The Impact of Resettlement in Urban Market Redevelopment on Income Inequality, Its Determinants, and Implications for the Resettled Population: Applying the Kejetia New Market Exemplar, Ghana
Abstract
:1. Introduction
“A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much, while so many have so little”.[17]
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Concept of Urban Redevelopment-Induced Resettlement (URIR)
2.2. Livelihood Effects of Urban Redevelopment-Induced Resettlement (URIR)
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Methodology
- How has income inequality changed across the three resettlement stages for traders and drivers?
- What factors account for the changes in inequality during and after resettlement?
- What are the implications for the resettled population?
3.3. Step 1: Data Collection
3.4. Step 2: Analyzing Data Using Theil’s T Statistics
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Income Inequality before the Resettlement
4.2. Income Inequality during Resettlement
4.2.1. Determinants of Income Inequality ‘During the Resettlement’ (At Relocation Sites)
Poor Relocation Sites
“We (relocated traders at racecourse) sell here but no buyers. We are like a school with no students” …(Mary Forkuo, trader, survey 2019)
Lack of Credit Loans
“They (Savings and Loans Institutions) agreed to provide us credit facility. Maybe we are still waiting” …(Paa Solo, trader, survey 2019)
High Prices of Goods & Services
“We are driving empty across streets in these hard times. There is no safe store of value for our services. Fuel prices are drowning us” …(Kabri, driver, survey 2019)
4.3. Income Inequality after Resettlement
4.3.1. Determinants of Income Inequality after Resettlement
Limited Place Access
High Shop Rent
Disorganized Marketplace
4.4. Implications
4.4.1. Distrust Concerns
4.4.2. Indirect Displacement
4.4.3. Personal and Institutional Debt
4.5. Limitation of the Study
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Galdini, R. Urban re-use practices in contemporary cities: Experiences in Europe. Cities 2018, 87, 103–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yetiskul, E.; Kayasü, S.; Ozdemir, S.Y. Local responses to urban redevelopment projects: The case of Beyoğlu, Istanbul. Habitat Int. 2016, 51, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambaye, G.; Abeliene, A. Development-Induced Displacement and Its Impacts on the Livelihoods of Poor Urban Households in Bahir Dar, North Western Ethiopia. Afr. Hum. Mobil. Rev. 2015, 1, 310–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuddus, M.A.; Tynan, E.; McBryde, E. Urbanization: A problem for the rich and the poor? Public Health Rev. 2020, 41, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, X.; Wei, H.; Lu, S.; Dai, Q.; Su, H. Assessment on the urbanization strategy in China: Achievements, challenges and reflections. Habitat Int. 2017, 71, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, W.; Yang, M. Urbanization, economic growth and environmental pollution: Evidence from China. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2019, 21, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mai, Y.; Wu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Liang, Q.; Ma, Y.; Liu, Z. Confront or Comply? Managing Social Risks in China’s Urban Renewal Projects. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abebe, G.; Hesselberg, J. Implications of Urban Development-Induced Resettlement on Poor Households in Addis Ababa. Ghana J. Geogr. 2013, 5, 32–50. [Google Scholar]
- Nikuze, A.; Sliuzas, R.; Flacke, J.; van Maarseveen, M. Livelihood impacts of displacement and resettlement on informal households—A case study from Kigali, Rwanda. Habitat Int. 2018, 86, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asante, L.A.; Helbrecht, I. Urban regeneration and politically-induced displacement in a secondary African city: A case of the Kotokuraba Market Project, Cape Coast, Ghana. Geoforum 2020, 115, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peprah, V.; Buor, D.; Forkuor, D. Characteristics of informal sector activities and challenges faced by women in Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1656383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adinyira, E.; Agyekum, K.; Baiden, B.K.; Ebohon, O.J.; Ampratwum, G. Regeneration of sub-Saharan Africa’s open marketplaces: A case for guileless stakeholder participation. Constr. Econ. Build. 2020, 20, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asante, L.A. The politics of market redevelopment in African cities: Insight from two market projects in Ghana. Geoforum 2022, 131, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okoye, V.O. Fakery and Fabrications in Kumasi’s ‘Modern’ Market. J. Afr. Cult. Stud. 2021, 33, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asante, L.A.; Helbrecht, I. Changing urban governance in Ghana: The role of resistance practices and activism in Kumasi. Urban Geogr. 2019, 40, 1568–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamberlin, J.; Jayne, T.S. Does farm structure affect rural household incomes? Evidence from Tanzania. Food Policy 2020, 90, 101805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Top 25 Economic Inequality Quotes (Of 71)|A-Z Quotes. A Nation Will Not Survive Morally or Economically When so Few Have so Much and so Many Have so Little; Bernie Sanders. Available online: https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/economic-inequality.html (accessed on 23 November 2022).
