for colonial era bylaws to remain active, and while originally 
designed to secure and control urban spaces, they now serve to suppress the livelihoods of 
groups of urban residents. 
 
Unfortunately, while informality may seem like a suitable short-term compromise for all involved, 
it can bring serious long-term costs. The land opened up informally may include extremely 
hazardous or environmentally sensitive sites, along with more suitable locations. While often an 
outcome, informality may also become a justification for discrimination in service provision, or 
even for harassment and demands for bribes on the part of officials. The threat of eviction may 
inhibit residents and enterprises from investing in improvements, and enforcement raids may 
violate property rights and destroy property embodying household savings. Security, and more 
generally cooperation between police and residents, may be undermined, enticing those 
involved in illicit commercial or political activities in. None of this is inevitable, but it is easy to 
see how a pathology of exclusion and conflict can take hold, and how eliminating informality 
could be even worse, particularly if pursued through existing regulations which over a long 
period without enforcement are likely to become increasingly inappropriate to local realities. 
 
At its worst, informality becomes part of an urban pathology of exclusion, reproduced despite 
the harm caused to the city as a whole and to its economic prospects, as well as to those living 
and working in informality. While informality can arise for many reasons, it becomes 
exclusionary when an appreciable part of the population cannot afford to abide by the official 
regulations, and would be collectively worse off if they tried. While collective action is difficult, 
not least because of limited institutionalised platforms for dialogue, there are examples from 
across the globe that showcase how informal workers such as street vendors and waste pickers 
21 
 
can successfully organise themselves to cooperate with urban authorities and to change 
policies and laws at city and national levels (te Lintelo 2010).  
 
In practice, of course, there are many examples of what could be termed ‘informality’ wherein 
those involved could easily afford to abide by the formal regulations, but choose to circumvent 
them nevertheless. This informality of the affluent typically gets less attention, both in the 
literature and from local authorities. Yet it is with this informality that formalisation through more 
rigorous enforcement is most likely to yield improvements for the city without imposing undue 
hardship or contributing to exclusive urbanisation.  
3.3 Migration and the city 
Every year, an additional 3–4 million people make the decision to migrate internationally. Most 
international migrants end up in cities, and while unauthorised migrants often become part of an 
underclass, many migrants are very successful. There is a natural tendency for the migration to 
be from poorer to wealthier parts of the world, and it takes some wealth to make the journey,4 
though crisis and displacement can be important drivers. Despite various benefits, wealthier 
areas are often not very welcoming. For many European countries, incoming international 
migration has itself come to be seen as a crisis. The European Union (EU) has scrambled 
unsuccessfully to reach an agreement on accommodating the migrants in an organised fashion. 
But anti-migration politics have become increasingly influential in many countries, and have 
played an important role – not least because poorly managed in-migration and austerity had 
adverse consequences for certain domestic populations. Brexit – Britain’s exit from the EU – 
was promoted in part as a means of curbing migration; and the promise to build a wall to keep 
out Mexicans became part of the US election rhetoric, along with the threat to send millions of 
unauthorised immigrants home. But migrant politics tend to be hotly contested and conflict-
ridden. 
Meanwhile, (net) rural–urban migration and urban expansion5 adds on the order of 30–40 
million people to the world’s urban population, mostly in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. This is a 
far less visible, but somewhat analogous migratory process. Again, it is largely driven by the 
movement of people from poorer to wealthier places. Again, crisis and displacement can be 
important drivers, but wealth makes it easier to migrate. And again, there is resistance in the 
receiving locations, at least in the passive form of an absence of planning for known population 
growth (although most of the urban population growth, particularly in Africa, comes from natural 
growth). While those who work in the informal economies and live in the informal settlements of 
the cities in the global South are not all recent migrants, at least indirectly the politics of 
migration loom large and can easily reinforce pathologies of informality or more overt forms of 
exclusion. And in both cases, a more inclusive approach is needed, including measures to 
protect not just the migrants but also those who might be adversely affected by the pressures 
and reactions to migration. 
Refugees and internally displaced persons, who have been forcibly displaced from their homes 
by conflict and persecution, are also increasingly drawn to cities. Informal work shores up 
livelihoods in the face of other challenges they face. Cities host an estimated 60 per cent of 
refugees globally, setting for many cities the particular challenge of dealing with displacement, 
which can be triggered very rapidly by conflict and last for unpredictable periods of time. Part of 
                                               
4 In fact, the poorest will not, in most cases, even attempt the journey as financial costs for paying smugglers can be prohibitive; see 
Lakshman, Perera and Sangasumana (2014). 
5 Simultaneously, intra-urban displacements – caused by market forces driving up housing costs (gentrification) or induced by 
development projects – are examples of what some would consider urban–urban migration (Baviskar 2009).  
22 
 
the challenge is coordinating and supporting inclusive policies so that the cities or countries that 
agree to become more inclusive do not thereby attract a disproportionate share of migrants and 
forcibly displaced persons, or subsidise those who migrate to cities over those who, in the case 
of rural–urban migration, remain in rural areas. This needs to be recognised as a big challenge, 
but not nearly as big as dealing with the divisions and conflicts that can otherwise result. 
23 
 
