Addis Ababa, the capital seat of Ethiopia and the diplomatic capital of Africa, is among the fastest urbanizing cities of the continent. The city’s rapid urbanization is marked by horizontal, spontaneous, and unregulated expansion. Although the city’s growth generates opportunities and dynamism, it lacks sufficient governance capacity, leading to informality, insecurity and conflict. Diverse types of informalities, including individual activities, housing, land, economic, religious, social, and informal political activities have been expanding, with limited city government to provide basic services and regulate such fragile conditions. Among the key urban informal actors are the informal labor migrant movement and activities and related opportunities and threats.
Addis Ababa is hosting a large and growing number of internal migrants, mainly labor migrants from different parts of the country. Driven by socio-economic pressures, such as conflicts, environmental pressures, and economic factors like unemployment in rural or other cities, an undocumented and unprecedented number of youths are moving to Addis Ababa. Due to volatile and unproductive conditions in rural or regional towns (push factors), some describe this as the urbanization of violence and conflict. This is usually exacerbated by weak urban governance systems in destination cities. This short article provides insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with urban labor migrants in the context of inclusive urban governance in the system of federalism.
Defining an internal migrant is a contested political issue in the country. The demographic data on this segment of the population in Ethiopian cities is not systematically documented and unrecognized. This is primarily due to a contested and politicized definition of an ‘internal migrant’ in the country. There is no definition of ‘migrant’ in Ethiopian law with regard to mobility across administrative boundaries, particularly interregional and rural to urban. Article 32 of the Ethiopian constitution grants freedom of movement. It clearly states that any person in the country has a right to move within the national territory, the right to choose his/her residence, as well as the freedom to leave the country at any time he/she wishes and also has the right to return to his original place. However, owing to the country’s federal administrative structure, many people define migrants as those coming from other regions and cities. Coupled with the historical state building, which was mainly characterized as forceful, centralized and polarized, identifying people based on their place of origin, notably regions, created a sense of native-settler categorization, followed by a reactionary interaction. This form of labeling usually emanates from the historical memory of the previous political and economic marginalization and inequality between groups. This entails a distinction between migrants, residents, and natives. In principle, there is an official regulation in the Ethiopian administrative procedure that says that to be a resident, a migrant should stay at least six months and show evidence of residential house ownership certificate or rental agreement while in practice, most migrants usually do not possess such status. According to this definition, the Ethiopian Statistical Services (ESS) assumed that Ethiopian urban migrants account for about 17 percent of the urban population until 2013. Addis Ababa has the largest proportion of migrants (42 percent) while the Somali region has the least (9 percent) but has a higher proportion of recent migrants (37 percent).
Although there is no statistical figures, labor migrants are visible in Addis Ababa. They are physically present in every corner of the city, shaping its urban character through their daily activities. They are predominant in informal sectors such as construction, domestic work, street vending, and service industries. They are visible through the networks they form in neighborhoods and communal spaces; many of them live in densely populated informal settlements where they utilize shared housing.
Labor migrants in Addis Ababa embody double-edged perceptions. On one hand, their presence is seen as an indispensable, a vital contribution to the city development and routine activities, creating vibrant micro socio-economic opportunities. Usually they engage in ‘lower’, ‘dirty’, or ‘difficult’ activities in which the members of the ‘native’ or ‘host communities’ do not participate. On the other hand, despite their large proportions, they are one of the most marginalized segments of society in the city. Some scholars describe them as ‘invisible and do not have an identity’, to denote that they are not recognized by the politics and administration. Sometimes, they are labeled as threats and consequently face various types of exclusionary practices. Such negative attitudes are not formed in a vacuum, rather they are shaped by a combination of the interplay of micro and macro processes such as personal, political, historical, economic, and cultural dynamics. In some cases, it emanates from the increasing crime cases committed by some labor migrants. Empirical evidence also showed that most informal economic operators are migrants, and there were incidents where they engaged in informal political mobilizations for or against government. Other negative perceptions are also related to a historical memory of the past political-economic injustice and marginalization while some reflect the fear that they might invade the ‘host’ community’s identity or resources such as land, religion, language, and job.
Then, who should govern? Although the constitution grants the right to movement, there are no institutional frameworks for the management of migrants. The existing initiatives exclusively focused on refugees, international migrants, and IDPs. Their management requires resources and structure. But resource (such as budget) allocation principles do not consider such forceful or voluntary movement, as they are often considered by the city administration as an additional burden, rather than a recognized duty to manage. There is no structure officially mandated with their management in the country and the city governments.
Due to lack of governance structures, labor migrants in the city fall outside the city’s administrative purview and face multiple challenges. They constitute the most socially vulnerable and marginalized group. They hardly access social services such as residential I.Ds, education, housing, health, and protection. Due to such an administrative gap and the existence of negative perception, such segments of the population are increasingly securitized, and unable to claim their rights. Hence, to contribute towards an inclusive and peaceful urban governance, there is a need to clarify a legal and institutional framework to regularize informal internal migration and their activities.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this Insight reflect the perspectives of the contributor and do not necessarily represent the official position of Institute for Peace and Security Studies.
 |
Contributors Asebe Amenu (PhD) Researcher |