Revisiting the Self-Help Housing debate: Perception of Self-Help Housing by the beneficiaries of South African low-cost housing

3.4. The international experience of SHH

The international experience of SHH, especially the assisted or the aided form, reveals that this policy was adopted to tackle the economic crisis and the severe housing shortage, especially after the first and the second World War (Harris, 1999; Dingle, 1999; Henderson, 1999; Wakeman, 1999, etc). In this sense, Aided SHH confirms that this policy explains the inability of government to provide adequate shelter for all citizens. In addition, it supports the neo-liberalist policy which recommends that the government should reduce social expenditure in order to promote economic growth. As Omenya asserts «the World Bank promotes self-help housing for the sake of economic efficiency. Its concept of enablement revolves around making the housing markets function efficiently» (Omenya, 2002: 3).

In analyzing the experience of SHH in Germany, Henderson (1999) affirms that:

From the late 19th century until well after the Second World War, Germany suffered from a persistent and politically dangerous housing shortage (Bullock & Read, 1985; Miller-Lane, 1985). Efforts to assuage the housing problem produced major initiatives throughout the period and culminated in the achievements of the Weimar Republic, a period renowned in the field of housing design and settlement planning. Among the many experimental programmes launched to cope with the housing shortage, the self-build approach, advocating that settlers build their own housing, was a last resort supported only in times of dire economic crisis. Two such crises bounded the Weimar Republic, the hyperinflation years from 1919 through to 1924, and the onset of the world depression in 1930. Faced with the virtual collapse of its housing effort, the State enacted emergency aided self-build programmes in both instances (Henderson, 1999: 311).

Like Germany, other European countries such as France also suffered from the housing crisis that resulted from the Second World War. As Wakeman (1999: 355) observes, in France:

«Over three-quarters of the country was struck by the war. Cities and towns were in ruins. Over 2 million buildings, a quarter of the housing stock, was destroyed or damaged (Croize, 1991, pp. 253-257). A million families were left homeless. Millions of others lived in temporary shelters and run-down apartments without access to basic services. This tragic situation made the housing crisis--that is finding a place of live--one of the most serious and explosive post-war domestic issues in France, as it was all over Europe. One way the crisis was addressed was for men and women to build their own homes...»

The second element that the international experience of SHH illustrates is that it has significantly contributed to increasing housing stock of countries which were severely facing a housing shortage^26(*). However, the augmentation of housing stock is not necessarily linked with the quality of houses, which directly depends on the budget allocated for the project, the technical assistance that builders receive from the designers and also from construction skills of the builders^27(*). Examples of Cuba and Canada provide two successful case studies of Aided SHH which may be found in the literature on Aided SHH in terms of number of houses built and the quality of houses produced.

The following section will analyze the Aided SHH in Cuba and in Canada. From this analysis it may be possible to draw the criteria for successful Aided SHH and the framework for analysing the failure of the implementation of SHH in Tembisa, the location of my case study.

3.4.1 Analysis of Aided SHH in Cuba

Mathey (1992) describes SHH in Cuba as a model of housing provision which may be presented as alternative to other systems of housing provision applied in the Caribbean region. Before the revolution brought by Fidel Castro^28(*), the author observes the existence of poor housing conditions in Cuba, characterized by a significant number of squatter settlements. After the revolution, the government first adopted the socialist plan which consisted of providing housing according to needs of the beneficiaries, and later the government opted for SHH.

The interesting case of SHH is what the author names «the microbrigrade movement» which is «a mixture between Self-help and State-provided housing» (Mathey, 1997: 170). The objective of the microbrigade, initiated by Castro in 1970, was to give the workers the opportunity to build houses for themselves and for their colleagues. Despite some critiques, such as the exclusion from the project of the unqualified (such as people without employment, pensioners, and single mothers, etc,) and the lack of quality of the product and productivity due to the lack of skilled labour force, the microbrigade system offered the opportunity for the population, especially workers, to have an adequate housing with adequate facilities. Besides, after the first experience of microbrigade in 1970, some years later, (in 1986), the project was revitalized and improved through avoiding the «selective distribution of microbrigade flats» (Mathey, 1992: 188). Indeed, as Mathey (1992) observes, the new microbrigade which is also a social microbrigade did not build or renovate housing for the benefit of their own work centre but also for other inhabitants who were in serious housing need. This explains the term «social microbrigade». The question which should be asked is: what made SHH in Cuba successful. Mathey answers in saying that:

«The social microbrigades have several functions at a time: apart from addressing the housing problem and maintaining the urban fabric, they also provide jobs for the increasing number of mostly young unemployed. A guaranteed income, improved housing opportunities, and the social control of the neighbourhood are incentives to accept the inconveniences of hard physical work and regular working hours. As a supplementary benefit it has also been pointed out that the residents may take greater care of the houses they live in, and that they will be better equipped to carry out future maintenance jobs by themselves once they have participated in renovating or rebuilding a house» (Mathey, 1992: 194).

In sum, apart from the reasons advanced above by Mathey which witness the success of SHH in Cuba, it may also be noted the easy involvement in the project of the beneficiaries (in Cuban case, the brigadistas) and the support of the government presented by the president Fidel Castro ^29(*) . Is the Canadian SHH practice different from the Cuban experience? What make the Canadian SHH a successful case? The following section will analyze the case of Canada.

* ²⁶ In Cuba for example, «by the year 1978, more than 1100 teams has been formed by some 30,000 brigadistas, and had completed 82,000 dwellings» (See Mathey, 1992: 186). In Canada, the number of houses built over thirty years under the SHH programme exceeded 30 000. This was almost double the number built under the Stockholm plan between 1927 and 1990 (see Shulist et al, 2002, 346)

* ²⁷ This is applicable only for the second and the third form of SHH where the beneficiaries are at the same time the builders. Thus, it does not apply for the fourth form of SHH which describes the situation where the individual is engaged in the solution of his housing need without necessarily being the builder of his/her house.

* ²⁸ Fidel Castro is the current President of Cuba since January 1959, who introduced SHH in Cuba in 1970s.

* ²⁹ In 1970 for example, as Mathey observes, it was more than 1100 teams formed by some 30,000 brigadistas (the members of a micro-brigade). In addition, by November 1988 the number of brigadistas has risen to 38,000. This number of participants may witness the interest of the beneficiaries for the project. Regarding the government support, Castro was the initiator of the project in 1970 and it is also he who introduced the revitalizing project which extends the distribution of housing to those who were in serious housing need; hence the use of the term social microbrigade.