1.0 Chap I: Introduction
-Presentation of the topic and its context
1.1: Presentation of the topic
Self-Help Housing (SHH), or «Self-build», is
generally regarded as the alternative to conventional public housing, and is
considered as «the non-conventional housing policies» (Ramirez et al,
1992: 101). It is acknowledged that such a policy is the expression of the
inability of the government to provide adequate housing to all its citizens.
For Marcuse, «Self-help emerges as government policy where redistribution
and social equity are low priorities» (Marcuse, 1992: 21). It may be
argued that if housing is a need (Fordham et al, 1998) that must be met, in the
incapacity of the government, especially in developing countries, to provide
housing to all its citizens1(*) ( Eugen, 2001), poor people do not have any other
alternative than to satisfy their housing need alone. Indeed, as Schutz
observes, «hundreds of thousands of families in the Third World are
building shelter for themselves with their own hands» (Schutz, 1992:
235).
It appears that SHH is a tool or a strategy that poor people,
especially in developing countries, utilize for solving their housing need. In
other words, rich people throughout the World do not face the same difficulty
as poor people to solve their housing need. In fact, «rich people in any
society can afford choices in space provision, material and finishes, levels of
services and utilities, and all the other components of housing» (Tipple
et al, 1992: 283). In addition, Angel (2000b) agrees with this issue when he
advocates that the housing problem is more specific to poor people, as rich
people do not experience a housing problem at the level of basic needs.
Given what is said above, SHH strategy is a manifestation of
the situation of a housing crisis. For Harms, SHH policies «have always
emerged in situations of economic and political crisis within capitalism»
(quoted in Fiori et al, 1992: 24). This research report pursues the SHH debate
and seeks to identify the main causes of the failure of SHH in South Africa,
adopted in the form of People's Housing Process (PHP). Indeed, like other
developing countries, South Africa faces a severe housing crisis. An important
number of South Africans, especially those living in townships, either live in
bad housing conditions or do not have shelter at all. This is well documented
in Olufemi (2000: 224) who points out that «in South Africa there are
about 3 million homeless people and about 8 million people who are shack
dwellers». In addition, the greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council
estimates that there are about 12 000 homeless people in Johannesburg
(Shibambu, 1996 quoted in Olufemi, 2000: 224).
It is arguable that in South Africa, the failure of
conventional housing policy and the housing shortage, observed in the extension
of informal settlements do not stimulate the implementation of SHH. This is in
contrast to developed countries after the first and the Second World War on
which such policies are modeled. This research seeks to establish the main
causes of the unsuccessful implementation of PHP in South African Urban areas.
In addition, through the literature review which offers abundant cases of
successful2(*)
implementation of SHH strategies throughout the world, I will sketch the
criteria for a successful implementation of SHH.
The research shows that there are two main actors in the
process of a successful implantation of SHH: Government and community as the
beneficiaries. The effective combination of these two actors can provide a
sustainable development which is defined as «development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs» (World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987: 43). Development obtained without community participation is likely to
fail. Indeed, such development only produces economic growth and does not
adequately focus on the improvement of communities living conditions. This kind
of development was initiated by the advocates of the theory of modernization
and currently by the neo-liberals. As a result, this development creates and
deepens inequalities in the society in building a considerable gap between rich
people and poor people.
In South Africa for example, where neo-liberal policies are
adopted through GEAR3(*)
(Growth Employment and Redistribution), the country continues to have one of
the highest Gini coefficients. In terms of income, the «gap is vast with
household subsistence levels situated at less than $200/month. This results in
a situation where the poorest 20% of households (equivalent to 27% of the
population), account for less than 3% of total income levels, whilst the
richest 20% of households, (equivalent to less than 3% of the population)
account for 65% of total income production» (Wits University Graduate
School of Public and Development Management).
In turn development which seeks to ignore the major role of
the government will only produce the expansion of informality and illegality.
This means that a sustainable development must result from the interaction and
collaboration between the government and the community. This is well-documented
in Giddens (1984) who seeks to establish the way a given society should work.
In his theory of structuration, he argues that we cannot understand the dynamic
of life by looking at the individuals only, which he calls «micro-level
activity». Likewise, we cannot explain the social life in only focusing on
the structures of the society that he names «macro-level». There is,
according to Giddens, a relationship between individuals and institution and
such a relationship is situated in a given space and precise time.
Although there are many forms of SHH (see chapter III), this
research will more specifically focus on the mode of SHH that involves the
government efforts and the participation of the community or the beneficiaries.
This kind of SHH is acknowledged under the appellation of «State
SHH». SHH which was adopted as policy by the World Bank around 1970s for
solving housing conditions of poor people in developing countries, is defended
by neo-liberals of whom Turner and Mathey are the main supporters, and
criticized by Marxists view of whom Burgess is the main pioneer,
1.2: Rationale and Problem
Statement
This research report deals with three problems identified
which, in principle, should foster the expansion or the widespread use of SHH
if they are overcome. These problems are the following:
a) Twelve years after the adoption of housing policy, a
significant number of South Africans are either in bad housing conditions or do
not have shelter (Olufemi, 2000);
b) The houses delivered by RDP4(*) (Reconstruction Development Programme) lack quality
and are badly located5(*).
c) The incapacity of the government alone to provide adequate
solutions to people's housing needs (Mthembi-Mahanyele, 1996).
Given these problems identified above, it is our concern,
through research, to find out the main reasons which prevent the expansion or
the widespread use of SHH in South Africa and in turn contribute the
improvement of low-income housing conditions.
1.3: Research questions
1.3.1 The main research
question
Why do the failure of low-cost housing (often identified with
low-quality) and the housing shortage in South Africa not stimulate a
widespread use of aided or assisted Self-Help Housing?
1.3.2. Sub-research
questions
- Is SHH possible in South Africa?
- Is SHH desirable in South Africa?
- How can a successful form of SHH be attained?
1.4: Aims and objectives
a) To analyze the reasons why the failure of the
implementation of low-cost housing does not boost a legalized SHH known as PHP
in South Africa, specifically in urban areas.
b) To inform policy-makers so that they can properly address
the real problems characterizing South African housing policy in order to
provide adequate responses.
c) To develop an approach for a successful PHP (See Mathey,
1992; Schulist, 2002; Dingle, 1999, etc.).
d) To use successful cases of SHH to analyze the dismal
failure of PHP in Tembisa, one of the South African townships.
e) To understand perceptions of SHH by beneficiaries of
low-cost housing in South Africa.
1.5: Hypothesis
An important number of authors agree that the successful SHH
can be attained with the support of government and the active participation of
the community. Harvey (1989) suggests that the government must become
entrepreneur. This means that the government must «forge dreams that have
little to do with their available resources» (Lamberti, 2002). In becoming
entrepreneur, the government should essentially provide real services such as
education, viable and accessible housing finance system, make sure that the
access to land is not over complicated, etc.
Referring to Harvey (1989) the main hypothesis formulated in
this research is that with finance and technical assistance, almost everyone
may be able to build his or her own house (see Schulist, 2002).
1.6: Research Methodologies
1.6.1. Theoretical Review
Regarding theoretical review, in this research, I firstly
explore liberal and neo-liberalist thoughts (Chapter II) which welcome SHH
practice (Rawls, 1972; Turner, 1972). In addition, it will also bring into
question the understanding of some concepts such as «need»,
«poverty» and «social inequality» which give rise to SHH
practice. Secondly, in Chapter III, I will be analyzing a range of literature
(articles and chapters) related to the broad concept of SHH. This is, on the
one hand, for the purpose of addressing a definition of SHH (Burgess, 1985;
Harms, 1992); on the other hand to examine critiques formulated against SHH
(See Burgess, 1985 and 1992; Marcuse, 1992); the last element explored is some
successful case studies of SHH. These serve to analyze (see Chapter IV) the
failure of PHP in Tembisa and to propose some solutions (in chapter V) for a
successful PHP in South Africa.
1.6.2. Theoretical Framework
As theoretical framework, in this research I understand SHH,
particularly State SHH, as the result of People's self-determination and the
government efforts to assist people to meet their housing need. This research
has for its starting point the interaction of the government and the community
as the key components of a successful SHH. Despite government efforts to avoid
illegality and informality, I consider in this research beneficiaries as the
main or the principal actor in SHH. This is well documented in Marcuse:
«God helps those that help themselves. They are
efficient: people work better, harder, when they work for themselves. They are
economical: people use their own resources, and do not call on those of
government. They are aesthetic: people can express themselves in their housing,
and diversity flowers. They contribute to economic development: Skills learned
and investments made can be translated into outside income and economic
opportunity. They foster freedom, self-expression, self-confidence, control
over one's own environment: neither the heavy hand of government nor the light
hand of the market dictates how people will live. They are flexible and promote
innovation: nothing stops individual experimentation. They are democratic:
decisions are made directly by those most affected. They can even lead to an
expansion of democracy and economic growth in other areas: what people learn in
building for themselves can be applied in politics and business too»
(Marcuse, 1992: 15).
1.7: Case Study: The failure of
the implementation of PHP in Tembisa and its justification
The practical part of this research deals with the failure of
PHP in Tembisa, one of South Africa's Townships (see chapter IV). There are two
main reasons that have motivated the choice of Tembisa. On the one hand,
Tembisa is among the largest Townships in South Africa6(*). On the other hand, Tembisa is
one of the sites where PHP was initiated but did not succeed (see chapter IV).
In this sense, the choice of Tembisa is motivated by the desire to know the
reasons that contribute to the failure of implementing SHH policy in South
Africa in general and in urban areas particularly.
1.8: Analysis of SHH in
Tembisa
Some authors such as Marais et al have analyzed success cases
of SHH in South Africa, particularly in Bloemfontein (see Marais et al, 2003).
This was for the purpose of emphasizing the personal satisfaction of the
beneficiaries in comparison with houses built by the government alone. However,
many researchers fail to analyze unsuccessful cases of implementation of SHH of
which Tembisa is one.
In Tembisa, SHH project was initiated under the term
«Vukuzenzele» which means, «stand-up
and do it your self». Nevertheless, the implementation of this project
failed and currently, local authorities only deal with informal settlements and
the slow housing delivery through RDP. Chapter four of this research will aim
at analyzing the main reasons which explain the failure of the execution of SHH
in Tembisa. The findings of this research are obtained through open, deep and
ended interviews with local authorities7(*), inhabitants of informal settlements and beneficiaries
of RDP houses.
1.9: Scope and limitations
a) This research is well documented in Kosta Mathey,
especially in his book «Beyond Self-Help Housing» which is a
compilation of articles regarding SHH. This book presents theoretical
propositions about SHH, tested in the National context. It also presents some
case studies which provide a deeper understanding of the broad concept of SHH
and the criteria for successful implementation of SHH policy.
b) The understanding of the concept of SHH and the criteria
for successful implementation of SHH combined with field research and other
interviews give us the opportunity to analyze the failure of the implementation
of PHP in Tembisa and to propose solutions for successful implementation of PHP
in South Africa.
c) As I have defined the framework of this research as having
two actors: the government and the community or the beneficiaries, I am only
concerned in this research with the degree of government involvement and the
communities' participation. It will not however analyze the importance of
private sector and NGOs.8(*)
2.0 Chapter II: Concepts which
give rise to Self-Help Housing.
2.1: Introduction of the
chapter
This chapter argues that liberalism, neo-liberalism, poverty,
inequality and the need for housing constitute the intellectual basis of SHH.
