The data gathered in the interviews with formal and informal recyclers reveals that the livelihoods of sample and control group members show differences as well as commonalities. According to the statements by formalized recyclers, they perceive several positive changes and an increase in well-being, stemming from being a formal part of the SWM system. The detailed description of how the changes of livelihood assets affect formalized recyclers’ well-being in the three categories of Health
55 See Figure 4 for a visualization of the framework and the entry points for individual well-being analysis. Instead of starting off with livelihood assets, one could also look at the repercussions caused by distinct livelihood strategies without limiting the focus to any specific asset, for example.
1. What is the impact of the formalization program on the well-being of recyclers in Barranco?
1.3. What functionings are fostered and which capabilities can be derived from them?
1.4. Which role do health measures in combination with income play for livelihood strategies and well-being of recyclers?
Measures, Income and Other shall reveal to what extent, formal recyclers’ perception corresponds to the results drawn from comparison of their statements with the ones of their informal colleagues.
Health Measures. First of all, it should be noted that formalization has changed recyclers’
livelihoods in such a way that most of the interviewed formal recyclers count with health insurance.
There is no restriction for informal recyclers to insure themselves, yet formal recyclers who participated in the interviews count with insurance more frequently than their informal colleagues.
Therefore, it stands to reason that information about insurance granted as part of the formalization program designed by CS encourages recyclers to get inscribed in SIS and consequently enhances their opportunity space in such a way that they are able to receive medical attention without compromising their livelihoods.
Second of all, most formal recyclers in Barranco claim to be vaccinated against Tetanus and Hepatitis B in contrast to informal recyclers who did not mention vaccines at all. This aspect, hence, also represents an increase in well-being of formalized recyclers, since they count with various functionings and capabilities deducible from being protected against the aforementioned illnesses, like being able to work without fear of an infection and being able to work as an official recycler of the municipality.
Third, formalization causes recyclers to utilize private medical attention more frequently than before, according to their own statements, which could create a new positive feedback loop in their livelihood, induced by an improved health status, thus an increase in human capital, that could broaden the variety of possibilities they are able to choose from.
Income. Recyclers also experienced an unambiguous change regarding the asset of income due to formalization. Not only did they describe an increase of income per se, being a formal member of Barranco’s SWM system presented them with several aspects affecting their livelihoods which can be connected to this increase, too. One the one hand, formal recyclers point out different options of investment that became available to them after participating in the program, like being able to invest in their housing situation and their living standard in general. Owning a TV set and paying for maintenance costs at home are two examples for realized functionings in this context, enabled by formalization. Moreover, formalization influences recyclers’ well-being by providing them with the capability of being able to support their family with an increased income. Some individuals stated
that they consider themselves better off in comparison to when they were working informally because they are now able to contribute to securing the livelihoods not only of themselves but also of those, they consider family. Others specifically referred to the newly created functioning of financially supporting their children or grandchildren and providing them with valuable possibilities for their future. The functionings of investing in one’s housing situation and supporting one’s family and (grand-)children were also mentioned by the control group which makes it questionable whether they are actually a consequence of formalization. But when taking a closer look at the answers of informal recyclers, one may find that their statements refer to their investment of income in housing projects and supporting their family when there is money to spare, which indicates that having money to spare is not a permanent functioning for them. Also, supporting one’s (grand-)children was scarcely mentioned as a functioning by informal recyclers but rather as a hypothetical capability, a possibility that would present itself to them in case of an increase in income. Therefore, it can be said that being able to support one’s family and more specifically invest in the future of one’s (grand-)children is a capability resulting from formalization and in that way affecting the livelihoods and well-being of formal recyclers.
Other. Formalized recyclers described an impressive variety of functionings realized as a consequence of their participation in the program, which could not be lead back to neither the asset of income, nor the asset of health measures. For instance, sample group participants explained that the changes in their working environment like receiving recyclables already in a sorted state and collecting material from households directly, instead of searching in the streets, combine into more enjoyable working conditions. When asked about changes in their daily routines during the time span, during which other recyclers were participating in the formalization program of the municipality, informal recyclers claimed that their daily routines did not change during that time. Thus, seemingly, the change of formal recyclers’ working conditions can be considered as a newly acquired positive effect on their livelihoods. Additionally, sample group respondents described several aspects related to macro frame conditions of their working environment which constitute a perceived change in this area after getting formalized. Being supported by the municipality and the mayor is one of these aspects which was not expressed by informal recyclers during control group interviews. Hence, support from other members of the SWM system can be seen as another influence on formal recyclers’ livelihoods, widening their opportunity space. In addition, a crucial difference between formal and informal recycling that causes a positive influence
on formal recyclers’ lives becomes evident when looking at recyclers’ relationships with the public security force Serenazgo. Formal recyclers repeatedly named being spared from persecution by officials as a difference in their livelihoods compared to the time when they were working informally. They furthermore explained that the structures introduced to their lives by formalization, like a fixed collection schedule and a fixed collection route as well as wearing a uniform, provided them with a safer and calmer work environment. In contrast to that, informal recyclers did not mention persecution explicitly, but the fact that all of the interviewees chose late evening or even night hours to search for valuable material suggests that avoiding being fined for their illegal activity is part of their livelihood strategy. Also, several control group members named working in a safer, more stable environment as an advantage, they would expect from formalization. Accordingly, the calm and safe work
environment, referred to by formal recyclers can also be classified as a result originating in the influence of formalization on their livelihoods, augmenting their individual well-being.
