"Disembedding" the city: crime, insecurity and spatial organization in Managua, Nicaragua.

Submitted by Nicabuff on 19 March, 2008 - 08:38.

"Disembedding" the city: crime, insecurity and spatial organization in Managua, Nicaragua. Dennis Rodgers. Crisis States Programme and Development Studies Institute of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Link to document in PDF format

What does everyone think about this paper?

( categories: )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

good read . . . a little too "black and white" for me

I'm more into the shades of grey :) Thanks for bringing this to the forum Nicabuff.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of the observations and conclusions, but the premise is interesting. The difference between the extreme poor and the rich is huge and growing, no doubt.

I know Managua gets bashed quite a bit on NicaLiving and for the most part, for good reason. It's dirty, hot, crowded, and can be dangerous. Having lived there for almost a year and having property up in the hills but still in the city limits, Managua is a unique place.

When I lived full-time in Nicaragua, I grew to appreciate the very amenities that this paper discusses. To me, I like to go out to a restaurant and a movie every once in a while. And if there is anything you need, you can get it in Managua.

For those that haven't read the 13 pages, the author seems to be saying that Managua is a little different than other developing world cities in the form by which it walls off the rich from the poor. The conclusion is that since the '72 earthquake, the elites have sort of set up "islands" of places they would like to go to do business, be entertained, shop, etc. Further, that these zones are interconnected by roads and rotundas that make it difficult for the downtrodden to traverse these places.

While I can see that the "new Managua" infrastructure is an important element of the urban landscape, the general tone of the article is that it is a bad thing that the better-off individuals do not want to get carjacked and in general avoid getting robbed, murdered, raped, etc.

I do not agree that building rotundas instead of traffic lights is somehow causing the poor a set of big problems. The article mentions one barrio that I'm not familiar with, but it sounds like a real hellhole. The lady quoted who lives there blames rotundas for people getting run over. From what I've seen, there are usually pedestrian bridges over the major roads, but few actually bother to climb the stairs to cross safely. No wonder people get killed trying to cross the road.

The other quotes from people in that barrio make it seem that one cannot step out of their door without a problem of some sort. Maybe I haven't been in the worst of neighborhoods, but my mother-in-law lives in Villa Libertad, which is a poor barrio, and she hasn't had any problems other than neighbors jumping into her patio and taking some old metal. That's being solved by building a good wall . . . I guess the answers are not that unique.

I used to live in Bello Horizonte, which to me is a very middle class neighborhood. No problems with pandilleros or crime. Lucky I guess.

Our farm is off of Carretera a Masaya, about ten minutes from the Galerias Santa Domingo (i.e. the ritzy zone), so we go from a poor rural type comarca to the rich shopping and dining and we note the difference every time we travel between the two. I personally love that they have improved the Carretera a Masaya with a couple of new rotundas and the new bypass at Rotunda Centroamerica. If I can cross town without going into a dangerous section, that's a good thing IMO.

Doors of hope fly open when doors of promise shut. -Thomas D'Arcy McGee