It is acknowledged that individual freedom is the key concept of liberalism and
neo-liberalism. In the situation of poverty and inequality associated with the
concept of housing need, households, especially in developing countries where
governments are unable to provide adequate housing for all citizens, do not
have another alternative than to solve their housing need themselves. The aim
of this chapter is to outline the main characteristics of liberalism;
neo-liberalism; poverty and its associated inequalities; and the concept of
housing need; to see how they favour the promotion of SHH.
The assumption in only presenting in this chapter liberalist
and neo-liberalist principles is not to deny other existing movement of thought
such as Marxism and socialism in South Africa or to neglect their importance.
It may be noticed that although the 1994 constitution which currently leads the
country is elaborated on liberal and neo-liberal basis, especially the
consecration of individuals' freedom and the protection of private property,
housing policy and more specifically housing subsidy is elaborated according to
socialist basis. This is to say that other movements of thought also influence
South African policy-makers in terms of housing. However, as this research
focus on the issue of SHH, it is worth noticing that although some socialist
countries such as Cuba has adopted SHH as policy, liberalism and neo-liberalist
policies may be considered as the more usual promoters of SHH in developing
countries.
2.2: Liberalism: Principles,
strengths and weaknesses
2.2.1: Principles of
liberalism
All the advocates of liberalism such as Kant, Rawls, Nozick,
Turner, Hayek, etc. believe that freedom or liberty is the main characteristic
and the value that every citizen must enjoy. In his first principle of justice,
Rawls argues that «each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others»
(Rawls, 1972: 60). Alongside freedom which may be taken as the foundation of
liberalism; individualism, property rights, a free market economy, equality of
opportunity, and a limited State are also of great importance (Gerber, 1993).
For attaining the key role of liberalism, which is freedom for all citizens,
proponents of liberalism assign a limited role to the State. Another movement
of thought named «libertarianism» which may be considered as a branch
of liberalism with focus on property rights, and of which Nozick is the main
defender, goes further in arguing that the government must disappear or play a
minimal role. In doing so, the citizens can fully exercise their rights of
freedom and attain the goal they pursue without any coercion or interference.
This means that liberals assign an important role to individuals and reduce the
role or the importance of the State. In relation to individuals and State,
liberalism may be defined as a:
«search for principles of political justice that will
command rational assent among persons with different conceptions of the good
life and different views of the world. The conception of human nature which
liberalism expresses is the end of a distillation of the modern experience of
variety and conflict in moral life: it is the conception of man as being with
the moral capacity of forming a conception of the good life and the
intellectual capacity of articulating that conception in a systematic
form» (Gray, 1986: 91).
The main principles of liberalism are well-documented in
Martinez and Garcia (2005) and those directly related to State and individuals
may be summarized as following:
- Freedom or liberty is the basis of liberalism; and
principles should be focused and based on it. This is why Martinez and Garcia
affirm that freedom may even be taken as liberalism itself.
- A liberal State should not elaborate a plan that every
citizen must follow in the society. In other words, the government, according
to liberals, must not enforce a conception of good9(*) that every citizen must follow.
However, the government should rather leave to everyone living in the society
the responsibility to determine what is good for him/her.
Through these two principles presented above, it may be
noticed that freedom and the rejection of paternalism appearing in the
rejection of conformism and conception of good are essential to liberalism; and
the diminished role of State is its logical consequence. Liberal principles
presented above raise questions of the role of State in general and in relation
with housing in particular.
2.2.2 The role of the State
according to liberal thought
According to classical liberals, such as Rawls, the State
should not be directly concerned with the people's welfare. It must, however,
seek to create a workable society founded on principles of justice. This is to
say that «liberal government cannot be other than limited government,
since all strands within the liberal transition confer upon person's rights or
claims in justice which government must acknowledge and respect and which,
indeed may be invoked against government» (Gray, 1986: 73).
Also, the diminished role of government actually appears in
democratic constitutions. In fact, in all democratic constitutions,
prerogatives of government are well defined and consequently it limits the role
of government so that the government can act in a well defined framework that
avoids arbitrary and unreasonable policies (Hopkins, 2003). Other advocates of
liberalism argue that the role of the State is to serve the interests of all
the people, and not a just single class or group (Gerber, 1983). This means
that the goal of the liberal State is to create justice which guarantees the
freedom of all citizens. The freedom is considered as a framework in which
every citizen has to pursue his goal. It may be argued that a liberal state is
a «society of largely free or ungoverned or only self-governed,
independent individuals, living together under and jointly supporting a small,
simple, inexpensive government having only a quite limited sphere of authority
or a few quite limited powers and functions» (Taylor, 1960: 7). The State
intervention in a liberal State must be as little as possible and coercion
should be used if and only if other freedoms are violated. This liberal
conception of State is associated with the concept of «laissez-faire»
which is defended by Adam Smith (Gray, 1986).
Turner (1972) espouses liberal thought when he argues that the
role of the State is to help people to be the main actors of housing process.
In sum, the role of the State according to liberal thought may be summarized as
a search for:
«a legal order or system of law or legal justice which
should impartially protect or enforce the equal and reciprocal rights and
duties among all and prevent, with the minimal or most humane, sufficient,
deterrent penalties, all commissions by anyone or advancing special interests
in ways involving injustices or injuries to others or the common welfare»
(Taylor, 1960: 96-97).
In other words, the specific role that liberals assign to the
State is to seek the general interest of the whole society (Burgess, 1985).
Despite the limited role that the State must play, advocates
of liberalism argue that the State must «have certain wholly positive
functions as part of the task of maintaining a free order» (Gray, 1986:
80). In relation to housing, a liberal State may play the role of facilitator
through organizing and planning.
2.2.2.a The State organizing
housing activities
In a liberal State, the role of organizing housing activities
is especially done through laws which must be elaborated according to the
principles of justice (see Rawls, 1972 especially in his principles of
justice)10(*). This role
may be operated by the State in providing real services such as education which
allows citizens to know the laws ruling housing issues. Real services also
include housing finance which must be accessible to every citizen, especially
low-income people. Likewise, if the State wants to properly play its role of
organizing housing activities, it should also facilitate the access to land so
that the low-income, like other income groups, can easily access land (Payne,
1999). The State may successfully organize housing activities in accordance
with liberal thought if it creates a comprehensive and just framework which
allows every one without any discrimination (race, sex, religion, etc) in the
country to fairly exercise his housing right.
2.2.2.b The State in the role of
planning housing activities
It must be acknowledged that for the advocates of liberal
thoughts, the State plays the role of planning especially as facilitator and
not as the main actor. This role of the State is well documented in Nientied et
al (1988: 11). These authors argue that «the government has to provide,
and actively protect, access to the elements of housing process for users.
These elements include land, laws, building materials, tools, credit, know-how,
etc.» The principle of fair opportunities should guide the planning of
housing process. This principle States that: «Social and economic
inequalities are to be arranged11(*) so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of
the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b)
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality
of opportunity» (Rawls, 1972: 60).
Referring to this principle, successful planning should not
become a tool of discrimination or segregation as it was during apartheid
regime in South Africa (see Huchzermayer, 2003a; Schlongonyne et al, 2004;
Mabin, 1995, etc) which deliberately sought to dominate black people in
locating them in the poor land and separate them from the centre of economic
activities. As Younge (1999: 3) put it:
«Urban planning during the apartheid era suffered from
`top down' planning processes, aimed at segregation settlements, at
disempowering certain racial groups economically, and at rigid control over
land use in order to protect White residential areas from incursion by
commercial and industrial uses».
In a few words, successful planning which is based on Rawls'
second principle of justice seeks to empower everybody living in the city in
allowing him/her to perform politically, economically and socially. It should
especially aim at allowing social inclusion. Principles of liberalism in
relation to the role of the State present strengths and weaknesses as well. The
purpose of the analysis below is to focus on strengths and weaknesses of
liberalism.
2.2.3. Strengths of liberal
thought
The merit of liberal thought is to place the individual at the
centre of their debate. The interest for the human being in general, and for
his freedom in particular, is sacrosanct. It has given rise to what humanity
holds as the bill of human rights, adopted in all democratic constitutions.
Liberal thought empowers individuals and in turn gives them a sense of
responsibility so that they can be the main actors of their destiny. Likewise,
liberalism brought the concept of participation which is taken as the key
component of development success and without which any sustainable or
integrated development is impossible.
Related to the housing process, liberal principles and thought
are explained in Lankatilleke who argues that: «housing is an activity of
the people and not of governments and therefore people should be at the centre
of the decision making process» (Lankatilleke, 1990: 24). The reason of
why people should be at the centre of decision making may be found in the
philosophical concept of individuals. Indeed, for the advocates of liberalism,
especially Kant, the individual is conceived as a rational being, capable of
pursuing his or her goals, without being coerced, and making good choices for
his or her happiness. This liberal conception of the individual appears in
Lankatilleke's (1990: 24) argument when he affirms that «People are
resourceful, rich in initiative and creativity and need recognition,
encouragement and support. Solutions to problems are found in the hands of the
people and not with technocrats, bureaucrats or experts». Friedman (1998)
expresses almost the same views as Lankatilleke when he argues that the planner
must not only work for people but he/she should work with them.
In sum, liberal thought restores the value of the human being
and finds out that a human being cannot be excluded or ignored from the
processes concerning him/her. Related to housing process, it has been shown
that when people are at the centre of the housing process, they express
personal satisfaction and accomplish their housing needs (Turner, 1972 and
Marais et al, 2003).
However, the question that arises from liberal thought is
whether every citizen living in a society is able, on his/her own, to
adequately address his/her housing need without being helped. In addition, one
may ask whether personal satisfaction is always in conformity with the
satisfaction of the whole community. The merit of liberal thought (personal
satisfaction) which gives rise to the practice of SHH constitutes at the same
time the main weakness or limits of liberal thought.
2.2.4. Weaknesses of liberal
thought
According to advocates of liberalism, the individual is able
by him/herself to define what is good for him/her and finds a better way to
attain it. This means that the direct intervention of neighbours or of the
society is considered to be useless or unnecessary as the State must create
space for individuals through justice and make sure that every citizen is able
to attain his/her goal. It appears that «liberalism advocates the free
choice of life-style, but it forgets that the choice is to a large extent
preempted by the social environment in which people grow up and live»
(Ellen, 1986: 98).
Despite the merits of liberal thought enumerated above,
liberalism is not directly concerned with people's welfare and looks at only
the society as a whole in which all citizens are treated equally. Osborne
(1991: 142) criticizes liberalism in averring that it is utopian to claim that
«we should all be treated the same». Indeed, «the right to equal
treatment before the law will not translate into legal equality, for the laws
incorporates the privileges of property, while those with money can ensure more
favourable terms».
Most attacks against liberalism come from conservatism and
socialism which argue that liberalism, although allowing widespread
industrialism, brought «collapse in popular living standards» (Gray,
1986: 84). For Gerber (1983) the limit of liberalism may be situated in the
disagreement about precise limits of government's role in the nation's economic
life. He points out that although it is a highly developed country, the United
States of America (which may be taken as model of liberalism) still faces
«high degree of inequality and injustice so long as a relatively small
number of American were allowed to claim the rights of private ownerships over
the nation' s key wealth producing» (Gerber, 1983: 346).