4 Conclusion 
Cities and rapid urbanisation often receive more attention regarding their potential contribution 
to economic development goals than to social and environmental goals, but this imbalance can 
and should be rectified (McGranahan 2016). More inclusive urbanisation and more inclusive 
cities could become an important means of reducing the trade-offs and contradictions amongst 
these goals. However, a key question underlying much of this report is whether a focus on IUC 
is a useful perspective through which to advocate for the pledge that nations signing up to the 
2030 Agenda made that ‘no one will be left behind’. How should we conceptualise IUC to guide 
the actions needed to counter the rising in-country inequalities that so often accompany 
urbanisation, and arise from social and environmental goals frequently being sacrificed to short-
term economic ends? 
Accordingly, in this report we have attempted a more critical understanding and synthesis of 
how inclusion is currently understood in the context of cities and urbanisation. We find that while 
inclusion is rapidly becoming a staple concept in donor discourses on cities and urbanisation 
(exemplified by the New Urban Agenda), only a handful of research publications have explicitly 
used the concept of ‘inclusive urbanisation’ (see e.g. Choy and Li 2016; Etherington 2013; Guo 
et al. 2016; McGranahan et al. 2016; Shrestha et al. 2014).  
Concepts like inclusion tend to become aspirational terms in the development lexicon. This 
means they lose any precision to their meaning, and come to be good by definition rather than 
by implication. In response, this report adopts a definition of inclusion that ranges from removing 
discrimination, to enhancing voice in existing institutions, to securing people’s human rights 
(McGranahan et al. 2016). We accordingly conceptualise IUC as involving both process and 
outcome: inclusiveness in the processes of urban change (urbanisation and urban growth) – 
including in social, economic and political processes – as well as an aspiration for equitable 
cities that enable wellbeing and a good quality of life for all as outcomes of those change 
processes. This conceptualisation articulates inclusion and exclusion in relational terms (Sen 
2000), directing us towards investigating the relations and mechanisms that create deprivation 
and exclusionary outcomes in cities and through particular urbanisation processes. 
We highlight that exclusion from and exclusion within the city are often interlinked, with many of 
those excluded within the city treated, explicitly or implicitly, as belonging to groups that should 
be excluded from the city. Taking a universal approach to development, we also note that urban 
exclusion is not the monopoly of cities and towns experiencing or having recently experienced 
rapid urbanisation, nor is it the monopoly of low- and middle-income countries. 
The report further presents a rapid review of key framings of urbanisation and cities in the 
academic literature: world/global, charter, prosperous, inclusive, smart cities; also looking 
‘beyond the urban’ angle: planetary urbanisation; sustainable urbanisation; rural–urban 
linkages. We find that these stress distinct aspects of inclusion as process and outcome, 
notably the roles of finance capital, technology, governance, urban planning and other public 
interventions in generating human and spatial interconnections that may be more or less 
inclusive. Similarly, the framings envisage quite distinct kinds of aspirations and outcomes of 
urbanisation and cities.  
Next we applied our conceptualisation of IUC to demonstrate its potential analytical strength in 
making sense of key urban issues: in this case violence, informality, and migration.  
24 
 
4.1 Urban violence 
When violence becomes endemic to the built environment, it stands at odds with the 
characterisation of cities as engines of growth. This can be seen both in the context of fragile 
countries, where violence is not restricted to urban areas, as well as in countries that are 
otherwise considered stable but where cities are the location that violence is concentrated in. It 
is therefore important to understand how the drivers of insecurity and violence interact with the 
sociopolitical arrangements in the city. We find that this must primarily be spatial – that is how 
power is organised and exercised at the street, city, and national level – and connect with how 
people define and describe their own sense of security and insecurity. However, to create 
conditions for channelling local voices into policymaking processes, it is necessary to consider 
ways of linking up the multiple levels of governance, actors, and institutions that impact urban 
violence and order. Urban order can be repressive and exclusionary, and these processes can 
occur over very long periods of time. As such, ‘order for whom?’ is the operative question that 
allows ‘inclusive planning’ to engage with the politics of (in) cities, rather than obstruct the 
process of mediation.  
Our understanding of how the drivers of insecurity and violence interact with the sociopolitical 
arrangements must also be systemic – with a focus on municipalities while recognising the 
multiple systems in which they are embedded. Municipalities will continue to be on the front 
lines of how urban services are delivered. This includes, for example, the destabilising factors 
that urban pressure can bring to national politics, as well as the positive element that this might 
have on forcing greater accountability on political elites. It might also include identifying and 
analysing instances where citizens have created their own service systems, or hybrid 
arrangements, which reflect the ways in which governance failures have impacted local 
communities.  
4.2 Urban informality 
Informality is critical to the everyday functioning of cities across the globe and a growing 
phenomenon. As such, approaches towards IUC must start to work with the grain of informality, 
while showing low tolerance of its worst excesses. At its worst, urban informality becomes part 
of an urban pathology of exclusion, reproduced despite the harm caused to the city as a whole 
and to its economic prospects, as well as to those living and working in informality. Informal 
settlements and informal economies can often be seen as a compromised exclusion, not as 
extreme or oppressive as evictions, but supported by planning and regulations that are only 
designed to accommodate those who secure acceptable housing or jobs, and in effect exclude 
a large share of the urban population.  
Understanding and managing the relations between the formal and informal is difficult but 
critical as it shapes the politics, economics and the development outcomes of cities. This 
requires recognising the intrinsic diversity of informality, whether it is of housing, of jobs, or other 
aspects, and also its diverse drivers. For instance, the reasons why diverse worker groups and 
small firms operate informally may be quite different, ranging from voluntary exit of the formal 
system, to barriers to its entry, to the existence of exclusionary laws. Finally, the informality of 
the affluent typically gets less attention, both in the literature and from local authorities. Yet it is 
with this informality that formalisation through more rigorous enforcement is most likely to yield 
improvements for the city without imposing undue hardship or contributing to exclusive 
urbanisation. 
25 
 
