The Structurally Irrelevant
by David Deutsch
One advantage to sinking yourself $85,000 in debt and getting a Masters from USC is that every so often you actually learn something. For instance, I had the opportunity to take a class held by Professor Manuel Castells. Those of you in urban planning probably know of his work in urban planning theory; others may know of his coining the term “network society”; still others may have read one of the 20 or so books and countless articles he has written on myriad topics, including globalization, terrorism and gangs. He’s an incredibly sharp and perceptive guy, and I can tell you first-hand that his international reputation is well-deserved.
During one lecture, Professor Castells said those who enter the informal—i.e., criminal—economy are people who lack the tools and connections to engage in the mainstream global one. He calls this class of people the “structurally irrelevant,” a phrase that has stuck with me since I heard it. In my opinion, our poor transportation infrastructure is, at least in part, to blame for creating a predicament where the structurally irrelevant could flourish.
Sadly, Professor Castells is not the only person who has noticed. In May, Deneen Brown of the Washington Post wrote an eye-opening article entitled “Poor? Pay Up.” Brown's article vividly illustrates the high cost of being poor—or structurally irrelevant—and implicitly cites the role transportation and infrastructure planning plays in keeping the under-classes down. These people, who wait silently for hours for the bus to take them around, needlessly suffer, in part, because of our unfair transit system, which I have previously called “neo-apartheid.” These unfortunate souls, our own untouchables, have nobody to complain to, no boss to demand fair wages from, and nobody to strike against. How does someone behave when they are oppressed without an oppressor? Castells says, quite correctly, that they become structurally irrelevant and oftentimes are forced to enter the informal–again, the criminal–economy.
I recently had my own brush with structural irrelevance, having left graduate school just as the Great Recession began. Luckily, I got a job just as my funds ran out, but I was forced to move to South Orange County to avoid a commute of three hours each way via public transit. And since my car was falling apart under my feet à la Fred Flintstone, there was little choice but to move. Luckily I have no family and I do not own a house, so I could move down to the OC pretty easily. And I am very lucky to have a job at a car company that is doing relatively well in this tough economy, thus allowing me to replace my Fred Flintstone-mobile with a new car at a great price.
But many others are not as fortunate. Being stuck in a dense urban area with few job opportunities and poor infrastructure, especially with young children, is difficult enough; I cannot even imagine how much more difficult this recession has made it for the structurally irrelevant. How are these people supposed to get to job interviews, much less plan a move, without a decent way to get around? How many hours do they waste waiting for their bus to show, as Brown’s article so vividly describes? What is their path to structural relevance?
For those policymakers who are less sympathetic about the plight of the poor and aren't comfortable with being mushy and sentimental, consider the practical implications of structural irrelevancy. As I noted earlier, if these poor souls cannot find a way to support themselves, they will join the so-called “informal economy” and either work for pitiful, under-the-table wages in horrific conditions or simply become criminals to survive. And those who find under-the-table work are not only abused; these workers do not contribute to our tax base and thus weigh down our already overburdened system. So this isn't just some abstract concept coming from the keyboard of a bleeding-heart liberal (although it certainly is that). It is also a social, economic and political issue that affects everyone, whether we see the impact or not.
Knowing that these people exist is fine and dandy, but we as a society must ask ourselves: what can transportation and urban planners do to make the structurally irrelevant more relevant? Can we create an infrastructure that helps to ensure that they can engage in the so-called “formal economy” that pays taxes and earns a respectable living? And what on Earth will it take to get our political leaders moving in this direction?
The path to structural relevance starts in our local communities, by creating a sustainable and accessible transit infrastructure. Running certain buses more frequently would probably help, but a more dramatic approach to mass transit—getting cars off the road—will likely be required to get things going in the right direction. Sure, such initiatives are expensive, but so is incarcerating a mother of two, putting her kids into foster care, and watching these poor, broken souls enter international criminal and drug networks to survive. Emphasizing structural relevance when creating transportation and urban planning will likely go a long way toward bringing more people back into the fold, giving these unlucky folks a sense of dignity and pride while helping society.
Comments
the expense of being poor hit home years ago for me, when, because of very little money, i was forced to buy the small size of mayonnaise instead of the large.
for some reason, this triggered the realization of the injustice of it all.
2009-07-22 by Donna Schoenkopf