The principal critique which may be formulated against liberal
thought is the place of poor people in a liberal society. Indeed, in focusing
only on principles that must govern the society, only powerful and rich people
are likely to perform effectively and poor people will grow poorer. Although
rich in initiative and creativity (see Lankatilleke, 1990 cited above), poor
people are unlikely to attain their ends. This is because every citizen living
in the community is not able by his/herself to adequately determine him/her
goal and attain it. This inability for every citizen to attain his/her goal
explains the growing gap observed in liberal society between poor and rich
people.
To this critique, the advocates of liberalism would certainly
answer in saying that the State should redistribute the wealth in order to give
poor people access to basic needs. Besides, as poverty is seen by liberal view
as the lack of income, the solution could be to increase the income of workers.
These responses look unsatisfactory and do not address the issues of poverty
and inequalities which developing countries face. Indeed, in redistributing the
wealth of country to poor people and as everybody must enjoy his freedom (see
Rawls' first principle of justice); the State cannot control how beneficiaries
use the wealth redistributed. It may happen that poor people use the wealth
redistributed for other ends than what for which it was initially allocated. In
relation to the second response, developing countries in general, and South
Africa in particular, experience a high rate of unemployment and lack of
education. This means that in increasing income of the workers, the government
will only improve living conditions of some individuals and therefore will
deepen and reinforce the gap between poor and rich people. From a Marxist view,
the liberal proposal which aims at reducing poverty cannot work and is likely
to fail as the liberal view does not identify capitalism as the root of poverty
and under-development, and in turn the main cause of inequalities in the
society.
In relation to the housing issue, the debate about weaknesses,
especially the insignificant place accorded to poor people shows that the
housing problem is not specific to housing only. It is rooted in poverty and
inequalities (see Angel, 2000b). It may be argued that poor housing conditions
is a complex issue and may find a definitive solution only if it is associated
with other policies such as poverty alleviation, education, job creation, etc.
This amply explains the dismal failure of RDP. In fact, through this policy,
South African post-apartheid authorities were more concerned with distributing
houses to poor households than providing them with the capacity to maintain
their houses and to face other issues such as HIV, jobs, education, etc. As a
result, a significant number of beneficiaries of RDP either had sold their
houses or had abandoned them (Huchzermeyer, 2003a).
Like liberalism, neo-liberalist policy is another movement of
thought which welcomes SHH. The debate below will analyze its main principles
and will identify its strengths and weaknesses. This debate will also analyze
the role of a neo-liberal State and the place of individuals with particular
reference to the housing process.
2.3: Neo-liberal thought:
Principles, weaknesses and strengths
2.3.1 The main principles of
neo-liberalist thought
This movement of thought may be considered as the application
of liberal principles in the economic life of a society. Alongside freedom
which is the key concept of liberalism, neo-liberalism stresses the concept of
free-market or free trade. The concept of free-market
, essential to neo-liberalism is in fact «an application in the sphere of
economic life of the conviction that human society is likely to do best when
men are left free to enact plans of life unconstrained except by the rule of
law» ( Gray, 1986). The principles of neo-liberal thought may be
summarized as following:
- The market, which is the central element of neo-liberalism,
should be free. It is therefore defined as «a mechanism which allows
people to trade, normally governed by the theory of supply and demand, so
allocating resources through a price mechanism and bid-and-ask matching so that
those willing to pay a price for something meet those willing to sell for
it» (Hall and Lieberman, 2004) . This means that the regularization
should not be subject to any interference and it obeys only its own rules of
supply and demand.
- In contrast to the liberalist view which claims a limited
role for the State, neo-liberalism advocates the non-interference of the
government in the economic sphere. Privatization is the main consequence of
this principle. Indeed, neo-liberalists believe that the «privatization of
State production and some service provision would increase efficiency and
output growth» (Colclough, 1991: 19).
- The competition which characterizes the market should bring
creativity, good quality of products presented within the market and the
opportunity for every body to bring his or her goods and services into the
market.
- Development should not be based on poverty alleviation. It
should, however, focus on economic growth which in turn will result in poverty
eradication (see Colclough, 1991).
The main principles of neo-liberalism presented above may be
summarized in these words:
«Neo-liberalism is a philosophy in which the existence
and operation of a market are valued in themselves, separately from any
previous relationship with the production of goods and services and without any
attempt to justify them in terms of their effect on the production of goods and
services; and where the operation of a market or market-like structure is seen
as an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action,
substituting for all previously existing ethical beliefs» (Martinez,
2004).
Referring to the housing process, neo-liberalism with its
belief in the non-interference of the government would support SHH. However,
the non-interference of the government in economic activities raises the
question of the specific role of the neo-liberal State in general and the role
of the State in the housing process in particular.
2.3.2: The role of the neo-liberal
State
The role of neo-liberal State is not very different from a
liberal State. Both liberalism and neo-liberalism have, as a starting point,
the freedom that every citizen must enjoy and the concept of the individual
conceived as a rational being capable of making right choices and finding the
best way to attain his/her goals. Given the role attributed to individuals,
liberals argue that there is no alternative for the State than to play a
limited role in social life. If the advocates of liberalism recognize a limited
role for the State, those who defend neo-liberalism declare that the State must
not intervene in economic life at all. Does this mean that the government
should completely disappear, as some liberals such as Nozick advocate? If the
government completely disappears, it may result in a state of anarchy or we can
go back to what
philosophers call the «state of
nature»12(*).
Some defenders of neo-liberalism argue that the State should
not disappear and they assign to the State the role of referee. This is well
explained in Turner (1972) when he argues that the State must allow households
to solve their housing problems themselves. The argument which may be advanced
to support Turner's statement or the role that the neo-liberals attribute to
the State is that no one knows better real needs or concerns of individuals
than individuals themselves.
Hayek (1949), one of the advocates of neo-liberalism, claims
that the State is desirable only if it protects individuals' interests. It
clearly appears that the main role of the neo-liberal State is to create laws
in which every individual can realize his or her dreams. In relation to the
market, the central element of neo-liberalism, the government must make the
market work better. Carruthers and Babb (2000: 164) summarise the role of the
liberal State in these terms: «governments make laws for governing the
market, provide regulatory agencies and courts for enforcing rules and
adjudicating conflicts, and penalize those who violate the rules».
Moreover, the government must support competition and enforces laws which
protect individuals' rights and avoid fraud. The role of the State is reduced
to protecting individuals' rights and allowing competition in the society. This
limited State role is often called
«laissez-faire».
Referring to the housing process, neo-liberal proponents will
assign to the State the role of organizing the housing process, not as the main
actor but as facilitator. The process of land acquisition, housing finances,
construction, etc., should be opened to the market. Likewise, the neo-liberal
State will encourage individuals without coercing them and forcing them to
create better housing conditions for themselves. This limited role of the State
or laissez-faire presents some advantages and weaknesses as well.
2.3.3 Strengths of
neo-liberalism
As the intervention of government in economic sphere is seen
by advocates of neo-liberalism as the main cause of underdevelopment
(Colclough, 1991), and as they propose the reduction of government intervention
in education, health and social services (Kaber et al, 1991) it may be supposed
that the government may well play the role of referee. In addition, the non
intervention of government in the economic sphere may also allow the investment
in hard infrastructure such as its communication system, airport, etc. In a few
words, the non direct intervention of government is understood, according to
neo-liberal advocates, as the main prerequisite of economic growth. In
developing countries where the economic growth is imperceptible neo-liberals
believe that «the state is doing too much, that public expenditures must
be reduced if growth is to accelerate» (Colclough, 1991: 16).
It may also be argued that neo-liberal strategies about
laissez-faire economy may find moral basis. In fact, as Marcuse (1992: 15)
argues, «God helps those that help themselves». Neo-liberals would
encourage individuals to be main actors of development, to be creative and
initiators of development projects. Competition is the term used and the
reality which explains that in the neo-liberal State individuals are free to
undertake development projects, to present their goods and services. If the
competition is reliable, it will stimulate individuals to get specialized
skills in order to better respond to the criteria of competition. The main
advantage of competition is that it fosters individuals to give the best of
themselves. In addition, it avoids mediocrity and inefficiency in the society.
As remarks Gerber (1983), the stimulation of the elite has permitted the United
States of America to become the most economically powerful country in the
World. It may be argued that neo-liberalist policies stimulate real economic
growth. However, neo-liberalist policies do not go without serious critiques.
The discourse below will emphasize the weaknesses of neo-liberalist
ideology.
2.3.4 Weaknesses of neo-liberalist
principles
The main critique that I would like to formulate against
neo-liberal policy is the justification of inequality and the growing poverty
in developing countries. It may be observed in neo-liberal States that only the
elite are likely to perform and markets of good jobs and opportunities are not
opened to those who are not competitive. The response to the question of why
there are inequalities and poverty in societies, including developed countries
such as USA, becomes simple and obvious. Individuals who constitute the elite
or those who are skilled, rich and powerful are competitive and in fact, may
bring into the market their goods, services or qualified skills. In turn, some
individuals are poor, weak and lack influence because they cannot bring
something consistent or significant into the market. As a result, they will
grow poorer. This means that neo-liberals judge individuals under the criteria
of competence and power. In other words, an individual is appreciated and
considered in the society insofar as he/she is able to compete in the market
Alongside the justification of inequalities and poverty the
conception of economic growth which in turn, according to neo-liberals, should
bring poverty alleviation does not go without being challenged. In practice
this principle is not applied. Nowadays we observe throughout the world that
neo-liberalism with its belief in economic growth did not succeed. On the
contrary the number of poor people in developing countries where neo-liberal
policy is implemented is increasing. Only competitive people may profit from
economic growth. As Bauman (1998: 4) observes, «the direct benefits of
economic growth have tended to be distributed in favour of the already
excessively wealthy members of the community and as a result `the poor get
poorer, the very rich... get richer still»(quoted in Smart, 2003: 44). In
contrast, poor people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of development
growth become the victims of neo-liberalist policy. This explains the shift by
the World Bank around 1970s in instituting the implementation of Local Economic
Development and in announcing that «the development record should be
judged not by economic growth but by the extent to which poverty was reduced in
the world» (Colclough, 1991: 5).
The last critique that I would like to stress in this debate
regarding neo-liberalism is the place or the future of poor people in the
neo-liberal State. Neo-liberals believe that poor people will improve their
living conditions once economic growth is attained. Indeed, according to
neo-liberals, economic growth will automatically bring investors and in turn
will attract capital flow. This is partially true. Nevertheless, most poor
people in developing countries are unskilled as they do not improve their
education for one reason or another. It may be observed in developing countries
that «schooling is too costly to expand coverage to all who need it,
resources are inefficiently used and benefits are disproportionately captured
by the richer group in society» (Colclough, 1991b: 210). In a neo-liberal
State poor people are unlikely to find a good job. Indeed, as Baumann (2003)
argues, it is almost impossible for an enterprise to employ uneducated people.
In sum, poor people do not have a better future in a neo-liberal State, unless
they improve their level of education and become competitive. This is because
in a neo-liberal State, good education is a function of a good job.
Related to housing, in a neo-liberal State where the State
must reduce its intervention in social services and keep a distance from
economic activities, poor people who cannot compete in the market do not have
another alternative than practicing spontaneous SHH. As poor people suffer from
the lack of education (see the argumentation above), they will be likely to
violate State laws in, for example, invading public or private land for the
purpose of housing. This violation of land has happened in South Africa (see
Huchzermeyer, 2003b). The question which arises from this debate related to
neo-liberal policy is whether or not poverty alleviation and adequate housing
solutions for poor households may be achieved without the intervention of the
State. This debate has shown that without State intervention only richer and
more powerful groups can attain their ends. This explains my interest in State
aided SHH. Indeed, a successful aided SHH combines the participation of the
State and the involvement of beneficiaries. This process may bring about
personal satisfaction of individuals and adequate housing solutions for poor
people.