4.3 Migration and the city 
Refugees and internally displaced persons, who have been forcibly displaced from their homes 
by conflict and persecution, are increasingly drawn to cities. Cities host an estimated 60 per 
cent of refugees globally, setting for many cities the particular challenge of dealing with 
displacement, which can be triggered very rapidly by conflict and last for unpredictable periods 
of time. Part of the challenge is coordinating and supporting inclusive policies so that the cities 
or countries that agree to become more inclusive do not thereby attract a disproportionate share 
of migrants and forcibly displaced persons, or subsidise those who migrate to cities over those 
who, in the case of rural–urban migration, remain in rural areas. This needs to be recognised as 
a big challenge, but not nearly as big as dealing with the divisions and conflicts that can 
otherwise result. 
Most international migrants also end up in cities, and while unauthorised migrants often become 
part of an underclass, many are very successful. There is a natural tendency for the migration to 
be from poorer to wealthier parts of the world, and it takes some wealth to make the journey, 
though crisis and displacement can be drivers. This process is similar for rural–urban migration.  
Whereas the rural–urban dichotomy once helped to distinguish settlements where people were 
engaged principally in agriculture from larger settlements where other economic or political 
activities predominated, even in less urbanised countries the overlap between spatial form and 
livelihoods is increasingly blurred. Circular migration is a key factor in diminishing these 
distinctions.  
Despite having various benefits, wealthier areas are often not very welcoming. While migration 
often accounts for a smaller share of urban growth than natural population growth, it is often 
blamed for it, a mistake facilitated when the difference between urbanisation and urban growth 
is ignored. As such, while those who work in the informal economies and live in the informal 
settlements of the cities in the global South are not all recent migrants, at least indirectly the 
politics of migration loom large, and can easily reinforce pathologies of informality or more overt 
forms of exclusion. In both cases, a more inclusive approach is needed, including measures to 
protect not just the migrants but also those who might be adversely affected by the pressures 
and reactions to migration. 
4.4 Effecting IUC in the twenty-first century 
Inclusion, particularly regarding issues of urban development, has been enshrined in some of 
the most prominent public statements of the twenty-first century – namely the 2030 Agenda, the 
New Urban Agenda, and the SDGs. This is a result of and contributor to the blurring of the 
concept to such an extent that it has become uncontroversial but toothless. This report is an 
effort to clarify and sharpen inclusion as a concept both for analysis of the urban transformation 
and for realising the development goals for more sustainable, just, and liveable cities.  
We find that to effect inclusion for urbanisation and cities, it is essential to consider not only the 
inclusiveness of outcomes in cities, but also the inclusiveness in the social, political and 
economic processes of change as well. We also note the usefulness of deploying the different 
registers for thinking about urban change processes and outcomes: the spatial, the systemic, 
and the socio-geographic. In so applying the IUC approach to the issues of urban violence, 
urban informality, and migration, we find that it has the potential to be usefully applied to further 
research and advocacy around understanding and realising inclusive development. Finally, we 
hope that this report inspires more critical thinking on the topic of IUC to support delivery of the 
New Urban Agenda and the SDGs.   
26 
 
