Dhaka: Congestion, Inequality and the Struggle for Survival in a Mega City

 

Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, is not only one of the most densely populated cities in the world but also a striking example of how urbanization in the Global South creates a distinct laboratory of social dynamics. To observe Dhaka is to witness sociology unfolding in real time, where theories of mega-city transformation, inequality, and survival strategies are not abstract notions but lived realities etched into the streets, slums, and skyscrapers of the metropolis. The story of Dhaka is thus not simply about urban expansion but about how human beings negotiate life, power, and survival within the contradictions of rapid modernization.

Mega-cities across the world have often been defined by their capacity to draw millions of people into a shared urban space, creating concentrated hubs of opportunity, poverty, and innovation. Dhaka embodies these traits to an extreme. With a population exceeding twenty million in its metropolitan area, the city has transformed from a small Mughal provincial town into a sprawling global megacity within a few decades. This extraordinary demographic shift has created not only severe congestion and infrastructural strain but also heightened social inequality, fragile governance, and an ongoing battle for survival among its inhabitants. Sociology of mega-cities provides a critical lens through which to analyze this transformation, particularly by drawing on theories of urbanism, stratification, and informal economies.

Congestion in Dhaka is more than a matter of traffic jams or crowded marketplaces; it is a structural condition that reflects how the city functions. Georg Simmel, in his classic analysis of urban life, emphasized how the overstimulation of the senses in crowded environments shapes individual psychology. Dhaka magnifies this condition as the sheer density of its population compresses space and time to an unbearable degree. Hours are wasted in traffic that hardly moves, and this immobility becomes symbolic of larger systemic inefficiencies. The congestion is not accidental but rooted in unequal urban planning, where infrastructural development consistently lags behind population growth. Roads designed for a city of five million are now forced to accommodate four times that number, while mass transit options remain woefully inadequate. Congestion in Dhaka thus becomes both a spatial and temporal inequality, disproportionately punishing the working poor who must spend hours commuting to workplaces that barely provide subsistence wages.

The sociology of inequality is perhaps most vividly observed in Dhaka’s urban geography. The city is divided into zones of wealth and poverty that exist side by side but remain worlds apart. Luxury apartments in Gulshan, Banani, or Bashundhara stand in stark contrast to the densely packed slums of Korail or Kamrangirchar, where families survive in tin-shed rooms without secure access to water or sanitation. These inequalities are not merely economic but profoundly social, creating hierarchies of belonging and exclusion. Saskia Sassen’s notion of the “global city” is useful here, as Dhaka aspires to become a regional hub for finance, business, and development agencies. Yet unlike New York, London, or Singapore, Dhaka’s global aspirations coexist with extreme poverty, producing a fragmented city where the benefits of globalization are concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the majority struggle in precarious conditions.

This inequality is also evident in access to essential services, including healthcare, education, and housing. Private hospitals and English-medium schools cater to the affluent, while government hospitals overflow with patients and public schools remain underfunded. The commodification of housing pushes the poor further into informal settlements, creating a parallel city of the marginalized. The informal sector becomes not just a survival strategy but the very backbone of the city’s functioning, as rickshaw pullers, street vendors, and garment workers provide essential services yet remain outside the protections of formal labor markets. This bifurcated city echoes Manuel Castells’ theory of the “dual city,” where global capital coexists with local deprivation, producing deep structural inequalities that cannot be ignored.

Survival in Dhaka is a sociological phenomenon of resilience. Migration is at the heart of this process, as thousands of rural migrants arrive in the city each day, driven by the erosion of agrarian livelihoods, river erosion, and climate-induced displacement. For many, Dhaka is both a promise and a trap. Migrants enter the lowest rung of the urban labor market, often through kinship networks that provide temporary shelter and access to informal work. Women in particular navigate this survival economy through employment in the garment sector, which has transformed Dhaka into one of the leading hubs of global apparel production. While these jobs provide a means of survival, they also expose workers to exploitation, unsafe conditions, and the constant threat of unemployment.