The rest of the debate in this chapter will look at
inequalities, poverty and the concept of need which, like liberalism and
neo-liberalism, welcome the practice of SHH.
2.4: Inequalities
2.4.1 Definitions and overview
Inequality is the reality that our communities, cities,
countries, world face. In relation to the housing issue, it is the situation
that explains why some households are living in poor housing conditions while
others live in good housing conditions. As Okun (1980: 15) asserts,
«inequality is very easy to recognize». Inequality may be generally
understood as the differences existing between individuals, cities,
communities, countries, etc. It is not only a local reality but also a global
phenomenon. It may be observed that some differences existing among individuals
are natural (sex, race, etc) and some others are intentionally created in order
to dominate or to exclude other individuals from the economic and political
life of the society. The vibrant example may be found in South Africa where
apartheid was institutionalized as a political system for the purpose of
dominating Black people. My concern in discussing this issue is to see how
inequalities between individuals may stimulate the practice of SHH.
Inequality is a controversial reality. Indeed, there are two
main positions related to this matter. On the one hand, inequality or
differences between individuals are necessary and inevitable. As Hurst (1995)
argues, society needs sometimes certain kinds of tasks which are useful for the
advancement or progress of society. So, the society should encourage those who
may perform those special tasks. In this sense, the attempt to eradicate
inequalities between individuals living in the society may jeopardize the
advancement or the progress of the society. This is a modern explanation of
inequality, developed through the theory of functionalism or stratification.
This argument is supported by Tawney (1980) when he argues that the United
States of America (USA) is economically the super power in the world because of
encouraging people with specialized tasks. Furthermore, Nozick (1974) argues
that the attempt by a State to reduce or to eradicate inequalities between
individuals cannot be justified morally. In other words, according to Nozick,
the State should not intervene to improve housing conditions of poor households
in taxing rich people for example. Nozick draws this conclusion from his theory
of entitlement13(*) which
explains how individuals can fairly acquire their properties.
On the other hand some theorists argue that social, political
and economic inequalities are not created by differences in individual talents.
These are especially the results of an unfair system. As Hurst (1995: 4)
argues, «it is the characteristics of the political economy, and the firms
and labour market within it, that are primary determinants of differences in
income and wealth». In this sense, neo-liberalism which stresses the
market as the determinant element may be one of the causes of economic
inequalities. Referring to this group of theorists who argue that inequalities
are not a result of natural facts but of structures created by individuals for
dominating or controlling other individuals, inequalities should be undesirable
and therefore the State must seek to reduce or to eradicate them. In South
Africa for example, where the level of inequality is high, the post-apartheid
government has sought to combat this issue through the implementation of the
RDP programme. In sum, for proponents of neo-liberalism, inequality is
essential and useful for the progress of society and for others inequality is a
consequence of an unjust system: thus, the State should combat it.
Tawney (1980) defines a framework in which we need to seek a
desirable equality which in fact does not endanger the progress of society.
Besides, he also describes unjustifiable inequalities, created by social,
political and economic environment and which need to be reduced or eradicated.
He proposes the focus on our common humanity as a solution to redress
inequalities instead of emphasizing factors which divide individuals such as
class, skills, etc. The author understands the desirable equality not as
«equality of capacity or attainment, but of circumstances, institutions
and manner of life». In addition, the undesirable and unjustifiable
inequality «is not inequality of personal gifts, but of the social and
economic environment». The ideal of society would be that «social
institutions - property rights, and the organization of industry, and the
system of public health and education - should be planned, as far as is
possible, to emphasize and strengthen, not the class differences which divide,
but the common humanity which unites them» (Tawney, 1980: 12).
It may be observed that inequality is a complex reality as it
is defended by some theorists as necessary for the progress of society and seen
by others as a result of unfair structure. This unfair structure aims at
favouring some individuals or a group of individuals while leaving others in
miserable situations. In addition, the complexity of inequality may also be
explained by the fact that it is not only a local reality but also a global
phenomenon which should in fact concern humanity in general. The following
section will seek to understand inequality at the global level.
2.4.2 Inequality at the Global
level
Inequality is not only a reality concerning individuals within
the community or city or country. It is also a global reality (Bradshaw and
Wallace, 1996). These authors define our World which indeed is more and more
global or unified as an unequal world. In fact, in the world, some countries
are rich and give their citizens the opportunity to properly plan their future
while some countries are poor and do not provide to their citizens assurance
for having a peaceful future. These authors point out some forms of
inequalities between poor and rich countries. Firstly, it may be observed
throughout the world that the Gross National Product (GNP) is higher in
developed countries than in developing countries. In referring to the World
Bank, Woolard (2002) observes that in South Africa, which is a developing
country, «7% of the population were living on less than $ 1 a day in 2000,
and ten million people, 23% of the population, on less than $ 2 a day»
(quoted in Gelb, 2004: 2-3). The second form of inequality is population
expansion. It is found that the population of developing countries grows faster
than the population of developed countries. Although this phenomenon is seen by
some authors as the need for urbanization and to correspond to social
change14(*) (see Tait,
1997), it creates in developing countries some serious issues such as
unemployment, migration from rural to urban areas which in turn exacerbate the
problem of housing and also poverty (United Nations Human Settlement programme,
2003). The third form of inequality that the authors acknowledge is life
expectancy. As it is observed, in poor countries the quality of life is lower
than in developed countries. The fourth form of inequality may be found in
educational achievement. Here again, poor countries offer fewer opportunities
for their citizens to achieve good education through good university and
colleges than developed countries. In South Africa for example, as Nelson
Mandela, the former president pointed out on the day of local elections (1
March, 2005), lack of education and unemployment remain the main challenges
that the country is facing. In addition, Baumaan (2003) notes that in South
Africa there is not only the shortage of enterprises but also of qualified
skills.
Likewise, Bradshaw et al (1996) also point out political
opportunities and freedom as element of inequality between poor and rich
countries. According to them, developed countries offer political opportunities
and freedom to their citizens through democracy. However, in developing
countries there is a tendency for the presidents to remain as long as possible
in power and the restriction of fundamental freedoms for their citizens.
Finally these authors recognize that some forms of inequalities may not be
easily quantified or enumerated. They note for example the ability for the
developed countries to deal with new diseases or viruses while in poor
countries the lack of resources and advanced technology do not allow them to
intervene as quickly as developed countries. As a result, poor countries must
wait for assistance from developed countries.
These forms of inequalities presented above allow us to
understand inequalities at the global level and require in turn an effort to
create at the global level better environments and chances for every citizen in
the world. It may be argued that the recognition for every citizen to have
access to adequate housing may be considered as global fight at the global
level. However, in looking at inequalities at the global level, there is a risk
to go away from inequalities experienced within our concrete living spaces of
our cities or our communities. The following section will focus on inequalities
within South Africa
2.4.3 Inequalities at the local
level (in South Africa)
It may be said that inequality is a serious matter as it
affects the life of people in reducing their chance of living in better
environment or of having access to adequate shelter (Hurst, 1985). At the local
level, Hurst enumerates five kinds of inequality which are: economic; status;
gender; racial; and political. South Africa, as Huchzermeyer (2002b) notes, is
a developing country which displays a high degree of inequality. The most
remarkable among five forms of inequalities enumerated above is racial
inequality instituted by the apartheid regime. How did apartheid operate in
South Africa and what were the main consequences related to housing?
2.4.3.1 South Africa and racial
inequality
Racial inequality or difference may be objectively considered
as a biological or natural phenomenon which explains that some people are black
and some others are white or yellow, etc. In this sense, racial difference can
be acknowledged and cannot be removed. What is deplorable is that one race
considers itself as superior to another race or races. This is the case of
South Africa in the past. Apartheid which is the legislated form of racial
inequality was adopted as political system in 1948. It was understood as:
«a system of segregation which keeps blacks and whites
separate. Blacks were required to live in certain areas and be deprived of
formal political rights. As earlier in the American South with Jim Crow laws,
Blacks and whites have their own facilities so that contact between the races
can be minimized. On the job, Whites typically earn more than 15 times what
Blacks earn» (Schaefer, 1988 quoted in Hurst, 1995: 151).
This is an example of income inequalities. In this sense,
apartheid may be considered as the fundamental or the main cause of other forms
of inequalities observed in South Africa such as social class, status, etc.
In addition, during apartheid time, there was legislation
preventing black people from becoming artisans in urban areas. Indeed, Bantu
Building Workers Act15(*),
Act no 27 of 1951, although allowing black people to be trained as artisans in
the building trade, it did not however permit black people to perform any
skilled work in urban areas except in those designated for black occupation. To
perform in urban areas was considered by apartheid regime as a criminal
offence. As a result of this act related to housing, black people could not
have access to decent housing in urban areas. Furthermore, as urban areas are
seen as centres of politic, economic, social and cultural opportunities,
skilled Black people were unlikely to properly develop their skills.
On ethical grounds, apartheid is unjustifiable as it is based
on the superiority of white over black, the creation of structure or ideology
which aims at supporting White to the detriment of Black. In addition, it does
not support the argument of the defenders of inequalities as it does not allow
the progress or the advancement of the whole society. It however favoured the
White minority and created unhappiness and poverty among the black majority. As
Huchzermeyer (2002b) argues, apartheid in South Africa was created and
maintained for the purpose of domination or racial control. Although formally
ended in 1994 with the election of the African National Congress (ANC) and the
establishment of democracy, the consequences of Apartheid are still visible.
For the government of the ANC, challenges that currently South Africa faces
such as poverty, unemployment, lack of education, high rate of HIV, issue of
housing are merely the relics of apartheid (see Baumann, 2003).
Among the consequences which are still visible: high poverty
among black people living in townships and lack of education, I will emphasize
those related to housing. There are several factors which do not allow the
access to adequate housing for all South African citizens, especially Black
South Africans: Difficult access to housing finance, lack of capacity at the
level of housing delivery, difficult access to urban land, etc. Are all those
factors connected to the consequences of apartheid? This issue will not be
discussed in this research. However, it may be argued from data that the access
to urban land for poor is one of the consequences of apartheid regime. Chapter
Four which is the case study will analyze the issue of accessing to urban land
for poor in South Africa.
How does inequality link to the issue of SHH? The last part
related to the issue of inequality seeks to establish a relationship between
inequality and the rise of SHH practice.
2.4.4: The relationship between
inequality and the rise of Self-Help Housing
As it may be argued, inequality is the cause of the existence
of poor housing condition. Huchzermeyer (2002b) has established a closer
relationship between inequalities in South Africa and the expansion of informal
settlement which is one of the forms of SHH (see Chapter Three). With the lack
of adequate housing finance for the poor (Rust, 2002), which is a form of
inequality in South Africa and the inability of the government to provide
housing for all South Africans, poor people are likely to seek to solve their
housing needs themselves. As some authors have argued, SHH is the expression of
economic and political crisis or, more explicitly, the expression of
inequality. Indeed, in Tembisa, data gathered shows that up to fifteen thousand
households, especially poor are on the housing waiting list. This means that if
the government cannot find enough finance to subsidize housing in this part of
the country, households concerned will either find the way to solve their
housing need or they will simply become homeless. In short, only victims of
inequalities, which in South Africa are especially Black, lack enough resources
to adequately access housing finance. And the most concerned with this issue
are poor households.