References 
 
Alkire, S. and Foster, J. (2011) ‘Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement’, Journal 
of Public Economics: 95.7–8: 476–87, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006 
(accessed 12 December 2016) 
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (2007) ‘Cultural-Economy and Cities’, Progress in Human Geography 31: 
143–61, DOI: 10.1177/0309132507075361 
Angel, S.; Parent, J.; Civco, D.L. and Potere, D. (2010) A Planet of Cities: Urban Land Cover 
Estimates and Projections for All Countries, 2000–2050, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working 
Paper, www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/1861_1171_angel_iii_final.pdf (accessed 
22 December 2016) 
Annan, J. and Brier, M. (2010) ‘The Risk of Return: Intimate Partner Violence in Northern 
Uganda’s Armed Conflict’, Social Science & Medicine 70.1: 152–9 
Barber, B.R. (2013) If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities, New 
Haven CT: Yale University Press 
Baviskar, Amita (2009) ‘Breaking Homes, Making Cities: Class and Gender in Politics of Urban 
Displacement’, in L. Mehta (ed.), Displaced by Development: Confronting Marginalisation and 
Gender Injustice, New Delhi: Sage Publications: 59–81 
Beall, J.; Goodfellow, T. and Rodgers, D. (2013) ‘Cities and Conflict in Fragile States in the 
Developing World’, Urban Studies 50.15: 3065–83, DOI: 10.1177/0042098013487775 
Bhan, G. (2016) In the Public’s Interest: Evictions, Citizenship, and Inequality in Contemporary 
Delhi, Athens: University of Georgia Press 
Brenner, N. (ed.) (2014) Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization, 
Berlin: Jovis Verlag 
Brenner, N. (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, 
Oxford: Oxford University Press 
Brenner, N. and Schmid, C. (2015) ‘Towards a New Epistemology of the Urban?’, City 19.2–3: 
151–82 
Brenner, N. and Schmid, C. (2011) ‘Planetary Urbanization’, in M. Gandy (ed.), Urban 
Constellations, Berlin: Jovis: 10–13 
Brueckner, J.K. and Lall, S.V. (2015) ‘Cities in Developing Countries: Fueled by Rural–Urban 
Migration, Lacking in Tenure Security, and Short of Affordable Housing’, in J.V.H. Gilles 
Duranton and C.S. William (eds), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 5, 
Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier: 1399–1455 
Bryan, G.; Chowdhury, S. and Mobarak, A.M. (2014) ‘Underinvestment in a Profitable 
Technology: The Case of Seasonal Migration in Bangladesh’, Econometrica 82.5: 1671–1748  
27 
 
Buckley, M. and Strauss, K. (2016) ‘With, Against and Beyond Lefebvre: Planetary Urbanization 
and Epistemic Plurality’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34.4: 617–36, 
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0263775816628872 (accessed 13 January 2017) 
Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C. and Nijkamp, P. (2011) ‘Smart Cities in Europe’, Journal of Urban 
Technology 18.2: 65–82 
Castells, M. (1977) The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach, London: Edward Arnold 
Catterall, B. (2013) ‘Towards the Great Transformation:(9) Where is the Planet in “Planetary 
Urbanization”?’, City 17.5: 703–10 
Chan, K.W. and Buckingham, W. (2008) ‘Is China Abolishing the Hukou System?’, China 
Quarterly 195: 582–606, DOI: 10.1017/s0305741008000787 
Chant, S. and McIlwaine, C. (2015) Cities, Slums and Gender in the Global South: Towards a 
Feminised Urban Future, London: Routledge  
Charmes, J. (2012) ‘The Informal Economy Worldwide: Trends and Characteristics’, Margin: 
The Journal of Applied Economic Research 6.2: 103–32 
Chatterjee, P. (2004) The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the 
World, New York NY and Chichester: Columbia University Press 
Chatterji, R. and Mehta, D. (2007) Living With Violence: An Anthropology of Events and 
Everyday Life, New Delhi: Routledge India 
Chen, M.A. (2012) The Informal Economy: Definitions, Theories and Policies, WIEGO Working 
Paper 1, Cambridge MA: Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing & Organizing (WIEGO) 
Chen, M.A. (2007) Rethinking the Informal Economy: Linkages with the Formal Economy and 
the Formal Regulatory Environment, DESA Working Paper 46, New York NY: UN-DESA 
Chetty, R. and Hendren, N. (2015) ‘The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility: 
Childhood Exposure Effects and County-Level Estimates’, 
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/nbhds_paper.pdf (accessed 22 December 2017) 
Chetty, R.; Hendren, N.; Kline, P. and Saez, E. (2014a) ‘Where is the Land of Opportunity? The 
Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States’, 
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/mobility_geo.pdf (accessed 22 December 2017) 
Chetty, R.; Hendren, N.; Kline, P.; Saez, E. and Turner, N. (2014b) ‘Is the United States Still a 
Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility’, American Economic Review: 
Papers & Proceedings 2014: 104.5: 141–7  
Choy, L.H.T. and Li, V.J. (2016) ‘The Role of Higher Education in China’s Inclusive 
Urbanization’, Cities, May, DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.04.008 
Cohen, B. (2006) ‘Urbanization in Developing Countries: Current Trends, Future Projections, 
and Key Challenges for Sustainability’, Technology in Society 28.1: 63–80 
28 
 
