Abstract
Ownership of much land globally is formally unrecorded. Advances in geospatial and drone technologies are enabling unmapped land to be recorded in ways which do not reflect traditional surveys, and introduce new ways of achieving cadastral data for the purposes of registration. Disruption is challenging established land law, and creating novel opportunities for individual land certification—rattling indefeasibility and tenure. The chapter looks to Odisha, India, as a case study, to raise systemic problems around urbanization and affordable housing, and how social innovation has been a lever for aligning slum owners with land ownership. We explore an understanding of the nature of social innovation, and how it has spurred legal innovation for land rights in Odisha. Given the global proliferation of urban informal settlements, understanding catalysts for disruption into land law/lore offers learnings for comparative jurisdictions as they address their own complex challenges in the formalization of settlements, thus contributing to global progress in achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of ‘leaving no one behind’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In-situ settlement is allowed for a household to the extent of 45 sq.m (484 sq.ft) within a Municipality and 60 sq.m (646 sq.ft) within a Notified Area Council (NAC), while in case of relocation, 30 sq.m (323 sq.ft) for both Municipality and NAC.
References
Anand, G., & Deb, A. (2017). Planning, ‘violations’, and urban inclusion: A study of Bhubaneswar. New Delhi: YUVA and IIHS.
Arabindoo, P. (2011). Rhetoric of the ‘slum’. City, 15(6), 636–646.
Asean Studies Centre and Centre for Liveable Cities. (2010). Urbanisation in Southeast Asian Countries. Retrieved from https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/centres/asc/pdf/UrbanSEAsia-prelimasof13Jul10.pdf
Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Briston: The Policy Press.
Bennett, R., Gerke, M., Crompvoets, J., Ho, S., Schwering, A., Chipofya, M., … Stöcker, C. (2017). Building third generation land tools: Its4land, smart sketchmaps, UAVs, automatic feature extraction, and the geocloud. Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Retrieved from https://www.conftool.com/landandpoverty2017/index.php/11-07-Bennett-288_paper.pdf
Boone, C. (2019). Legal empowerment of the poor through property rights reform: Tensions and trade-offs of land registration and titling in sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 55(3), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1451633
Bridgespan. (2018). Odisha: Land Rights to Slum Dwellers: Observations on detailed work flow process maps. Jaga Mission, Housing & Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha. Retrieved from http://www.jagamission.org/pdf/Compendium%20Land%20Rights.pdf
Bureau of European Policy Advisors. (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13402/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native
Bureau of European Policy Advisors. (2011). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovaiton in the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2796/13155
Chopra, H. S. (2017). Estimating “Slum-like Households” in India, SARVEKSHANA, Journal of National Sample Survey Office, Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation National Sample Survey Office, New Delhi, www.mospi.gov.in, Vol. 103, pp. 1–12. Retrieved from http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/sarvekshana_103.pdf
De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Deininger, K. (2018). For billions without formal land rights, the tech revolution offers new grounds for hope | Let’s Talk Development. Retrieved August 9, 2018, from World Bank Blog website: http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/billions-without-formal-land-rights-tech-revolution-offers-new-grounds-hope
Enemark, S., Bell, K. C., Lemmen, C., & McLaren, R. (2014). Fit-for-purpose land administration. Retrieved from https://doi.org/https://www.fig.net/resources/publications/figpub/pub60/Figpub60.pdf
Goldenburg, M., Kamoji, W., Orton, L. and Williamson, M. (2009). Social Innovation in Canada: An Update. CPRN Research Report (Sept 2009). Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.567.5844&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Government of India. (2011). Draft: Guidelines for Preparation of a Slum Free City Plan of Action Under the Rajiv Awas Yojana. New Delhi: Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. Retrieved October 9, 2013 (http://mhupa.gov.in/ray/planning_guidelines.pdf).
Government of Odisha. (2012). The Odisha property rights to slum dwellers and prevention of new slums bill, 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from http://www.urbanodisha.gov.in/(S(mmsysc45j1g52d55er0ffn45))/pdf/ODISHA_PROPERTY_RIGHTS_TO_SLUM_DWELLERS_BILL_2012
Government of Odisha, Housing & Urban Development Department. (2011). Slum rehabilitation & development policy. Government of Odisha.