It derives that poverty and inequalities go hand in hand. As
Huchzermeyer (2002b) argues, informal settlement draws attention to poverty. It
may also be argued that poverty is a result and great manifestation of
inequality. The following part will analyze the issue of poverty and in turn
its relation with the expansion of SHH.
2.5: Poverty
2.5.1 Definitions and overview
Poverty is a broad concept which implies several
understandings. It may be considered as the contradiction existing in our
cities, countries or world. While some people are living in good housing
conditions, some others do not have access to adequate housing or are purely
homeless. It is also a vibrant expression of inequality in our living space.
Like inequality, poverty is easy to recognize. In South Africa, especially in
townships, living conditions of residents reveal a high degree of poverty.
According to the World Bank, «Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of
shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is
not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having
a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a
child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack
of representation and freedom» (
http://web.worldbank.org). Some schools
of thought have established a closer relationship between poverty and
underdevelopment16(*).
From liberal view, poverty is understood as the lack of
income. In other words, people are poor because they do not earn enough income.
This definition is true but it seems incomplete and reductive. In this sense,
poverty may be quantified and measured through Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or
GNP. However, Baumann (2003) shows that in South Africa an important number of
citizens do not work in the formal sector but they earn income in exploiting
assets which are in their disposition (see fig 5 and 6 in appendix). This means
that poverty is more than lack of formal income.
According to the Marxist view, poverty is understood in
relation to production. This means that poverty is the result of capitalism.
The advantage of this position is that the causes of poverty or
underdevelopment are internal and must be found in the process of production.
This position regarding poverty completely differs from «dependency
theory» which compares developed (rich) countries and undeveloped (poor)
countries. According to this theory, poverty, which brings bad housing
conditions, is the result of exploitation and imperialism from western
countries. The causes of poverty and underdevelopment should, according to
dependency theory17(*) be
found in western countries. Regarding bad housing conditions, proponents of
dependency theory would say that its causes in developing countries are
external, created by western countries.
The concept of dependency does not go without being
criticized. Dependency implies unconsciously the concept of autonomous.
Referring to the theory of dependency, in the relation between underdeveloped
and developed countries, underdeveloped countries are dependent and developed
countries are autonomous. This concept is as ambiguous and complex as the
concept of development. Is it possible to be quite dependent or entirely
autonomous? As it can be argued, no country in the world is totally autonomous.
All countries are interconnected and interlinked. We can perhaps talk about the
degree of dependency and say for example that the underdeveloped countries are
more dependent than autonomous; and developed countries are more autonomous
than dependent.
Another critique comes from Bradshaw et al (1996) which argue
that in focusing on external causes of poverty, poor countries can forget real
issues such as debt, migration, population growth, etc.
Finally, modernization theory also provides an explanation of
poverty and underdevelopment.18(*) According to this school of thought, some countries
are poor because they lack modern economies, modern psychological traits,
modern cultures, and modern institutions (see Bradshaw et al, 1996). Like
dependency theory, some critiques challenge modernization assumptions. One of
these critiques is that modernization theory understands development as a
linear process derived from a western model. In other words, western countries
are to be congratulated and developed countries should be blamed. In addition,
modernization theory brought economic growth, but did not necessarily allow
poverty alleviation and housing solution for poor households (Burgess,
1992).
In sum, poverty is a controversial issue and reveals that
there is a need for our cities to fight for more equality and improvement of
living conditions. How does poverty, understood also as lack of shelter give
rise to the practice of SHH? This is the issue which will be the subject of the
following discussion.
2.5.2 Poverty and the rise of SHH
Poverty is essentially the incapacity for individuals to
satisfy their basic needs which also includes housing. Poor people are those
who are not able to access adequate housing by their own effort. They need for
this matter State intervention or the intervention of other people. This is why
UNCHS (1996) in announcing the right for everyone to have access to adequate
shelter emphasize at the same time the role of government. In developing
countries where the States lack sufficient funds, it is not easy for the States
to properly accomplish their role. This creates the proliferation of informal
settlements as in South Africa and also the invasion of land. If housing is
taken as a basic need, poor people should be helped as they cannot enter the
formal market. In South Africa, the State tries through the RDP to provide
adequate housing to low income people. However, the effort of government should
be increased given the population growth and the number of homeless. In sum, if
the government cannot properly provide adequate housing for poor households,
the only alternative which remains for them is either to seek by their own
effort to satisfy their housing need or to become homeless. The main difficulty
for the State in leaving poor people to satisfy their housing need alone may
conflict with the need for having an integrated city and may give rise to
informality.
The last element of this chapter seeks to establish a linkage
between movements of thought presented above, inequalities, poverty and the
rise of SHH. The element which establishes this linkage is essentially the
concept of need.
2.6. The concept of need
Referring to findings in psychology a need is something that
must necessarily be satisfied in order to avoid frustration. Among the meanings
set to the concept of need, I will for the purpose of this dissertation
consider need as the reason which motivates a given action. And I will not look
at the hierarchy of needs but I will focus on «psychological
needs» and «basic
needs». Basic needs such as the need to eat, need for water,
need for housing, etc, are necessary and indispensable for all human beings. If
people cannot satisfy their need for housing for one reason or another, they
are likely to become homeless and may be susceptible to other vulnerabilities
linked to homelessness (see Olufemi, 2000). The main characteristic of need is
that once satisfied, it disappears.
2.6.1 The dynamic of need and
desire
Another concept related to need is
«desire». The difference between a desire
and a need is that a need is clear and may be satisfied whereas desire
expresses the dynamic of human life. This means that the desire cannot be
completely satisfied. Once satisfied, it appears in another form. Applying the
concept of need in housing, housing may be considered as a
«fixed product» (see Burgess 1985). And the
notion of desire in housing may explain the notion such as
«housing process» or
«housing as a verb» which is advocated by
Turner (1972) and «cycle housing» which
introduces the notion of priorities in housing. Between need and desire the
priority should be given to the need. This does not mean that in prioritizing
need over desire I neglect the importance of desire or I affirm the superiority
of need to desire. I only mean that the need is clearly expressed therefore
easy to be satisfied whereas the desire is not visibly expressed and cannot be
completely satisfied. A good understanding of the dynamic of need and desire,
may in turn allow a deep understanding of the need for housing. This implies a
static and global definition of for example «adequate housing», which
is not the case in this research.
2.6.2 The need for housing and the
rise of SHH
The concept of need allows us to understand the dynamic that
rules the practice of SHH in general and informal settlement in particular. In
the absence of government assistance through housing subsidy, or difficult
access to housing finance or slow delivery of housing, households especially of
the poorest of the poor do not have another alternative than to address the
issue of housing themselves. In South Africa, the need for housing and adequate
shelter is real and may be observed in the housing waiting lists and in the
expansion of informal settlements. The rise of SHH is a logical reaction
motivated by the need for housing. It may be concluded that if the need for
housing is adequately satisfied or if there is no housing crisis, we cannot
experience the rise of SHH. As Henderson (1999) argues, neither the State nor
interest groups may recommend the practice of SHH when the economy of the
country is healthy19(*).
However, in South Africa, the situation looks different
insofar as there is not expansion of SHH despite the presence of elements
analyzed and presented above which should give rise to the practice of SHH.
Before analyzing the reasons why there is not expansion of SHH in South Africa,
I would first, in the following chapter focus on SHH in the literature
review.
3.0. Chap 3: Self-Help Housing
literature review
3.1: Introduction of the
chapter
In the preceding chapter, I tried to demonstrate that SHH
which emerges from the situation of economic crisis and the need of having
shelter is a result of poverty and inequalities. Indeed, with liberalism and
neo-liberalism which stress individual freedom and free-market and which
recommend the reduction or the suppression of State intervention on public
services, SHH seems to be suitable.
SHH may be considered amongst the well-documented topics in
the literature on housing and «the oldest and most primitive form of
producing shelter» (Mathey, 1992: 201). In addition, as observed by
Turner, «the traditional order was such that individuals (people) who
already existed in particular geographical contexts (land) marshalled their
resources to construct dwelling units for themselves» (Turner, 1986: 8).
This is because, since the beginning of humanity, people have always sought to
solve the shelter issue. The argument that explains this reality comes from
philosophy which shows that the government or the submission of will to a given
authority is a result of contract. Indeed, the government finds its existence
with the social contract20(*). Referring to philosophical background related to
social contract, SHH seems to be the oldest housing practice in the World.
The aim of this chapter is to «describe, summarize,
evaluate and clarify» (http://www.library.cqu.edu.au) the concept of SHH.
The starting point of this chapter is primarily to define and to clarify
different forms of SHH. The second section of this chapter will seek to
understand the international and the South African experience of SHH. In
concrete, this chapter seeks, through the literature review, to extract
different forms and the definition of SHH, to enumerate strengths and
weaknesses of SHH and to elaborate the criteria for successful SHH.
3.2: The different forms and
definition of SHH
From the literature review, we can determine four different
forms of SHH. Referring to Burgess, SHH may also be called self-building. In
this sense:
«Self-help building is distinguished from other systems
of construction in that the family who lives in the house participates in the
construction process by making different contributions (finance, labour-power,
administration, etc.) be this in an autonomous form or in a form organized by
an institution»(Valenzuela and Kierdrowski, quoted in Burgess, 1985:
272-273).
From this definition, two kinds of SHH may be derived: The
autonomous form and the assisted or aided form. In addition, Kerr and Kwele
(2000: 1315) observe that «this definition is sufficiently broad to
incorporate all Self-Help Housing building activities that occur in squatter
settlements as well as those that take place with State finance and promotion.
It also suggests that Self-Help is not necessarily `self-build' and can cover
both individual and collective efforts».
According to Rodell and Skinner (1983: 4), «Self-Help
Housing meant houses low-income families constructed with their own, unpaid
labour». From this definition, we may retain that the focus is on the
poor families and houses are produced by low-income households themselves.
Referring to Harms (1992), there are three kinds of SHH:
unaided SHH, State supported SHH and state initiated SHH. The first form of SHH
is identified through the literature review as the autonomous or
spontaneous form
3.2.1 Autonomous or Spontaneous
form of SHH
There is abundant literature on autonomous or spontaneous form
of SHH. All authors agree that the development of this kind of SHH explains the
inability of a given government through housing programmes to supply adequate
and affordable housing for its citizens (Rodell, 1983 and Brian and Raminder,
1988). As a result, people, especially the poorest of the poor or the worst off
who are below the poverty line, seek to solve their housing need in squatting
as they cannot afford to pay rent or services in formal settlements. This
creates in many underdeveloped countries, including South Africa, informal
settlements. According to Angel (2000a), informal sector housing is more
perceivable in developing countries where the economic development does not
permit the majority of population to own «decent housing either through
mass public housing construction or through the formal private sector»
(Angel, 2000a: 320). Huchzermeyer (2002b) argues that informal settlement draws
attention to poverty. Besides, Abrams (1964) goes on to argue that «the
slums exist because no nation is able to produce adequate housing, at a cost
the workers can afford» (quoted in Obudho et al, 1988: 8). For the World
Bank, informal settlement or squatter settlement indicates «housing that
is either the result of illegal occupation or has been developed in an
unauthorized fashion» (World Bank, 1992).
Obudho et al (1988) argue that in developing countries,
squatter settlements are the manifestation of normal urban growth. For
Huchzermeyer (2003b), autonomous or spontaneous SHH, called sometimes unaided
SHH may be the result of an individual or a group of individuals who occupy
land illegally for the purpose of having shelter. In a few words, the
autonomous form of SHH which gives rise to informal settlements, squatter
settlements or slums is «caused by poverty and inadequate housing
responses, which are mutually reinforcing, to some extent» (United Nations
Human Settlement Programme 2003:28).