In sociological terms, the city itself becomes a laboratory of adaptation, where social networks, kinship ties, and community organizations fill the gaps left by the state. Slum communities organize around shared resources, creating informal governance systems to manage water, sanitation, and even dispute resolution. These practices reflect what urban anthropologists call “informal urbanism,” a mode of survival that both resists and depends on formal structures of power. Yet survival is also marked by vulnerability. Fires in slums, building collapses in unregulated areas, and frequent flooding remind the poor of their fragile existence. Dhaka, built on a floodplain, faces acute environmental risks, and climate change intensifies the pressures on those least able to adapt.

The sociology of mega-cities also emphasizes how urban space becomes a site of power contestation. Dhaka is no exception. The city embodies what Henri Lefebvre described as the “right to the city,” a demand not just for housing or services but for full participation in urban life. Yet in Dhaka, this right is consistently denied to the marginalized, as urban policies prioritize elite consumption and corporate interests over the needs of the majority. Evictions of slum dwellers, often justified in the name of “beautification” or development, illustrate the exclusionary logic of urban governance. The city’s expansion is thus not neutral but politically charged, reflecting the dominance of real estate developers, political elites, and bureaucratic institutions.

Dhaka’s congestion and inequality are also deeply gendered. Women face unique challenges in navigating the city, from harassment in public spaces to the double burden of wage labor and domestic work. The garment industry, while offering women new opportunities, also subjects them to patriarchal exploitation in factories where labor rights are routinely violated. Public transport is unsafe and inadequate for women, limiting their mobility and reinforcing gender inequality. The survival strategies of women in Dhaka highlight both resilience and systemic oppression, reminding us that urban sociology must always account for gendered experiences of space and power.

At the same time, Dhaka demonstrates the creativity and vibrancy that make megacities fascinating social laboratories. Informal economies are not merely survival mechanisms but sites of innovation, where new forms of entrepreneurship and cultural expression emerge. Street vendors transform sidewalks into marketplaces, young people create digital startups in cramped apartments, and artists turn the chaos of the city into powerful cultural productions. Dhaka’s residents display remarkable agency, reconfiguring the city in ways that challenge the narrative of dysfunction. This aligns with Arjun Appadurai’s idea of the “capacity to aspire,” where even the poorest exercise imagination and hope to shape their urban futures.

The contradictions of Dhaka also reveal the global dimensions of megacity sociology. The city’s garment industry is tied to global supply chains, its migrant labor force sustains economies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and its elites consume transnational lifestyles that align them with cosmopolitan networks. Dhaka is thus not an isolated urban space but a node in global capitalism, shaped by forces far beyond its borders. Yet these global connections often deepen local inequalities, as the benefits of transnational capital flow to the few while the risks are borne by the many.

The future of Dhaka as a megacity is precarious. If it is indeed a social laboratory, then the experiments conducted within it are high-stakes ones that affect millions of lives. Congestion may worsen unless massive investments are made in sustainable public transport and urban planning. Inequality will persist unless policies prioritize affordable housing, inclusive governance, and equitable access to services. Survival strategies, while resilient, cannot substitute for systemic reforms that protect the most vulnerable. The sociology of Dhaka suggests that without transformative interventions, the city risks becoming not a model of urban dynamism but a cautionary tale of unplanned growth and deepening social divides.

However, Dhaka is also a city of possibilities. Its young population, vibrant informal economy, and cultural dynamism hold the potential to reshape the city in more equitable and sustainable ways. If the right to the city can be reimagined not as a privilege of the elite but as a collective entitlement, then Dhaka could demonstrate how megacities in the Global South can navigate the tensions of modernization without abandoning social justice.

The task is immense, but so too is the sociological significance of the city. To study Dhaka is to engage with some of the most pressing questions of our time: how humanity survives, adapts, and seeks dignity in the face of overwhelming urban pressures.

Dhaka thus stands as a living social laboratory where congestion, inequality, and survival intersect to produce a unique urban experience. It challenges conventional theories of urbanization while confirming the insights of sociology about the relationship between space, power, and society. It is a city that cannot be understood solely through statistics, but rather requires a deep engagement with the lived realities of its people. The sociology of mega-cities finds in Dhaka not just a case study but a vital reminder that cities are not only built of concrete and roads but of human struggle, resilience, and aspiration.

 
Dr. Matiur Rahman is a
researcher and a development
professional.