Cronon, W. (1991) Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, New York NY and 
London: W.W. Norton & Company 
Datta, A. (2015a) ‘A 100 Smart Cities, a 100 Utopias’, Dialogues in Human Geography 5.1:   
49–53, DOI: 10.1177/2043820614565750 
Datta, A. (2015b) ‘New Urban Utopias of Postcolonial India: “Entrepreneurial Urbanization” in 
Dholera Smart City, Gujarat’, Dialogues in Human Geography 5.1: 3–22,                               
DOI: 10.1177/2043820614565748 
de Haan, A. (1998) ‘“Social Exclusion”: An Alternative Concept for the Study of Deprivation?’, 
IDS Bulletin 29.1: 10–19, http://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/idsbo/article/view/1441 (accessed                      
22 December 2016) 
de Haan, A. and Maxwell, S. (1998) ‘Editorial: Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South’, 
IDS Bulletin 29.1: 1–9, http://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/idsbo/issue/view/102 (accessed 12 December 
2016) 
Desmond, M. (2016) Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, London: Allen Lane 
Desmond, M. (2012) ‘Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban Poverty’, American Journal of 
Sociology 118.1: 88–133, DOI: 10.1086/666082 
Devlin, R. (2011) ‘Informal Urbanism in the USA: New Challenges for Theory and Practice’, 
Planning Theory & Practice 12: 115–20, DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2011.545626 
Du Toit, A. (2004) ‘“Social Exclusion” Discourse and Chronic Poverty: A South African Case 
Study’, Development and Change 35.5: 987–1010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00389.x 
Duranton, G.; Henderson, J.V. and Strange, W.C. (2015) Handbook of Regional and Urban 
Economics, Vol. 5, Amsterdam: Elsevier 
Espino, N.A. (2015) Building the Inclusive City: Theory and Practice for Confronting Urban 
Segregation, London: Routledge 
Etherington, N. (2013) ‘People Building Better Cities: Participation and Inclusive Urbanization’, 
Architectural Theory Review 18.3: 388–92, DOI: 10.1080/13264826.2013.882284 
Fawaz, M. (2014) ‘The Politics of Property in Planning: Hezbollah’s Reconstruction of Haret 
Hreik (Beirut, Lebanon) as Case Study’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 
38.3: 922–34, DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12114 
Forman, R.T. (2008) Urban Regions: Ecology and Planning Beyond the City, Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press 
Friedmann, J. and Wolff, G. (1982) ‘World City Formation: An Agenda for Research and 
Action’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6.3: 309–44 
Ghani, S.E. and Kanbur, R. (2013) Urbanization and (In)Formalization, World Bank Policy 
Research Working Paper 6374, Washington DC: World Bank 
 
29 
 
Ghertner, D.A. (2008) ‘Analysis of New Legal Discourse Behind Delhi’s Slum Demolitions’, 
Economic and Political Weekly 43.20: 57–66 
Girardet, H. (1999) Creating Sustainable Cities, Schumacher Briefing 2, Totnes: Green Books 
Glaeser, E.L. (2011) Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, 
Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, London: Macmillan 
Goffman, A. (2014) On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, Chicago IL: University of 
Chicago Press 
Gooptu, N. (2001) The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India, Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press 
Graham, S. (2011) Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism, London and New York NY: 
Verso 
Graham, S. (2002) ‘Bridging Urban Digital Divides? Urban Polarisation and Information and 
Communications Technologies (ICTs)’, Urban Studies 39.1: 33–56 
Guo, Y.; Xiao, Y. and Yuan, Q. (2016) ‘The Redevelopment of Peri-Urban Villages in the 
Context of Path-Dependent Land Institution Change and its Impact on Chinese Inclusive 
Urbanization: The Case of Nanhai, China’, Cities, May, DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.010 
Gupte, J. (forthcoming) ‘“These Streets are Ours”: Mumbai’s Urban Form and Security in the 
Vernacular’, Peacebuilding  
Gupte, J. (2016a) ‘Not Just About Jobs and “Smart” Cities: Violence and Youth Identities’, 
Economic and Political Weekly 51.41: 21–3  
Gupte, J. (2016b) ‘Rethinking Approaches to Peace-Building and Political Settlements in an 
Increasingly Urbanised World’, IDS Policy Briefing 112, Brighton: IDS, 
www.ids.ac.uk/publication/rethinking-approaches-to-peace-building-and-political-settlements-in-
an-increasingly-urbanised-world (accessed 12 December 2016) 
Hall, P. (2009) ‘Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The City Region of the Mid-21st Century’, 
Regional Studies 43.6: 803–17  
Hall, P. and Pain, K. (2006) The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-City Regions in 
Europe, London: Earthscan 
Hansen, T.B. (2001) ‘Governance and State Mythologies in Mumbai’, in T.B. Hansen and         
F. Stepputat (eds), States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, 
London: Duke University Press 
Henderson, J.V. and Thisse, J.-F.O. (2004) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics,     
Vol. 4, Cities and Geography, Amsterdam: Elsevier 
Hickey, S.; Sen, K. and Bukenya, B. (eds) (2014) The Politics of Inclusive Development: 
Interrogating the Evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press 
 
