POPULAR Project shows relationship between residents and the state

In the project, Koster is working with a research team of 3 PhDs and 2 Postdocs. Their anthropological research aims to increase our understanding of politics and the state in Latin America. They use comparative ethnographic methods in three cities: Medellín (Colombia), Santiago de Cuba (Cuba) and Recife (Brazil), where housing and urban development are pressing issues. Martijn Koster explains what they will do.

What are you researching?

Our starting point is the relationship between residents and state, especially around housing. Governments should ensure enough affordable housing of decent quality. In practice, they often fail to do this. This is especially noticeable among low-income groups in cities, where the housing problem is most urgent. The fact that the government does not fulfil this basic task has an impact on the relationship between residents and the state. We are interested in that relationship. What does it do to your relationship with the government when it fails in basic tasks? How does that affect trust, now and in the future?

Why these cities in Latin America?

Latin America traditionally has stark inequality. We chose the three cities because they are interesting cases to compare. Medellín has a neoliberal housing policy. At the other extreme, you find Santiago in Cuba with a socialist government. Recife is in between with a neoliberal housing policy as well as a long history of social movements.

In the project, we look at three domains. The first domain is governance. What happens in the interaction between residents and the government? The second domain is electoral politics, which gets more emphasis in Latin America than here in Europe. Think of local politicians making all kinds of promises around housing when the municipal elections are approaching. The third domain is activism, when residents come out in protest to express their wishes and their ideas.

How will you explore the relationship?

We focus on how residents see the role of the state and what terms they use when talking about politics and their interactions with the government. In anthropology, this is called the emic perspective. Emic stands for the perspective from within, how someone experiences something from one’s own frame of reference.

To explore this perspective, we do not only use interviews but also participant observation: being present, spending whole days with people, and participating in their activities. This is a good way to collect data beyond socially or politically desirable answers. People do not immediately speak out easily, but they often do enjoy telling their story if you take the time to listen to them.

What do you expect from the research?

Our project focuses primarily on a way of looking at things that better reflects the real situation. What are people’s needs and how can governments better meet them? The relationship between residents and government is always ambiguous and paradoxical. On the one hand, there is enormous distrust and the conviction that ‘It won’t be for me, because it’s never for me’, and on the other, there is a glimmer of hope. With each new political candidate, people may belief that this person can make a change. Both ideas are present at the same time. People distrust the government and want to grasp at hope.

This also holds up a mirror to governments. If they don’t carry out their fundamental duty of care, distrust grows. What kind of society do you get when people don’t trust the government? Often, people do not even actively oppose it, but become indifferent. What are the consequences of such indifference? In the Netherlands, but also in Latin America, you see that growing distrust in government feeds insecurity, increases stress, and fuels polarisation.

How come this interests you?

It started with my PhD research on participatory budgeting in Brazil. We have all kinds of theories and models about participation, but in a low-income Recife neighbourhood, things are very different. For example, some people would come to a meeting not to voice their opinions, but because they get free soft drinks and a snack afterwards. Or because it’s fun, an hour and a half of chatting with your neighbours.

People do this not because they don’t know any better, but because it has meaning for them. Civil servants often don’t understand this. They get annoyed, for example, because they first have to explain how democracy and participation work. It stimulated my interest further: how do people see these things? Why do they still go to the meetings when they say they have no faith in the government? That has always fascinated me.

What attracts you to Latin America?

Latin America is interesting because democratic projects and experiments go further than in Europe. Participatory budgeting, where residents get to vote on where the public budget goes in the neighbourhood: we don’t have many experiments like that in Europe. That’s what I find fascinating about the region. The belief in social malleability, despite the great distrust.

At the same time, Latin America also deals with great inequality, which translates into people’s perception of politics. Yet studies on politics in Latin America also touch on a point of hope. There is an enormous amount of despair but, through it, there is also always a glimmer of hope that one day things will get better.