AbstractThis global historical survey considers how governments have dealt with slums. The term “slum” is used broadly, to denote low-income and often stigmatized areas that contain substandard or illegal housing, overcrowding, insecure tenure, and unhealthy living conditions, while lacking basic services. Faced with such conditions, a government has three options: It can ignore them, hoping the problem will go away of its own accord. It can flatten them, hoping they will not reappear elsewhere. Or it can work to make them better. Which option is chosen depends in large part on governmental resources, but also the balance of local power. Over the past century, clearance has been discredited and has declined, but is still employed. Improvement (upgrading) has become relatively more common. The reasons are complex but include the growth of the state, the diffusion of democracy, and the rise in urban homeownership.