30 
 
Hollands, R.G. (2008) ‘Will the Real Smart City Please Stand Up? Intelligent, Progressive or 
Entrepreneurial?’, City 12.3: 303–20 
Holtermann, H. (2014) ‘Relative Capacity and the Spread of Rebellion: Insights from Nepal’, 
Journal of Conflict Resolution 60.3: 501–29, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ 
0022002714540470 (accessed 22 December 2016) 
Horn, R. (2010) ‘Responses to Intimate Partner Violence in Kakuma Refugee Camp: Refugee 
Interactions with Agency Systems’, Social Science & Medicine 70.1: 160–8 
Humphrey, C. (2013) ‘Violence and Urban Architecture: Events at the Ensemble of the Odessa 
Steps in 1904–1905’, in W. Pullan, B. Baillie and L. Kyriacou (eds), Locating Urban Conflicts: 
Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Everyday, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 17–36 
Jewkes, R.; Levin, J. and Penn-Kekana, L. (2002) ‘Risk Factors for Domestic Violence: Findings 
from a South African Cross-Sectional Study’, Social Science & Medicine 55.9: 1603–17 
Jones, G.W. and Douglass, M. (2008) Mega-Urban Regions in Pacific Asia: Urban Dynamics in 
a Global Era, Singapore: NUS Press 
Kishor, Sunita and Johnson, Kiersten (2004) Profiling Domestic Violence – A Multi-Country 
Study, Calverton MA: ORC Macro 
Komninos, N. (2008) Intelligent Cities and Globalisation of Innovation Networks, London: 
Routledge 
 
Komninos, N. (2002) Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems, and Digital Spaces, 
London: Taylor & Francis 
 
Komninos, N.; Pallot, M. and Schaffers, H. (2013) ‘Special Issue on Smart Cities and the Future 
Internet in Europe’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy 4.2: 119–34 
Krugman, P. (2011) ‘The New Economic Geography, Now Middle-Aged’, Regional Studies 45.1: 
1–7  
Lakshman, Rajith W.D.; Perera, Sunethra and Sangasumana, Reverand Pinnawala (2014) ‘The 
Children Left Behind by International Migrants from Sri Lanka: Victims or Beneficiaries of 
Globalization?’, in Angela Veale and Giorgia Dona (eds), Child and Youth Migration: Mobility-in-
Migration in an Era of Globalisation, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 162–85 
Lefebvre, H. (2014) ‘Dissolving City, Planetary Metamorphosis’, Environment and Planning D: 
Society and Space 32.2: 203–5, DOI: 10.1068/d3202tra 
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell 
Lefebvre, H. (1968) Le droit à la ville, Paris: Editions Anthropos 
Leydesdorff, L. and Deakin, M. (2011) ‘The Triple-Helix Model of Smart Cities: A Neo-
Evolutionary Perspective’, Journal of Urban Technology 18.2: 53–63 
 
31 
 
Liddle, B. and Messinis, G. (2014) ‘Which Comes First – Urbanization or Economic Growth? 
Evidence from Heterogeneous Panel Causality Tests’, Applied Economics Letters 22.5: 349–55, 
DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2014.943877 
Luque, A.; McFarlane, C. and Marvin, S. (2014) ‘Smart Urbanism: Cities, Grids and 
Alternatives?’, in M. Hodson and S. Marvin (eds), After Sustainable Cities, London: Routledge: 
74–90 
Martine, G. and McGranahan, G. (2013) ‘The Legacy of Inequality and Negligence in Brazil’s 
Unfinished Urban Transition: Lessons for Other Developing Regions’, International Journal of 
Urban Sustainable Development 5.1: 7–24  
McFarlane, C. (2012) ‘Rethinking Informality: Politics, Crisis, and the City’, Planning Theory and 
Practice 13.1: 89–108, DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2012.649951 
McFarlane, C. (2008) ‘Urban Shadows: Materiality, the “Southern City” and Urban 
Theory’, Geography Compass 2.2: 340–58 
McFarlane, C. and Waibel, M. (eds) (2012) Urban Informalities: Reflections on the Formal and 
Informal, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing 
McGranahan, G. (2016) The Role of Cities and Urbanisation in Achieving Development Goals, 
IDS Evidence Report 192, Brighton: IDS 
McGranahan, G. (2015) ‘Urbanization’, in J.D. Wright (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of 
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Vol. 24, Oxford: Elsevier: 958–64 
McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2014) Urbanisation Concepts and Trends, IIED Working 
Paper, June, London: International Institute for Environment and Development  
McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2003) ‘Urban Centers: An Assessment of 
Sustainability’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28.1: 243–74 
McGranahan, G.; Schensul, D. and Singh, G. (2016) ‘Inclusive Urbanization: Can the 2030 
Agenda be Delivered Without It?’, Environment and Urbanization 28.1: 13–34,                      
DOI: 10.1177/0956247815627522  
McIllwaine, C. (2013) ‘Urbanization and Gender-Based Violence: Exploring the Paradoxes in the 
Global South’, Environment & Urbanization 25.1: 65–79 
Moser, C. and Rodgers, D. (2012) Understanding the Tipping Point of Urban Conflict, Global 
Policy Report 7, Manchester: University of Manchester  
Moser, C.O.N. and McIlwaine, C. (2004) Encounters with Violence in Latin America: Urban Poor 
Perceptions from Columbia and Guatemala, New York NY: Routledge 
Mueller, C. and Tranchant, J-P. (forthcoming) ‘Gendered Violence in Urban and Rural Spaces: 
The Case of Ghana’, mimeo, IDS 
Muggah, R. (2014) ‘Deconstructing the Fragile City: Exploring Insecurity, Violence and 
Resilience’, Environment and Urbanization 26.2: 1–14  DOI: 10.1177/0956247814533627 
32 
 