Another aspect that needs to be addressed when discussing the impact of formalization of recyclers’ livelihoods is personal development, since it was mentioned during sample group interviews as an area that changed when adopting the livelihood strategy of formalization. Formalized recyclers described acquiring knowledge about certain aspects of SWM, like its important contribution to solving environmental issues, but also information about safe and efficient waste collection, as valuable addition to their working routines. This facet of well-being augmentation was not referred to by control group members and hence is not viable when limiting oneself to the condition that sample group statements can only be used as
sound results when there is a control group statement which it can be compared to. But control group interviewees did not know about the details of the formalization program, their colleagues took part in, while formal recyclers experienced and described a positive change of their livelihoods thanks to the increase of know-how, ergo an addition to their human capital assets. Under these circumstances, the individual experience of a formalized recycler should suffice as the basis upon
Figure 17: Official Uniform of Formalized Recyclers in the District of Barranco.
Source: Photo Taken by the Author.
which gaining knowledge about SWM can be classified as yet another aspect of the positive impact, formalization exerts on recyclers’ livelihoods.
Moreover, the topic of social recognition represents an area of change in formalized recyclers’
livelihoods. Even if the concept of social recognition is a complex one and could not be addressed very thoroughly within the scope of this thesis, various remarks by sample group respondents dealt with manifestations of changes with regard to this subject. Building up trusting relationships with the neighbors, formal recyclers collect material from, for instance, was named repeatedly as a functioning by sample group members as well as by control group members as a hypothetical capability resulting from formalization. It can thus be concluded that recyclers value this improvement of relationship quality, because it broadens their opportunity space in several ways and affects their livelihoods. One sample group interview question was designed to retrieve information about a change of reputation in formal recyclers’ social contexts. Answers to this question clearly show that sample group respondents experienced a positive change in the reaction of neighbors and friends with respect to their profession. Again, control group members did not refer to this topic at all but were not asked explicitly about it in opposition to sample group members. Formal recyclers’ experience is therefore, once again, considered to be a sufficient source of information to claim that livelihoods of recyclers count with a positive effect caused by formalization, showing in their improved reputation with friends and neighbors. This improvement may also be seen as an augmentation of their individual well-being.
Hypothetical Capabilities. Last but not least, the hypothetical capabilities pointed out by formal and informal recyclers when asked what their reaction to a hypothetical increase of income and an improved insurance status or more money to spend on health measures would be, need to be discussed. Notably, formal and informal recyclers in Barranco seem to have some things in common regarding their ideas of converting additional capital assets. Like that, formal and informal recyclers alike stated that they would use increased income for housing improvement. Arguably, the characteristics of the respective improvement projects of their houses differ in such a way that informal recyclers’ plans could be realized with a smaller amount of additional income than those described by formalized recyclers. Yet, both interview groups share the notion of choosing to invest in their housing in case of an increased income. Also, the capability of being able to foster the livelihoods of children and grandchildren was listed by interviewees of both groups and being able to pay for medical costs was part of the hypothetical livelihood strategy of interviewees from both
groups, too. Nevertheless, differences between control and sample group could also be detected when analyzing the answers to the questions dealing with hypothetical capabilities. Several informal recyclers, for instance, stated that they expect to be able to work in a more stable environment if they participated in the formalization program of the municipality. Due to the fact that formalized recyclers did not only possess this capability but had actually converted it into a functioning, described in sample group interviews, capability creation concerning stability and safety of the work environment appears to bear a lot of potential when aiming at improving recyclers’ individual well-being. On the other hand, sample group interviewees showed a tendency to convert an increase of the asset of health measures into the capability of being able to receive private medical attention. Some control group respondents also indicated this conversion plan, but their answers were a lot more diverse than those of the sample group. Therefore, it could be inferred that formalized recyclers shift their priorities in the course of becoming a formal member of the SWM system. So, while creating the capability of being able to receive private medical attention is valued by formalized recyclers as it widens their opportunity spaces and increases their well-being, this capability is not considered as important by informal recyclers.
To sum up, interviews carried out as part of the case study could show a positive impact of formalization on recyclers’ well-being in Barranco. Comparison between informal and formal recyclers also provides the impression that plans for hypothetical investments are in some areas the same for both groups. The commonalities between the two groups could be the result of unchanging macro-conditions, so that their livelihoods are not severely affected by formalization on a macro level. Regarding the livelihood assets of income, health measures and several other assets concerned with recyclers’ role in the SWM system, ergo mostly social capital assets, a change of livelihood quality could be observed. Formalized recyclers described numerous functionings and capabilities, they acquired as a consequence of getting formalized, which is why formalization can be considered a valid livelihood strategy for recyclers in Barranco who strive to improve their individual well-being.