# 4.3.4 **The** **_Machinga_ Problem**

58. In order to curb the problem of congestion of informal sector activities in towns and cities, the city authorities, especially in Dar es Salaam, Arusha, and Mwanza, regularly engage in “clean-up” operations to which the mobile traders or hawkers (the _Machingas_ ) are especially vulnerable. The loss of goods and potential earnings often proved costly, with adverse impact on HEs. It is therefore not surprising that harassment by LGAs and law enforcement officers was cited in the FGD study as the biggest problem of those who are engaged in hawking. When asked why they are chased by city authorities, hawkers acknowledged that they are doing business where the customers are. These are often areas close to business centers or markets in which existing zoning laws prohibit them from operating: “The authorities are harassing us and confiscating our assets. I have decided to open my business at night. I do business when the government is asleep. I earn a living for my family by doing this.” _Urban female participant, FGD, Kilimanjaro_ .

59. Forceful eviction from the more lucrative business areas in which traders make spot sales presents a compelling case for the failure of LGAs to support HEs. Even though the local authorities are simply enforcing the law, their operations have largely been counterproductive by increasing rather than reducing poverty. Such actions also serve to heighten the sense of insecurity and vulnerability among HEs. This was borne out by a report popularly known as the “ _Machinga Study,”_ which examined this particular issue (Lyons and Msoka, 2007).<sup>18</sup> Over 60 percent of the 622 operators interviewed for the study considered eviction as their most memorable experience relative to other forms of government interventions, such as taxes, fines, and other forms of harassment (Table 4.6).

**Table ‎4.6:  Relative Importance of Eviction as Traders' Most Memorable Experience, 2007**

||Eviction|Other intervention*|Other experience|Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|No direct experience|115 (49.6%)|45 (19.4%)|72 (31%)|232 (100%)|
|Direct experience|113 (81.3%)|18 (12.9%)|8 (5.8%)|139 (100%)|
|Total|228(61.5%)|63(17.0%)|80(21.6%)|371(100%)|

_Note: *include fines, confiscations, prosecution, and harassment. Source: Lyons and Msoka, 2007._ 60. The response of HE operators to the eviction plan has been mixed. While some abide by it, most make a temporary retreat, while others abandon their business altogether. On those who resist eviction, a disproportionate amount of force is deployed by LGA officials to drive them out, with adverse consequences. As noted by the _Machinga_ Study: “The impact of eviction and relocation policies has been profound and far-reaching, affecting vendors, their livelihoods, their dependents and anyone dependent on them for business.<sup>19</sup> The evictions have involved loss of physical capital such as kiosks, loss of operating capital through fines and stock confiscations, loss of customers through relocations, loss of supply

> 18 Other previous studies on the impact of eviction include Liviga and Mekacha (1998) and Sisya R.M (2005).

> 19 The report does not contain quantitative estimates of the losses or impact of eviction, but rather detailed narratives from the respondents.

30