- Das, M.; Das, S.K. Economic Growth and Income Disparity in BRIC: Theory and Empirical Evidence; World Scientific: Singapore, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vanclay, F. Project-induced displacement and resettlement: From impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal. 2017, 35, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Tang, S.; Geertman, S.; Lin, Y.; van Oort, F. The chain effects of property-led redevelopment in Shenzhen: Price-shadowing and indirect displacement. Cities 2017, 67, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lees, L.; Hubbard, P. The emotional and psychological impacts of London’s ‘new’ urban renewal. J. Urban Regen. Renew. 2020, 13, 241–250. [Google Scholar]
- Skorin-Kapov, J. Workplace Harassment, Violence, Inequity, and Inequality; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egolum, C.C.; Emoh, F.I. The Issues and Challenges of Urban Renewal in a Developing Economy. Int. J. Dev. Econ. Sustain. 2017, 5, 32–44. Available online: www.eajournals.org (accessed on 31 October 2022).
- Bachour, B.; Dong, W. Socioeconomic impact of urban redevelopment in the inner city of Ningbo. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. 2006, 7, 1386–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Y.; Kim, H.; Woosnam, K.M.; Marcouiller, D.W.; Kim, H.J. Urban resettlement in residential redevelopment projects: Considering desire to resettle and willingness to pay. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2016, 31, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y.; Xie, J.; Tian, C. Housing wealth change and disparity of indigenous villagers during urban village redevelopment: A comparative analysis of two resettled residential neighborhoods in Wuhan. Habitat Int. 2020, 99, 102162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, Y.; Rashid, A.; Warraich, M.A.; Sabir, S.S.; Waseem, A. Case Study Method: A Step-by-Step Guide for Business Researchers. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2019, 18, 1609406919862424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yin, R.K. MEDIA REVIEWS. Adopt. Q. 2003, 3, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arifin, S.; Maharani, L. Assessing User Experience of a Mobile Application Using Usability Questionnaire Method. Appl. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2021, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, S.K. SAMPLING, 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Andrade, C. Sample Size and its Importance in Research. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2019, 41, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalilzadeh, J.; Tasci, A.D.A. Large sample size, significance level, and the effect size: Solutions to perils of using big data for academic research. Tour. Manag. 2017, 62, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, D.; Yuan, L.; Li, R.; Li, J. Decomposing inequality in research funding by university-institute sub-group: A three-stage nested Theil index. J. Informetr. 2018, 12, 1312–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, A.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Zafar, M.W.; Saleem, M.M. Analyzing global inequality in access to energy: Developing policy framework by inequality decomposition. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 304, 114299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mensah, G.S.F.; Yu, Q. Fostering land-sharing scheme as alternative resettlement to the inevitable Old Fadama evictions and challenges in Ghana. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 2021, 104, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, S.; Mandhyan, R. Impoverishment assessment of slum dwellers after off-site and on-site resettlement: A case of Indore. Commonw. J. Local Gov. 2014, 15, 104–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delis, M.; Fringuellotti, F.; Ongena, S. Credit, Income and Inequality; Federal Reserve Bank of New York: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Makhlouf, Y.; Kellard, N.M.; Vinogradov, D.V. Finance-Inequality Nexus: The Long and the Short of It. Econ. Inq. 2020, 58, 1977–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sieron, A. Inflation and income inequality. Prague Econ. Pap. 2017, 26, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Hoyos, R.E.; Medvedev, D. Poverty effects of higher food prices: A global perspective. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2011, 15, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fol, S.; Gallez, C. Social inequalities in urban access: Better ways of assessing transport improvements. In Urban Access for the 21st Century; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 46–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewilde, C.; Lancee, B. Income inequality and access to housing in Europe. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2013, 29, 1189–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wulandari, D.; Soseco, T.; Witjaksono, M.; Narmaditya, B.S.; Utomo, S.H.; Wahjoedi, N.A.Y.; Puspasari, E.Y.; Priambodo, M.P. The relationship between house rent, income inequality and households consumption. Int. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. Res. 2017, 15, 235–242. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, H. The impact of income inequality on rental affordability: An empirical study in large American metropolitan areas. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pothier, D.; Puy, D. Demand Composition and Income Distribution; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castelfranchi, C.; Falcone, R. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. In Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Iacoviello, M. Household debt and income inequality, 1963–2003. J. Money Credit Bank. 2008, 40, 929–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumhof, M.; Ranieri, R.; Winant, P. Inequality, leverage, and crises. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015, 105, 1217–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Locations | Adehye3 Market | Bantama Market | Racecourse | Abinkyi | Total | Redeveloped Marketplace |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Survey period | August 2019 | August 2019 | August 2019 | August 2019 | January 2022 | |
Resettlement stage | * During resettlement | * During resettlement | * During resettlement | * During resettlement | After resettlement | |
Type of respondent | Traders | Drivers | Drivers | Traders | Drivers & traders | |
No of people | 69 | 70 | 90 | 11 | 240 | Same sample size |
Method | Face-to-face interviews | Face-to-face interviews | Face-to-face interviews | Face-to-face interviews | Phone interviews |
Traders Incomes GH¢ | Pop. | Drivers’ Incomes GH¢ | Pop. | Theil’s T-Statistics | Between Inequality | T within Inequality | D within Inequality | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Total pop. = 240 Total inc. = 271,856 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4050 | 7 | 6100 | 5 | Traders inc. share = 0.3500199 | 0.0002699 | −0.004879 | −0.002892 | 0.097758 |
4250 | 1 | 6500 | 9 | −0.000698 | −0.004953 | |||
4270 | 2 | 6740 | 12 | Traders’ pop. Share = 0.3333333 | −0.001397 | −0.006380 | ||
4470 | 2 | 7800 | 18 | −0.001397 | −0.007799 | |||
4500 | 2 | 7960 | 12 | Inc/pop shares = 1.0500596 | −0.001397 | −0.004996 | ||
4560 | 1 | 8200 | 12 | −0.000698 | −0.004680 | |||
4700 | 5 | 8500 | 11 | LN of inc./pop shares = 0.0212139 | −0.003485 | −0.003910 | ||
6720 | 1 | 8670 | 23 | −0.000612 | −0.007709 | |||
6790 | 1 | 8900 | 12 | Inequality element = 0.0074253 | −0.000608 | −0.003682 | ||
7870 | 1 | 8980 | 7 | −0.000519 | −0.002077 | |||
7950 | 1 | 9300 | 8 | Drivers inc. share = 0.6499801 | −0.000511 | −0.002042 | ||
8100 | 6 | 10,500 | 8 | −0.002982 | −0.000677 | |||
8320 | 6 | 10,720 | 7 | Driver’s pop. Share = 0.6666667 | −0.002850 | −0.000356 | ||
8350 | 12 | 35,200 | 10 | −0.005663 | 0.065183 | |||
9500 | 13 | 35,800 | 6 | Inc/pop shares = 0.9749702 | −0.004434 | 0.040356 | ||
9860 | 6 | −0.001772 | ||||||
34,900 | 13 | LN of inc/pop shares = −0.011009 | 0.078018 | |||||
Inequality element = −0.007155 | ||||||||
Total | 80 | 160 | 0.044107 | 0.0533810 | ||||
Within groups | 0.0974883 |