Nevile, A. (2007) ‘Amartya K. Sen and Social Exclusion’, Development in Practice 17.2: 249, 
DOI: 10.1080/09614520701197200 
Parnell, S. and Pieterse, E. (2016) ‘Translational Global Praxis: Rethinking Methods and Modes 
of African Urban Research’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40.1:      
236–46, DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12278 
Perlman, J. (2010) Favela: Four Decades of Living on the Edge in Rio de Janeiro, Oxford: 
Oxford University Press 
Porter, L. (2011) ‘Informality, the Commons and the Paradoxes for Planning: Concepts and 
Debates for Informality and Planning’, Planning Theory and Practice 12.1: 115–20,                
DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2011.545626 
Potts, D. (2012a) Whatever Happened to Africa’s Rapid Urbanisation?, Counterpoints Series, 
Africa Research Institute, www.africaresearchinstitute.org/newsite/publications/whatever-
happened-to-africas-rapid-urbanisation-new/ (accessed 13 January 2017) 
 
Potts, D. (2012b) ‘Viewpoint: What Do We Know About Urbanisation in Sub-Saharan Africa and 
Does it Matter?’, International Development Planning Review 34.1: v-xxii 
Pullan, W. (2013) ‘Spatial Discontinuities: Conflict Infrastructures in Contested Cities’, in          
W. Pullan, B. Baillie and L. Kyriacou (eds), Locating Urban Conflicts: Ethnicity, Nationalism and 
the Everyday, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 17–36 
Raleigh, C. (2015) ‘Urban Violence Patterns Across African States’, International Studies 
Review 17.1: 90–106, DOI: 10.1111/misr.12206 
Raleigh, C. (2012) ‘Violence Against Civilians: A Disaggregated Analysis’, International 
Interactions 38.4: 462–81, DOI: 10.1080/03050629.2012.697049 
Rees, W.E. (1995) ‘Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation?’, Journal of Planning 
Literature 9.4: 343–61 
Rees, W. (1992) ‘Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban 
Economics Leaves Out’, Environment and Urbanization 4.2: 121–30 
Robinson, J. (2002) ‘Global and World Cities: A View from Off the Map’, International Journal of 
Urban and Regional Research 26.3: 531–54 
Rodgers, D. (2009) ‘Slum Wars of the 21st Century: Gangs, Mano Dura and the New Urban 
Geography of Conflict in Central America’, Development and Change 40.5: 949–76,             
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01590.x 
Romer, P. (2010) Technologies, Rules, and Progress: The Case for Charter Cities, Center for 
Global Development Essay, www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/con_ 
035432.pdf (accessed 13 January 2017) 
Roy, Arundhati (2014) Capitalism: A Ghost Story, London: Verso 
 
33 
 
Roy, Ananya (2011) ‘The Blockade of the World-Class City: Dialectical Images of Indian 
Urbanism’, in A. Ong and A. Roy (eds), Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being 
Global, Chichester: Wiley: 259–79 
Roy, A. (2009) ‘Why India Cannot Plan its Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of 
Urbanization’, Planning Theory 8.1: 76–87, DOI: 10.1177/1473095208099299 
Roy, A. (2005) ‘Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning’, Journal of the 
American Planning Association 71.1: 147–58, DOI: 10.1080/01944360508976689 
Sampson, R.J. (2012) Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect, 
Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press 
Sassen, S. (2014) Expulsions, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 
Sassen, S. (2013) ‘When the Center No Longer Holds: Cities as Frontier Zones’, Cities 34:    
67–70 
 
Sassen, S. (2010) ‘The City: Its Return as a Lens for Social Theory’, City, Culture and 
Society 1.1: 3–11 
 
Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 
 
Satterthwaite, D. (2006) ‘Small Urban Centers and Large Villages: The Habitat for Much of the 
World’s Low-Income Population’, in C. Tacoli (ed.), The Earthscan Reader in Rural–Urban 
Linkages, London: Earthscan 
 
Satterthwaite, D. and Mitlin, D. (2013) Reducing Urban Poverty in the Global South, London: 
Routledge 
 
Satterthwaite, D. and Tacoli, C. (2003) The Urban Part of Rural Development: The Role of 
Small and Intermediate Urban Centres in Rural and Regional Development and Poverty 
Reduction, London: International Institute for Environment and Development 
 