The main cause of failure to provide adequate human
settlements in developing countries including South Africa results, as Erguden
(2001) argues, in the existing gap between the formulated housing policy and
its implementation. According to him, this inadequacy or failure may be
experienced in the lack of effective implementation strategies, poor promotion
of security of tenure, inadequate supply of affordable land and infrastructure,
inadequacy of housing finance systems, poor utilization of local building
materials and technologies, lack of support to small-scale construction
activities, inappropriate standards and legislation, inadequate participation
of communities in shelter development process and support to Self-help, lack of
focused research and experimental project, and poor utilization of research
findings.
Some governments of developing countries seek to properly
address the issue of informal settlement. In South Africa for example, the
government reaction related to that issue is explained by the current Minister
of Housing. The South African objective consists of the eradication of informal
settlements by 2014 (Sisulu, 2005a).
3.2.1.1 Possible reactions of a
given government regarding the issue of informal settlement
The literature on informal settlements indicates two possible
kinds of reaction from legal authorities in relation with the issue of informal
settlement. The first reaction is to demolish the informal settlements and to
evict households in order to plan for their relocation. This is what Rodell and
Skinner (1983) name the universal formula for housing policy adopted in
developing countries during the 1950s and 1960s. The idea behind this
conventional housing policy is that «the enormous growth of slum and
squatter housing stemmed from people's inability to pay for conventional
housing and furthermore government would solve the problem by building and
subsidizing the necessary units» (Rodell and Sinner, 1983:1). This
especially happened in South Africa, China, etc. This kind of dealing with
informal settlement is severely criticized by Turner (1972) and seeks to solve
poor households' need for housing without consulting them. This practice has
shown its inefficiency, especially in South Africa, in not considering real
needs of poor households. Indeed, as Lankatilleke (1990: 24) asserts,
«People should be at the centre of decision making». Besides, Rodell
et al (1983) note the failure of this kind of dealing with the expansion of
informal settlements in affirming that «programmes to house many people,
suggested that governments would not or could not mobilize enough resources to
make it work. The resulting absence of public housing leaves families no
choices beyond renting in slums or building houses on their own, as and when
they can» (Rodell and Skinner, 1983: 1).
In South Africa, the 1994 WP on housing policy takes largely
into account what Rodell and Skinner describes as the universal formula for
housing policy. The result produced by the South African housing policy does
not differ from that criticized and elaborated by these authors. Khan (2003)
and Bond and Tait (1997) widely criticized the current South African policy,
especially the issue of relocation. Regarding relocation, which is the first
way to deal with the issue of informal settlement, Khan observes that it
creates economic reconstitutions of communities, the changes to the status of
housing assets, the limitations on freedom of movement. Furthermore, Khan notes
again in the issue of relocation the reduction of saving capacity and the
disruption of social networks. Relocation, according to the same author
increases insecurity and vulnerability to crime. The South African housing
authority (Department of Housing) does not ignore the issue of relocation or
the failure of the current Housing policy which is essentially based on
subsidized housing delivery. In 2004 through «Breaking New
Ground - A comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable
Human Settlements», the South African Department of Housing initiated a
programme of informal settlement upgrading which aims at poverty eradication;
reducing vulnerability; and promoting social inclusion.
In sum, the failure of current South African Housing Policy
(Bond and Tait, 1997) suggests that the demolishing of informal settlements for
possible relocation does not constitute a durable solution. In fact, this
practice does not answer my original question: «why do people establish
informal settlements?» Without properly addressing this question, people
may return to the informal settlement after their relocation. It appears that
the autonomous or the spontaneous SHH is a complex issue. This is acknowledged
by the United Nations Human Settlement Programme (2003) when they advocate
that:
«Slums and poverty are closely related and mutually
reinforcing, but the relationship is not always direct or simple. On the one
hand, slum dwellers are not a homogenous population, and some people of
reasonable incomes choose to live within, or on, the edges of slum communities.
Even though most slum dwellers work in the informal economy, it is not unusual
for them to have incomes that exceed the earnings of formal sector employees.
On the other hand, in many cities, there are more poor outside slum areas than
within them. Slums are designated areas where it is easier to see poor people
in the highest concentrations and the worst conditions; but even the most
exclusive and expensive areas will have some low-income people» (United
Nations Human Settlement Programme, 2003: 28).
The analysis of UN Human Settlement Programme related to
informal settlements or slum settlements shows that it is not easy to deal with
the issue of informal settlement and the State intervention in this field
cannot be successful without people participation. For Crankshaw (2000), any
intervention regarding the improvement of informal settlement should not
overlook the existence of migrants and urbanites. The author observes that
while the migrants who are in the informal settlement for the purpose of
employment seek a temporary residence in order to reduce the costs of
accommodation and to keep contact with the rural area where they are from, the
urbanised squatters will seek a permanent residence. This is to say that the
reasons for staying in informal settlements differ from one squatter to another
and; therefore the heterogeneity of squatter settlements complicates the
intervention in this sector.
The attempt to upgrade informal settlements which manifests
the failure of the current housing policy, gives rise to a new approach
regarding housing policy. Rodell and Skinner (1983) name it «the new
policy formula». They affirm that this new policy consists of asking
«government to supply the missing elements and, in effect, to incorporate
SHH into public Housing programmes» (Rodell and Skinner, 1983:1). The main
advantage of this policy is that «governments might reduce their
investments per families and so reach a larger number of families, thus helping
to overcome the main deficiency - low access which resulted from conventional
housing policy» (Rodell and skinner, 1983: pp 1-2).
This way of reacting related to informal settlement, largely
observed in Latino-America and timidly in South Africa, constitutes the second
form of SHH identified in the literature review as State Supported
SHH.
3.2.2 State supported SHH
This second form of SHH, sometimes called upgrading
programmes, as described by Harms (1992), is not very different from the
spontaneous or autonomous form. It essentially exists where the State
recognizes or legalizes the effort produced by the users in order to house
themselves. In that sense, State assisted SHH is the legalization by the State
of spontaneous or autonomous SHH. As Martin (1983: 53) argues, «upgrading
solves the housing problem by transforming `illegal' dwellings into `legal'
ones, thus improving the housing statistics». It deals with the actions
such as «infrastructure provision, technical assistance, funds for
upgrading, supervised credits ...» (Harms, 1992: 35). This form of SHH is
analyzed and defended by Turner (1972) who claims that the role of the State is
to help users to be responsible in the process related to their housing. In
South Africa, the second form of SHH will protect the inhabitants of informal
settlements from eviction as happened at Grootboom, Alexandra and Bredell
(Huchzermeyer, 2003b). Besides, the second form of SHH provides to residents of
informal settlements the security of tenure. This is, according to Martin
(1983), one of the reasons for upgrading programmes.
Martin (1983: 53) outlines some advantages of the second form
of SHH. He notes that:
- It preserves existing economic systems and opportunities for
those in need, the urban poor.
- It preserves a low-cost housing system, usually at
advantageous locations, thus enabling the inhabitants to retain the maximum
disposable income.
- It preserves a community which has internal linkages to
safeguard the interests of the individual family and the group.
Referring to Martin, the main advantages of this SHH is that
it recognizes the effort of households which seek to solve their needs for
housing (Turner, 1972). Besides, it does not destroy some households' assets
such as networks which exist between tenants and which may allow them to
generate income in being self employers.
If one of the purposes of upgrading programmes seeks to
transform illegal dwellings into legal ones, as Martin argued, the main
weakness of this form of SHH is that in providing the security of tenure to
residents of informal settlements, the State legalizes illegality and
informality. In this sense, this form of SHH can allow the perception that
illegality is the way to accede to legality and may encourage other households
who are in need of housing to invade land.
The key success of this approach remains, according to Martin,
the active participation of the beneficiaries and the true dialogue between
implementers of the project which is the government and beneficiaries of the
project (the low-income families). In analyzing the advantages of
participation, Martin (1983) points out that it helps to meet the needs of the
beneficiaries. The participants who are involved in the upgrading project are
likely to support the project and, if the project fails, the users may easily
accept the results.
The literature on State Supported SHH or upgrading programmes,
only focuses on improving housing conditions (Harms, 1992) or the
transformation of illegal dweller to legal dweller (Martin, 1983) through
granting security of tenure to residents. However, these authors fail at the
same time to stress the issue of empowering low-income families in providing
them with economic opportunities and allowing their social inclusion within the
whole society (University of the Witwatersrand Research Team (2004).
In sum, the second form of SHH is the situation in which the
initiative, although poor, inadequate and weak, of solving housing need comes
from the beneficiaries. And, instead of bulldozing the informal housing, the
State complements the households' efforts in providing them opportunities to
improve their housing conditions. Another form of SHH is the situation in which
the plan to solve the housing need of the citizens comes from the government
and the households have only to participate in such projects. This form of SHH
is identified in the literature review as the State initiated
SHH.
3.2.3 The State initiated SHH
The third form of SHH, called the «State initiated
self-help housing» or aided SHH, looks very different from the forms cited
above. In this form, the State takes responsibility and initiative to plan, to
organize and to finance, and requires the participation of beneficiaries,
especially in terms of labour. For Harris (1999), Aided SHH refers to the
situation where governments have developed programmes of assistance
specifically for owner-builders. In addition, this form of SHH refers to the
housing built with State assistance by families for their own use. This form of
SHH, sometimes called State SHH is practiced in Jamaica (Klak, 1997) and Cuba
(Mathey, 1992).
This kind of SHH was observed and developed where there was a
severe shortage of housing stock, especially in developed countries after the
World War II (see Schulist at al, 2002; Mathey, 1997; Wakeman, 1999; Dingle
1999; Parnell and Hart, 1999; and Harris 1999). In developing countries, this
form of SHH is adopted as policy for facing the rapid urbanization and
population growth that these countries face (Dwyer, 1975; United Nations Human
Settlement Programme 2003). As this form of SHH emanates from the government,
it may be observed that the successful State SHH demonstrates the situation
where the government takes its responsibility to supply housing for poor people
and also its ability to associate beneficiaries of housing projects to the
solutions related to their good. The main difference between this form of SHH
and the South African current Housing Policy is that the State involves the
beneficiaries at the phase of execution while the South African Housing policy
considers the beneficiaries as mere recipients. In comparison with the second
form of SHH presented above, in State initiated SHH the attempt at solving
housing need of low-income families comes from the government whereas in State
Supported SHH the State adds the low-income families' efforts to improve their
housing conditions. In this sense, State SHH indicates that the housing project
comes from the top or outside the community and the implementation is
negotiated between the designer or planners and beneficiaries.
This third form of SHH is challenged in the literature by
Burgess (1985 and 1992) who argues that SHH deepens social inequalities and
vulnerability of poor families. He also asserts that poor people for whom the
SHH project is initiated are not always the beneficiaries as they cannot afford
to pay fees related to land and construction materials. Amis (1995) points out
that this form of SHH overlooks the main causes of poverty. Kerr and Kwell
(2000) who analyze housing conditions in Botswana argue that SHH ignores the
main causes of poverty in capitalist societies; thus, it legitimizes
poverty.
These authors, especially Burgess, who criticize State SHH,
argue that it cannot adequately constitute a durable solution for low-income
households in developing countries. These critiques stand. However, these
authors fail to propose an efficient alternative and to recognize that this
policy is adapted to the deficient economy of developing countries. In fact, as
Henderson (1999) advocates, no country or development agency may adopt SHH for
facing the issue of severe housing shortage created by urban population growth.