Trader’s Incomes GH¢ | Pop | Drivers’ Incomes GH¢ | Pop | Theils T-Statistic | Between Inequality | T within Inequality | D within Inequality | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Total pop. = 240 Total inc. = 3,609,990 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2950 | 10 | 5900 | 7 | 0.0001473 | −0.0056485 | −0.004740 | 0.13052 | |
3470 | 9 | 6400 | 6 | Traders inc. share = 0.321095 | −0.0053698 | −0.004031 | ||
3700 | 1 | 6900 | 1 | −0.0006076 | −0.000661 | |||
3720 | 1 | 7280 | 11 | Traders’ pop. Share = 0.333333 | −0.0006085 | −0.007166 | ||
3790 | 1 | 7511 | 1 | −0.0006114 | −0.000643 | |||
3870 | 1 | 7610 | 11 | Inc/pop shares = 0.963285 | −0.0006146 | −0.007044 | ||
5250 | 1 | 7900 | 7 | −0.0006411 | −0.004405 | |||
5700 | 6 | 8760 | 12 | LN of inc./pop = −0.01624 | −0.0038385 | −0.007066 | ||
6520 | 5 | 8980 | 11 | −0.0031317 | −0.006345 | |||
6720 | 4 | 9200 | 6 | Inequality element = −0.00521 | −0.0024845 | −0.003385 | ||
6940 | 2 | 9409 | 6 | −0.0012291 | −0.003309 | |||
7300 | 2 | 9500 | 10 | Drivers inc. share = 0.678904 | −0.0012041 | −0.005459 | ||
7330 | 1 | 9820 | 13 | −0.0006009 | −0.006828 | |||
7450 | 12 | 10,800 | 10 | Driver’s pop. Share = 0.666666 | −0.0071543 | −0.004540 | ||
35,800 | 24 | 17,200 | 9 | 0.09349677 | 0.0021583 | |||
19,670 | 8 | Inc/pop shares = 1.018357 | 0.0047342 | |||||
35,900 | 18 | 0.05975156 | 0.0662132 | |||||
41,005 | 13 | LN of the inc/pop = 0.007900 | 0.0631472 | |||||
Total | 80 | 160 | Inequality element = 0.005364 | 0.0706220 | ||||
Within groups | 0.1303736 |
Traders’ Incomes GH¢ | Pop. | Drivers’ Incomes GH¢ | Pop. | Theil’s T-Statistics | Between Inequality | T within Inequality | D within Inequality | Overall Inequality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Total pop. = 240 Total inc. = 3,031,109 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4100 | 7 | 3900 | 7 | 0.006267 | −0.005525 | −0.004086 | 0.126617 | |
6340 | 3 | 4500 | 7 | Drivers inc. share = 0.585182 | −0.002474 | −0.004069 | ||
6407 | 2 | 4740 | 12 | −0.001647 | −0.006924 | |||
7510 | 2 | 4950 | 11 | Driver’s pop. share = 0.666667 | −0.001589 | −0.006290 | ||
7560 | 1 | 5300 | 7 | −0.000792 | −0.003922 | |||
7705 | 5 | 5560 | 12 | Inc/pop shares = 0.877773 | −0.003934 | −0.006596 | ||
7720 | 1 | 5980 | 11 | −0.000786 | −0.005817 | |||
7790 | 1 | 6200 | 6 | LN of the inc./pop = −0.05662 | −0.000783 | −0.003097 | ||
7870 | 1 | 7200 | 6 | −0.000779 | −0.002671 | |||
8250 | 1 | 7570 | 10 | Inequality element = −0.03313 | −0.000761 | −0.004137 | ||
8760 | 6 | 7670 | 13 | −0.004402 | −0.005262 | |||
9120 | 14 | 7830 | 11 | Traders inc. share = 0.414818 | −0.009956 | −0.004291 | ||
11,150 | 9 | 7908 | 1 | −0.004936 | −0.000382 | |||
30,500 | 27 | 7960 | 6 | Traders’ pop. share = 0.333333 | 0.0782257 | −0.002266 | ||
7980 | 1 | −0.000375 | ||||||
8204 | 8 | Inc/pop shares = 1.244454 | −0.002831 | |||||
25,300 | 11 | 0.0398549 | 0.0329015 | |||||
32,600 | 7 | LN of the inc./pop = 0.094979 | 0.0352673 | |||||
35,100 | 13 | 0.0753499 | ||||||
Total | 80 | 160 | Inequality element = 0.039399 | 0.0804950 | ||||
Within Groups | 0.1203499 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mensah, F.; Shi, G.; Yu, Q.; Boadi, E.B.; Andam, F.A.; Bofah, N.A. The Impact of Resettlement in Urban Market Redevelopment on Income Inequality, Its Determinants, and Implications for the Resettled Population: Applying the Kejetia New Market Exemplar, Ghana. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416682
Mensah F, Shi G, Yu Q, Boadi EB, Andam FA, Bofah NA. The Impact of Resettlement in Urban Market Redevelopment on Income Inequality, Its Determinants, and Implications for the Resettled Population: Applying the Kejetia New Market Exemplar, Ghana. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416682
Chicago/Turabian StyleMensah, Francis, Guoqing Shi, Qingnian Yu, Emmanuel Bosompem Boadi, Francis Akorful Andam, and Nicholas Anarfi Bofah. 2022. "The Impact of Resettlement in Urban Market Redevelopment on Income Inequality, Its Determinants, and Implications for the Resettled Population: Applying the Kejetia New Market Exemplar, Ghana" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416682