Difference between revisions of "Chabolismo (Spain)"

| nameofpractice = Chabolismo

| nameofpractice = Chabolismo

| flagemoji = 🇪🇸

| flagemoji = 🇪🇸

| location = Spain

| location = Spain

| imagemap = Spain map.png

| imagemap = Spain map.png

During the Franco regime (1939-1975), the way of life of the ''chabola'' dwellers was often denoted as a social and cultural pathology (Vorms 2017), reprising the ‘scientific racism’ representations about pre-Spanish Civil War shantytowns (Manzano Gómez 2021).

During the Franco regime (1939-1975), the way of life of the ''chabola'' dwellers was often denoted as a social and cultural pathology (Vorms 2017), reprising the ‘scientific racism’ representations about pre-Spanish Civil War shantytowns (Manzano Gómez 2021).

In 1945, approximately 150 thousand people were living in ''chabolas'' on the outskirts of Madrid (Comisaría de Urbanismo 1945). In the 1950s, public policies such as the Plan de Urgencia Social (‘Social Emergency Plan’) and the Plan de Absorción del Chabolismo (‘Chabolismo Absorption Plan’) aimed to relocate the slum inhabitants and make space for the development of legally approved urban planning (Sambricio 1999; Tamayo Palacios 2011; Vorms 2013, 2017). However, the continual arrival of new populations and the development of new ''chabola'' neighbourhoods kept the number of ''chabola'' units stable at about 32 thousand well into 1970s (Archivo Regional de Madrid. File 251208/5, 1960, Ministerio de la Vivienda, 1977). To protect themselves from slum clearings and private urban planning management (Kreibich 2000; Manzano Gómez and Castrillo Romón 2019), residents formed neighbourhood associations (Castells 1974; Villasante et al. 1989; Schierstaedt 2016; Ofer 2017). The movements to defend the rights of ''chabola'' dwellers took hold in most of the country's large and medium cities.

In 1945, approximately 150 thousand people were living in ''chabolas'' on the outskirts of Madrid (Comisaría de Urbanismo 1945). In the 1950s, public policies such as the Plan de Urgencia Social (‘Social Emergency Plan’) and the Plan de Absorción del Chabolismo (‘Chabolismo Absorption Plan’) aimed to relocate the slum inhabitants and make space for the development of legally approved urban planning (Sambricio 1999; Tamayo Palacios 2011; Vorms 2013, 2017). However, the continual arrival of new populations and the development of new ''chabola'' neighbourhoods kept the number of ''chabola'' units stable at about 32 thousand well into 1970s (Archivo Regional de Madrid. File 251208/5, 1960, Ministerio de la Vivienda, 1977). To protect themselves from slum clearings and private urban planning management (Kreibich 2000; Manzano Gómez and Castrillo Romón 2019), residents formed neighbourhood associations (Castells 1974; Villasante et al. 1989; Schierstaedt 2016; Ofer 2017). The movements to defend the rights of ''chabola'' dwellers took hold in most of the country's large and medium cities.

In the ‘transition’ to democracy period after the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, the fight for housing rights and neighbourhood improvements resulted in the Plan de Barrios (‘Neighbourhood Plan’), carried out in Spanish main cities, but especially relevant in Madrid (Ministerio de la Vivienda 1977). In the late 1970s and the 1980s, the authorities built 38 thousand housing units in Madrid alone and rehoused about 150 thousand people from deprived neighbourhoods and shantytowns (Aguilera 2021) by constructing subsidized private housing in accordance with the guidelines by the neighbourhood associations (Kreibich 2000). However, the socio-economic criteria for allocating new housing systematically excluded the Roma population, which generally had lower incomes (Nogués Sáez 2010). The demolition of chabolas and the failure to rehouse the Roma population led to the growth of new shantytown areas, constructed more precariously than previously due to the risk of new demolitions (Aguilera 2021).  

In the ‘transition’ to democracy period after the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, the fight for housing rights and neighbourhood improvements resulted in the Plan de Barrios (‘Neighbourhood Plan’), carried out in Spanish main cities, but especially relevant in Madrid (Ministerio de la Vivienda 1977). In the late 1970s and the 1980s, the authorities built 38 thousand housing units in Madrid alone and rehoused about 150 thousand people from deprived neighbourhoods and shantytowns (Aguilera 2021) by constructing subsidized private housing in accordance with the guidelines by the neighbourhood associations (Kreibich 2000). However, the socio-economic criteria for allocating new housing systematically excluded the Roma population, which generally had lower incomes (Nogués Sáez 2010). The demolition of chabolas and the failure to rehouse the Roma population led to the growth of new shantytown areas, constructed more precariously than previously due to the risk of new demolitions (Aguilera 2021).  

The public notions linking shantytowns to social marginality were exacerbated by the association of these spaces with a growing drug problem, which lead to racist revolts against the ''chabola'' dwellers (Nogués Sáez 2010). In an effort to control shantytowns, the government developed racialized policies, still in place today, directed not directly at the poorbut at the ‘culturally different’ (Aguilera 2021). Under these policies, the chabolas inhabited by the Roma were eradicated and the dwellers relocated to prefabricated houses in areas called Barrios de Tipologia Especial (Special Typology Neighbourhoods), far from urban centres. Under the auspices of rehousing dwellers ‘without traumatic shocks’ and ‘avoiding conflicts’ with the rest of society, these operations freed up land for legal urban development and strengthened the marginalization of these areas and their population even further (Lago Ávila 2014). However, new chabola neighbourhoods continued to emerge – in 1988 there were still  more than a thousand of them around Madrid (Aguilera 2021). The demolitions continued in the 1990s and 2000s when the displaced population was relocated to Cañada Real Galeana, a shantytown persisting outside the city since the 1960s and reaching 11 thousand inhabitants in 2012. Despite decades of government effort to eradicate them, chabola neighbourhoods continue to exist in Spain. They have been recently studied in the regions of Galicia (Iglesias 2021) and Andalusia (Torres Gutiérrez 2011), but there is no current country-wide analysis . Recent research revealed the existence of new shantytowns built near larger farms, housing agricultural workers (Cáritas 2020).  

The public notions linking shantytowns to social marginality were exacerbated by the association of these spaces with a growing drug problem, which lead to racist revolts against the ''chabola'' dwellers (Nogués Sáez 2010). In an effort to control shantytowns, the government developed racialized policies, still in place today, directed not directly at the poorbut at the ‘culturally different’ (Aguilera 2021). Under these policies, the chabolas inhabited by the Roma were eradicated and the dwellers relocated to prefabricated houses in areas called Barrios de Tipologia Especial (Special Typology Neighbourhoods), far from urban centres. Under the auspices of rehousing dwellers ‘without traumatic shocks’ and ‘avoiding conflicts’ with the rest of society, these operations freed up land for legal urban development and strengthened the marginalization of these areas and their population even further (Lago Ávila 2014). However, new chabola neighbourhoods continued to emerge – in 1988 there were still  more than a thousand of them around Madrid (Aguilera 2021). The demolitions continued in the 1990s and 2000s when the displaced population was relocated to Cañada Real Galeana, a shantytown persisting outside the city since the 1960s and reaching 11 thousand inhabitants in 2012. Despite decades of government effort to eradicate them, chabola neighbourhoods continue to exist in Spain. They have been recently studied in the regions of Galicia (Iglesias 2021) and Andalusia (Torres Gutiérrez 2011), but there is no current country-wide analysis . Recent research revealed the existence of new shantytowns built near larger farms, housing agricultural workers (Cáritas 2020).