These authors could not propose conventional housing policy as this type of
programme failed in many developing countries including South Africa to
decently house poor households. A just and fair critique regarding SHH should
recognize the complexity of the housing issue as it is correlated to other
issues. In that sense, housing solutions should include economic, political and
ideological aspects. This is to say that developing countries would not find a
durable housing solution, as long as political and economic instability exist:
This is what authors who criticize SHH fail to admit.
The fourth form of SHH looks very different from three forms
described above. In fact, it is the situation where the individual without
operating in illegality or informality solves his/her housing need alone (see
fig 2 in Appendix). This form of SHH is identified in the literature review, as
«the market Self-Help Housing». It is also
named «the market-driven»
3.2.4. The Market SHH
This form of SHH is the objective of neo-liberal policy.
Indeed, with the focus on the market, neo-liberals argue that an individual may
find everything that he/she needs. He/She can purchase land, the materials of
construction and the all necessary materials in the market. This kind of SHH
may be qualified as the most successful SHH as it is the expression of Turner's
dream (the full appropriation of housing process by an individual) without
acting illegally. It may be recommended where the economic situation provides
opportunities to everyone to determine his/her ends and to find ways to attain
it. In comparison to the third form of SHH described above, this fourth form of
SHH called sometimes «market driven» (see South African Housing White
paper) explains the situation of economic stability while the second and the
third form of SHH is the manifestation of economic crisis. In this sense, as
the main objective of neo-liberalist policies is to help developing countries
to stabilize their macro-economy through economy growth (Colclough, 1991a), the
market SHH is the expression of liberalism and neo-liberalism.
However, it may be said that this kind of SHH is appropriate
for rich people and is welcomed in capitalist societies. Besides, it reinforces
the gap existing between poor people and rich people. If the State cannot
support those who are unable to adequately solve their housing need, the fourth
form of SHH may force low-income families to develop squatter settlements or to
find their own way of solving their housing need. As a result, the poorest of
the poor will not have another alternative than to resort to illegality and
informality.
Consequently, this SHH will only favour a specific group, more
specifically in poor countries and penalize others, especially those with great
differences in household income, for example in a country with a high GINI
co-efficient. It may be said that this kind of SHH is not appropriate as
policy for developing countries. Indeed, it requires economic stability, high
level of education and the ability of people to perform in the market.
Nevertheless, developing countries including South Africa, which may be
considered as one of the most advanced developing countries, do not yet attain
this level. In sum, the fourth form of SHH is not appropriate for developing
countries which still struggle for economic growth and macro economic
stability.
In the description of the different forms of SHH, it is
acknowledged that each form presents strengths and weaknesses as well. The
section below will emphasize strengths and weaknesses of SHH.
3.3 The strengths and weaknesses
of SHH
3.3.1 The strengths
The main strength of SHH practice is that beneficiaries are
not excluded from the housing project. Instead, they are among the actors, even
the main actors of the housing project21(*). Before discussing the strengths of SHH, it seems
important to acknowledge that, in most forms, SHH is a project that requires a
group of individuals or a community22(*).
Some advantages of SHH are widely discussed in the literature
review such as: SHH has the «ability to provide access for thousands of
families where conventional housing could only reach hundreds» (Rodell and
Skinner, 1983: 3). According to Turner, when the community is in control of
their housing process, the environment produced stimulates individual and
social well-being. In addition, in South Africa, the empirical evidence shows
that the houses built by the community itself through SHH Programmes are bigger
and cheaper than those delivered by government through mass housing (Marais et
al, 2003). These advantages focus on the economic aspect. However, there are
also social and cultural aspects in community self-building projects.
One of the recommendations of the UN Habitat II (1996) is to
promote solidarity among people living in the city. SHH is one of the ways
which facilitates the promotion of solidarity among people through engaging in
the construction of their own houses. People working together develop among
themselves attitudes such as «mutual trust». The community engaged in
a SHH project works as a mutual scheme. Every member of the co-operative
receives from it and in turn must do his best in order to allow the
co-operative to work adequately. This relationship between the co-operative,
comprised as an ensemble of community members, and the individual belonging to
the community gives rise to the «mutual trust», a necessary element
for the promotion of solidarity. This trust obtained while working in a housing
project may be exploited for other projects regarding development in other
sectors. This means that housing activities may be a useful tool for putting
people together. In sum, a community engaged in a SHH project has also social
advantage such as the development of networks.
In that sense, community SHH contributes, to some extent, to
reinforcing social linkages between people working together. Alongside the
social aspect, the community SHH project reinforces cultural linkages as
well.
Diversity of cultures is one of the characteristics of our
communities living in urban areas (UN Habitat II, 1996). Spiegel et al (1996)
go further in arguing that recognizing diversity should be the main concern of
policy makers and planners. SHH projects have the merit of associating in the
same site, people from different cultures and background. This may have the
advantage of consolidating their cultures, to complement each other, to
collaborate and also to accept differences existing among them. As Friedman
(1988) asserts, the failure to recognize the difference existing among human
beings, especially those living in the same community, may produce fatal
consequences such as civil war, genocide, apartheid, etc. This is to say that
the failure to recognize that we are different with respect to our background,
cultures, education, income, etc, may create an authoritarian attitude and
disharmony in our society. However, once people accept that they are different,
they become able to work together and to complement each other for the good of
the entire community: SHH projects can facilitate this process.
SHH projects do not only present advantages. This approach is
also challenged by some scholars, especially by the advocates of Marxism.
3.3.2 Weaknesses of SHH
The main critiques of SHH come from a Marxist viewpoint.
Burgess, inspired by Althusser (1977) and Poulantzas (1973), advocates that the
limits of State SHH should be situated at the economic, ideological and
political levels. At the economic level for example, Burgess shows the limit of
State SHH in the acquisition and development of land, in the provision of
construction materials and in the system of administration. He refers to the
illegal nature of the artisanal form23(*). As the artisanal form is generally involved in
«invasion or illegal purchase of land, absence of service costs, non
payment of taxes, etc», it does not fill the criteria of State SHH. As
notes Burgess, land is developed specifically for the purposes of exchange.
This is not the case for the artisanal form. Furthermore, Burgess states that
in State SHH, there is a gap between the housing need and the housing supply.
Therefore, SHH cannot be a solution to the housing problem in less developed
countries. The main proposition of Burgess is that State SHH will create
additional charges that poor people cannot afford and therefore, State SHH will
deepen poor people' vulnerabilities.
Marcuse (1992)24(*) summarizes the main critiques against SHH which may
be found in the literature review. He presents ten weaknesses. Primarily, SHH
cannot be a substitute for resources indispensable for housing provision.
Secondly, Marcuse argues that SHH deals with the host of problems that require
centralized decision-making; it violates sound and necessary planning
principles. The third weakness is that SHH is likely to produce only temporary
solutions to immediate housing problems. Fourthly, SHH provides no evaluative
mechanism, no way of building in the future on the accomplishments and lessons
of the past. The fifth weakness appears to be the result of all critiques:
Marcuse advocates that SHH is inefficient. Sixthly, SHH is economically
regressive; it does nothing to redistribute social resources in accordance with
need. The seventh critique states that SHH results in a lowering of housing
standards. Eighthly, SHH can be politically reactionary. Ninthly, SHH can be
socially divisive and finally, SHH exploits the labour of its participants.
I would like to comment on the third weakness which states
that SHH is likely to produce only temporary solutions to immediate housing
problems. Indeed, this critique shows that poor housing conditions or severe
shortage of housing stock are not only specific to housing. In fact, as the
South African Department of Housing (2005) observes:
«The challenge of informal settlements upgrading must be
approached from a pragmatic perspective in the face of changing realities and
many uncertainties. Informal settlements should also not be viewed as merely a
`housing problem', requiring a `housing solution' but rather as a manifestation
of structural social change, the resolution of which requires [a]
multi-sectoral partnership, long-term commitment and political endurance
(Department of Housing, 2005: 4-5).
In Chapter II, I showed that poverty and inequalities are
among the main causes of bad housing conditions and therefore the stimulus of
SHH. Implementation of SHH in developing countries as solution to severe
housing shortage resulted from urban population growth, without looking
simultaneously at poverty and inequalities, issues created by unjust political
and social systems. This often results in poor housing conditions being
isolated from other matters.
Referring to South Africa, despite the critiques enumerated
above, it may be noticed that the rate of unemployment and number of
underemployed people are very high. This means that in executing SHH, we
extract the housing market from the building industry. Therefore, we employ
unskilled people while there are qualified people who can more be effective. In
her study on «low-income housing in Alexandra, Johannesburg, Empowerment,
Skills Development and Job creation», Fitchett (2001: 26) observes that
the statistic provided by the Department of Labour indicates that «the
building contracting field was continuing to suffer the decline dating from the
1970s both in number of companies and operatives in the industry and in the
under capacity of those still in business». This is to say that the
execution of SHH in South Africa may deepen and accelerate the decline that
building industries face. Although SHH helps some people to get building
skills, it does not solve the unemployment issue in the short term. It only
prepares those who are involved in for the long run where they can be useful
for the construction industry.
Despite the main critiques formulated against SHH, such as
that it deepens social inequalities and welcomes the capitalist system, Mathey
(1992) argues that these critiques do not always stand. He advocates that we
may not generalize. Indeed, he argues that these critiques stand if we analyze
SHH as it is applied in capitalist countries. He proposes to analyze also SHH
in socialist countries for a complete approach. From the study of SHH in Cuba
which is a socialist State, Mathey concludes that SHH is efficient and may
constitute the solution for housing crisis which most developing countries
face.
Mathey' s counter arguments related to weaknesses of SHH would
stand if housing problems were not linked to other issues such as poverty,
inequalities, unemployment, etc. Nevertheless, as the South African Department
of Housing (2005) observes, we need a global solution if we need a durable
solution regarding the housing crisis. In South African vocabulary, the housing
solution should be integrated25(*). SHH, however, only seeks to tackle the issue of
severe housing shortage which derives from urban population growth. As it will
be shown in the fourth chapter, a significant number of poor people in South
Africa expect the government to create jobs for them. This is to say that
although housing, defined by the parliament of South Africa as: adequate
shelter which fulfils a basic human need; a product and a process; a vital part
of integrated developmental planning; a key sector of the national economy; and
vital to the socio-economic well-being of the nation (Housing Act of 1997),
low-income families are concerned about having access to adequate shelter and
to find a job as well. If SHH prepares low-income families to get construction
skills which may help them in the future to be useful for the construction
industry, it does not however, in the case of South Africa, answer the issue of
unemployment which the country faces.
The following section will analyze the international
experience of SHH in general; and the successful SHH in Cuba, one of the
developing countries and in Canada, one of the developed countries. Both cases
may be considered as the most successful implementation described in the
literature on SHH.
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 shortage26(*). 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 builders27(*). 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 Castro28(*), 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.
3.4.2 The Canadian experience of
Self-Help Housing
The Canadian experience of aided SHH is documented in Schulist
and Harris (2002). They analyse aided SHH in the period 1940 to 1975. These
authors emphasize the government assistance in the success of aided SHH in
Canada. Indeed, they advocate that with finance and technical assistance, every
citizen may be able to build his own shelter.
