Vaquier’s monograph assesses an unusual, large-scale slum resettlement in Mumbai, analyzing employment outcomes, access to basic infrastructure and tenure security. With households moving closer to central Mumbai, and with significant NGO involvement, the Chandivali project seems to promise significant benefits for residents. However, findings were mixed and a key lesson is the need to minimize distances in household relocation. Tenure security and access to basic infrastructure improved – but resettled households had higher expenses, poorer access to social and transport infrastructure and, most fundamentally, disruptions in their socio-professional networks. By emphasizing the importance of maintaining employment and social links, the study encourages a much-needed reconsideration of resettlement policies and a broader understanding of their effects.

Part I provides historical, social and legal background to the project, as well as highlighting tensions between the green and brown agendas. Mumbai’s socioeconomic profile and acute housing pressures are outlined, followed by an overview of the city’s slum redevelopment policies. Part I then offers legal background to the Chandivali project, named after the scheme’s relocation site. Nearly 12,000 households will eventually be resettled, out of the 60,000 that formerly inhabited Mumbai’s Sanjay Gandhi National Park. The 103 square kilometres national park is one of the largest within an urban precinct, and low-income families began occupying the forest’s “slum pockets” in the 1970s. After several evictions and a protracted legal battle, a resettlement plan was agreed in 1999. By 2008, approximately 5,000 families had occupied their new flats. The ongoing resettlement is financed by Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and is unusual in several respects: a well-established Indian NGO acts as developer alongside a private builder; tenements are constructed above minimal standards; and residents are relocated to a former quarry in an affluent southern suburb.

Part II explains the study’s methodology and key findings regarding infrastructure and tenure security after resettlement. Researchers interviewed 75 relocated households and 125 who have not been resettled, which provides interesting contrasts and a nuanced understanding of changes. In one significant finding, current slum dwellers’ housing quality was unrelated to household income but, rather, to the perceived security of tenure. Slum dwellers underestimated the importance of tenure security, while households spoke much more positively of the “mental peace” that they experienced after moving. Demolitions also had significant “poverty trap” effects. Keeping other household characteristics constant, each additional demolition decreased per capita income by Rs 89 for as long as eight years afterwards (even if the family was resettled). After resettlement there was a marked improvement in access to basic infrastructure, but living expenses rose while access to schools, affordable health care and transport deteriorated.
Part III analyzes employment outcomes and concludes with policy lessons in this key area. Vaquier highlights the changes in employment and household structure, dubbed “nuclearization”, as extended households often reduced the number of part-time workers. Overall employment rates actually remained unchanged, although commuting times and distances increased. Moreover, the tenements’ lack of flexibility and increased expenses hampered local employment opportunities, particularly for casual labourers and self-employed workers. More than 20 per cent of labourers actually continued working in the same area, underscoring their dependence on slums for their livelihoods. Recommendations therefore include conducting labour market studies for proposed relocation sites; adopting in-situ upgrading or, alternatively, minimizing relocation distances; and enhancing access to social and transport infrastructure.