Hagn, A. (2016). Of slums and politics in Puri, Odisha: The localisation of the slum-free cities mission in the temple city. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal [Online], 14 | 2016, Online since, connection on 24 January 2020. Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/samaj/4226; https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.4226
Harris, H. (2010). “Discretion and Expediency in the Enforcement of Planning Controls” 81 Town Planning Review 675.
Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., & Schröder, A. (2016). Social entrepreneurs: Important actors within an ecosystem of social innovation. European Public & Social Innovation Review, 1(2), 95–110.
Hutter, B. M. (1997). Compliance: Regulation and environment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Independent Evaluation Group. (2016). Lessons from Land Administration Projects: A Review of Project Performance Assessments. Washington DC: The World Bank Group. Retrieved from: https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/lessons-land-administration-projects-review-project-performance-assessments.
India Times. (2019). Retrieved January 23, 2020, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/slum-dwellers-to-get-property-rights-in-poll-bound-odisha/articleshow/16557594.cms?from=mdr
Koeva, M., Bennett, R., Gerke, M., Crommelinck, S., Stöcker, C., Crompvoets, J., & Kundert, K. (2017). Towards innovative geospatial tools for fit-for-purpose land rights mapping. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences—ISPRS Archives, 42(2W7). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W7-37-2017
Leshinsky, R. (2012). Use of planning agreements to support sustainability and environmental preservation: A case study from Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 42, 157.
Leshinsky, R., & Schatz, L. (2018). “I don’t think my landlord will find out:” Airbnb and the challenges of enforcement. Urban Policy and Research, 36(4), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2018.1429260
MacCallum, D., Moulaert, F., Haddock, J. H., & Vicari, S. (2016). Introduction. In D. MacCallum, F. Moulaert, J. H. Haddock, & S. Vicari (Eds.), Social innovation and territorial development. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Memon, N., & Pandey, S. (2018). What the Odisha Land Rights Act can teach us. Live Mint. Retrieved February 8, 2019, from https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/ztenupgTJBSxIhrtElzYeL/Opinion%2D%2DWhat-the-Odisha-Land-Rights-Act-can-teach-us.html
Montgomery, T. (2016). Are social innovation paradigms incommensurable? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1979–2000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9688-1
Moulaert, F., & Ailenei, O. (2005). Social economy, third sector and solidarity relations: A conceptual synthesis from history to present. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2037–2053. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279794
Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Gonzalez, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social innovation and governance in European cities. Urban development between path-dependency and radical innovation. European Urban and Regional Studies 14(3), 195–209.
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., & Hillier, J. (2013). Social innovation: Intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research (pp. 13–24). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145
Muñoz, J. A., & Bourguignon, C. (2015, March 23–27). Fifty years of World Bank engagement on land tenure issues. In Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovaiotn. Retrieved from https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_open_book_of_social_innovation.pdf
Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2012). The nature of social innovation. In A. Nicholls & A. Murdock (Eds.), Social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets (pp. 1–30). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011
Putzel, L., Kelly, A. B., Cerutti, P. O., & Artati, Y. (2015). Formalization as development in land and natural resource policy. Society & Natural Resources, 28(5), 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1014608
Raman, Bhuvaneswari. 2015. The Politics of Property in Land: New Planning Instruments, Law and Popular Groups in Delhi. Journal of South Asian Development 10(3), 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973174115610186.
Richter, C., & Georgiadou, Y. (2016) Practices of legibility making in Indian cities: Property Mapping through Geographic Information Systems and slum listing in government schemes. Information Technology for Development, 22(1), 75–93.
Stöcker, C., Ho, S., Nkerabigwi, P., Schmidt, C., Koeva, M., Bennett, R., & Zevenbergen, J. (2019). Unmanned aerial system imagery, land data and user needs: A socio-technical assessment in Rwanda. Remote Sensing, 11(9), 1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11091035
Transparency International. (2013). Global Corruption Barometer 2013. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/report
UN-Habitat. (2006). Enabling shelter strategies: Review of experience from two decades of implementation. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.
Zevenbergen, J., De Vries, W., & Bennett, R. (Eds.). (2015). Advances in responsible land administration. CRC Press.
Web Sites
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leshinsky, R., Ho, S., Choudhury, P. (2020). Social Innovation as a Disruptor of Tenure: Recognising Land Rights of Slum Dwellers in Odisha, India. In: Lehavi, A., Levine-Schnur, R. (eds) Disruptive Technology, Legal Innovation, and the Future of Real Estate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52387-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52387-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52386-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52387-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)