Sen, A.K. (2000) Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny, Social Development 
Paper 1, Manila: Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank 
Serageldin, Mona (2016) Inclusive Cities and Access to Land, Housing, and Services in 
Developing Countries, Urban Development Series Knowledge Paper 22, Washington, DC: 
World Bank Group, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/702761467995074482/pdf/ 
103994-WP-Inclusive-cities-22-WEBpdf-PUBLIC.pdf (accessed 13 January 2017) 
Shields, R. (1991) Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity, London and 
New York NY: Routledge 
Shrestha, K.K.; Ojha, H.R.; McManus, P.; Rubbo, A. and Dhote, K.K. (eds) (2014) Inclusive 
Urbanization: Rethinking Policy, Practice and Research in the Age of Climate Change, 1st ed., 
Abingdon and New York NY: Routledge 
Silver, H. (2015) The Contexts of Social Inclusion, DESA Working Paper 144, New York NY: 
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 
34 
 
Silver, H. (1994) ‘Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms’, International Labour 
Review 133.5/6: 531  
Spence, M.; Annez, P.C. and Buckley, R.M. (eds) (2009) Urbanization and Growth, Washington 
DC: World Bank and the Commission on Growth and Development 
Tacoli, C. (2007) ‘Poverty, Inequality and the Underestimation of Rural–Urban 
Linkages’, Development 50.2: 90–5 
 
Tacoli, C. (2006) ‘Why an Interest in Rural–Urban Linkages?’, in C. Tacoli (ed.), The Earthscan 
Reader in Rural–Urban Linkages, London: Earthscan 
 
Tacoli, C. (2003) ‘The Links Between Urban and Rural Development’, Environment and 
Urbanization 15.1: 3–12 
 
Tacoli, C. (1998) ‘Rural–Urban Interactions: A Guide to the Literature’, Environment and 
Urbanization 10: 147–66 
 
Tacoli, C.; McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2015) Urbanisation, Rural–Urban Migration 
and Urban Poverty, IIED Working Paper, London: Human Settlements Group, International 
Institute for Environment and Development, http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10709IIED.pdf? (accessed 
13 January 2017) 
 
te Lintelo, D.J.H. (2010) ‘Advocacy Coalitions Influencing Informal Sector Policy: The Case of 
India’s National Urban Street Vending Policy’, in S.K. Bhowmik (ed.), Street Vending in the 
Global Economy, Abingdon and New Delhi: Routledge: 275–309 
te Lintelo, D.J.H. (2009) ‘The Spatial Politics of Food Hygiene: Regulating Small-Scale Retail in 
Delhi’, European Journal of Development Research 21.1: 63–80 
Turok, I. (2014) ‘South Africa’s Tortured Urbanisation and the Complications of Reconstruction’, 
in G. McGranahan and G. Martine (eds), Urban Growth in Emerging Economies: Lessons from 
the BRICS, Abingdon: Routledge: 143–90 
UN-Habitat (2016) World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and Development: Emerging 
Futures, http://wcr.unhabitat.org (accessed 13 January 2017) 
UN-Habitat (2012) State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities, New York NY: 
UN-Habitat, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/745habitat.pdf 
(accessed 13 January 2017) 
United Nations (2016) Habitat III. New Urban Agenda: Draft Outcome Document for Adoption in 
Quito, October 2016, 10 September, 
www2.habitat3.org/bitcache/97ced11dcecef85d41f74043195e5472836f6291?vid=588897&disp
osition=inline&op=view (accessed 22 December 2016) 
United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld (accessed 
22 December 2016) 
 
35 
 
United Nations (2013) World Population Policies 2013, New York NY: United Nations 
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), 
www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/WPP2013/wpp2013.pdf 
(accessed 22 December 2016) 
United Nations General Assembly (2000) Millennium Declaration,  
www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm (accessed 12 December 2016) 
United Nations Population Division (2015) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 
Revision, New York NY: United Nations, 
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014-Report.pdf (accessed 22 December 
2016) 
WHO (2005) Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women, 
Geneva: World Health Organization 
Wirtz, A.L.; Pham, K.; Glass, N.; Lockhart, S.; Kidane, T.; Cuspoca, D.; Rubenstein, L.S.; Singh, 
S. and Vu, A. (2014) ‘Gender-Based Violence in Conflict and Displacement: Qualitative Findings 
from Displaced Women in Colombia’, Conflict and Health 8.10, 
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115473/ (accessed 13 January 2017) 
World Bank (2013) Inclusion Matters: The Foundation of Shared Prosperity, Washington DC: 
World Bank 
World Bank (2012) World Development Report 2013, Washington DC: World Bank 
Wratten, E. (1995) ‘Conceptualizing Urban Poverty’, Environment and Urbanization 7.1: 11–36 
  
 
Brighton BN1 9RE 
T +44 (0)1273 606261 
F +44 (0)1273 621202 
E ids@ids.ac.uk
www.ids.ac.uk
IDS_Master Logo