These authors show that the success of Canadian experience of
aided SHH has been made possible from the real services that the Government has
provided. They point out that, «Amateurs built well because they received
good guidance: well informed, firm on essentials, but otherwise flexible»
(Shulist et al, 2002: 359).
The criteria which have contributed to the success of this
programme are: provision of land which was not over complicated, finance
mechanism which was also accessible to poor households (in the Canadian case,
the poor household heads were veterans), the technical assistance that
beneficiaries or self builders have received from the government and also the
quality of administration.
Regarding the government assistance, the authors affirm that
«the Administration offered five types of assistance: free legal service,
house plans, construction courses, supervision and financing» (Shulist et
al, 2002: 352). It may be observed that the authors stress the role of
government more than the participation of the beneficiaries.
Despite some weaknesses of the Canadian SHH programme such as
the promotion of scattered development, these authors argue that «over
three decades, it helped thousands of families to acquire well-built homes by
investing sweat equity. It saved families a great deal while costing the public
much less» (Shulist et al, 2002: 366). In sum, the Canadian experience of
SHH shows that the role of government in the success of SHH needs to be taken
seriously.
Before addressing the criteria for successful SHH, I would
like to analyze the emergence and the experience of SHH in South Africa as
presented in the literature.
3.5 The South African experience
of SHH
The South African experience of SHH as policy for dealing with
housing shortage and urban population growth is recent; however, the
application of SHH itself is an older practice in South Africa. Apart from
rural areas where SHH is the most common practice of building shelter (Mathey,
1992), it has been observed that during the apartheid regime, what may be
called de facto SHH occurred. In fact, the segregated planning of the apartheid
regime, which consisted of isolating black people from centres of economic
activities and creating locations for indigenous people on the periphery, may
be considered as de facto SHH initiative for the urban poor (Saunders, 1960
quoted in Parnell and Hart, 1999).
Parnell and Hart (1999) analyze the practice of SHH in South
Africa in the twentieth century. They notice that during the colonial era, the
SHH was the strategy adopted by urban poor people to meet their housing needs.
As Posel (1991) asserts, «owner building was briefly endorsed as part of
the post world war reconstruction initiative, only rejected once apartheid
ideologies gained full control of urban planning and influx controls in the
late 1950s» (quoted in Parnell and Hart, 1999: 368). According to the same
authors, SHH saw its revival again in 1970s given the urban crisis with the
severe housing shortage.
It may be concluded that in South Africa, before and during
apartheid system, poor households have always practiced SHH when they were
facing housing crisis and urban population growth. As Parnell and Hart (1999:
385) put it, «experience from South Africa, from colonial times to the
present non-racial democratic government of Nelson Mandela, shows that adoption
of SHH strategies always interfaces with the wider political and economic
realities, though not in uniform or predictable ways». It may also be
acknowledged that SHH strategies occur with and without the government support.
As Omenya (2002) argues, «People will always do something about their
housing situation, whether or not they are assisted».
The current emphasis on SHH in South Africa is legitimatized
in Housing policy and other policy documents. The 1994 South African White
Paper on housing gives space to SHH. It especially States that:
«The right of the individual to freedom of choice in the
process of satisfying his or her own housing needs is recognised. At the same
time it is recognised that people should be able to access and leverage
resources on a collective basis. The State should promote both the right of the
individual to choose and encourage collective efforts (where appropriate) by
people to improve their housing circumstances» (1994, Housing White
Paper).
In addition, Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele (1996), the former
Minister of Housing in Northern Cape, acknowledged the necessity of fostering
SHH in South-Africa. The former Housing Minister firmly believed that SHH could
make a significant contribution in the provision to housing in South Africa.
Her belief in SHH is based on international experience. She has affirmed
that:
«People throughout the world are the main producers of
housing and they have proved in many innovative ways that they are willing and
able to contribute in meeting their own housing needs. In South Africa, things
are not different. Such is the importance that we set by this process that my
department has set up a framework to support this and we call it the People's
Housing Process.» (Mthembi-Mahanyele, 1996)
In addition, the 1994 WP on Housing states that,
«International experience indicates a large degree of resilience,
ingenuity and ability in households to look after their own housing needs with
appropriate institutional support and financial assistance from
government».
The Department of Housing (1997) through its «Urban
Development Framework» defines PHP as «where individuals, families,
or groups take the initiative to organize the planning, design and building of,
or actually build their houses». The main idea which guides this policy
document through the implementation of PHP is the appropriation by households
of their housing process. This clearly appears when the Housing Department
(1997) affirms that «in such a process, people are in control of important
decisions such as how the house is designed, how resources are used, where and
how they can obtain affordable building materials and how the house will be
built».
The SHH which the South African Housing WP encourages is what
I named above the «market Self-Help Housing»30(*). Like the World Bank, South
African Housing policy has sought to solve housing crisis at the supply level
(Omenya, 2002). This means that the aim of the South African government in
developing the Housing WP was to ensure that the housing market provided enough
possibilities for everyone to choose the mode of housing delivery which suits
him/her but did not offer enough possibilities for individuals to afford
housing provided by the market. For Spiegel et al (1994), «Housing white
paper is oriented on `supply side' rather than `demand side'
considerations» (quoted in Spiegel et al, 1996).
Despite the objectives defined by the Housing WP of enabling
the housing market with the possibility of choices, one may ask whether the
post-apartheid government succeeds in attaining this goal. The response is
negative: neither the housing supply side, nor the demand side allow better
housing conditions for the low-income poor. Indeed, many authors have
criticized the current South African Housing Policy and have pointed out its
ineffectiveness. Khan (2003) observes that the post-apartheid housing policy
contained in the 1994 Housing WP is extremely problematic, especially in term
of sustainable human settlement development, employment creation and poverty
eradication. As main obstacles for post-apartheid housing policy to improve
informal settlements and to create employment, there are, according to the
author, continuation of peripheral development with poor infrastructure and
planning frameworks and also the absence of any coherent programme to deal with
vested interests in the land market. In addition, the author points out that
the post-apartheid housing construction deals with small informal contractors
with little experience and capacity. Furthermore, the author notes the lack of
capacity and skills of public authorities to design and implement integrated
development plans. These criticisms show that South Africa needs to elaborate a
new housing policy.
Omenya (2002) distrusts the recent gusto for SHH in South
Africa in challenging its desirability and its capacity to tackle the issue of
lack of quality observed in the delivery of housing through the RDP.
Moser (1992) also recommends the participation of women in
SHH. She founds her argumentation in enumerating the roles of women. In fact,
she bestows three main roles to women. Firstly, alongside the reproductive role
assigned to women, the author points out the production role of women in rural
and urban area as primary or secondary income earners. She observes that in
rural areas the women are the most involved in agriculture and in urban areas
they participate in the informal sector. Secondly, the author affirms that
women are very involved in community management work. In the absence of the
government provision related to housing, water, electricity, women, as the most
affected, seek to ensure the survival of their households. Finally, in
referring to Barrig and Fort, (1987); Moser, (1987); Cole, (1987); Sharma et
al., (1985) the author asserts that women are effective in the role of
organizing local-level protest groups. The author concludes that «because
of the Self-Help Housing nature of so many settlements and housing policies in
the Third World, the discussion of stereotype housing target groups must also
include the issue of women's participation in Self-Help housing projects»
(Moser, 1992: 58)
This analysis introduces us to the criteria for successful
implementation of SHH in South Africa. The last section of this chapter aims at
elaborating criteria for a better implementation of SHH in South Africa.
3.6: The criteria for successful
implementation of SHH in South Africa
The successful experience of SHH at international level and
some recommendations of Omenya (2002) may constitute a framework for the
criteria of a successful implementation of SHH.
The first criterion for a successful implementation of SHH is
the capacity of the community to organize itself without the government or the
development agencies' takeover. This is why Conway et al (1997) doubt the
possibility for the government to organize a community. This means that poor
people must organize themselves and be able to work together as community. A
SHH project can only produce maximal success if it is adopted in an organized
community31(*). In
addition, the community should be able to manage resources: government
subsidies or community resources. The fact is that without viable finance the
community cannot conduct any development project, including housing.
The second criterion is the homogeneity of needs. For ensuring
the participation of all members and to keep them motivated in a given project
such as housing, it is important that every participant manifests an interest
in the project. This requires the existence of the common interests among
participants who are involved in a project. This is important in order to avoid
sterile discussions and misunderstanding through the community while working
together. The Cuban experience of SHH shows the interest of participants in SHH
project. The homogeneity of needs is required as it is not unexpected to find
among poor household that owning housing is not a priority of everyone living
in the community (Adler 2002). As SHH is based on ownership, it may be useful
to practice what I call «positive
discrimination» in the choice of participants for the
effectiveness of the project. I mean by positive discrimination choosing for
the project only those who can take ownership option and are able to work
together, share the same goals and also participate financially. This is to say
that every community cannot participate in all projects related to the
community32(*).
Positive discrimination in the choice of participants in SHH
project may look contradictory to the extent that it does not promote
solidarity within the community. To some extent it is true, and the only way to
correct what I have named positive discrimination is to introduce in the given
project the notion of proportionality. Indeed, it is difficult and almost
impossible to have a homogeneous community. Diversity is one of the
characteristics of communities, especially in urban areas. Spiegel et al (1996)
argue that policy makers should deal with this issue if they desire to
elaborate rational policies33(*). Indeed, our communities are heterogeneous; this
means that the urban communities are fashioned from people with different
cultures, different backgrounds, different income, different needs, etc (Human
Habitat II, 1996). Applying the notion of proportionality in a project
regarding the community means that for involving every member in a given
project such as housing, we should not impose a uniform form of participation.
Households should participate in a SHH project according each one's capacity.
For example, some participants, especially those without job, may work more
hours than those who are employed. Some participants may contribute more than
others in term or finance. The notion of proportionality has the advantage of
allowing the participation of weak people or very poor households in a given
project. Referring to the Cuban example of SHH in its form of social
micro-brigades, beneficiaries were not only participants but also people who
were in real housing need. Another advantage of the notion of proportionality
is that, although unable to participate in the sites, disabled people may
benefit from the SHH project34(*).
The first two criteria enumerated above are related to the
responsibility of participants from low-income households. It may be argued
that SHH will present limited success if its beneficiaries are not consulted or
if it is imposed to them. Given what is argued above, it may be drawn as
assumption at this step that SHH may not constitute an ideal solution for all
low-income households in developing countries. This observation is drawn by
some authors such as Burgess (1985). Whereas Burgess emphasizes economic,
political and ideological levels to criticize State SHH, it should also be
noticed that alongside these limits, every low-income household is not able to
participate in the construction of his or her own shelter. Some may have health
problems and be unable to participate in hard work required for SHH; and some
others may not be interested in an ownership option (Adler, 2002) and prefer
the rental option, for example. Here the role of the State intervenes. This
role of the State, according to liberal policy, should seek and guarantee
general interests, social cohesion and freedom of choice for every citizen.
This means that the State, although acting for legality, should leave to every
low-income household the possibility to choose the housing mode of delivery
which suits his or her interest. In South Africa, Housing WP and other policy
documents such as the Urban Development Framework of 1997 offer, in theory,
many options of housing delivery to the low-income beneficiaries. In addition,
the recent introduction of a rental option through Social Housing confirms the
commitment to diversity of choices in housing mode of delivery. However, in
practice, given the failure to recognize diversity (Spiegel et al, 1996) in the
process of policy elaboration, lack of capacity and skills observed in
authorities in charge of housing (Khan, 2003) and other constraints related to
land issues and the difficulty of access to finance for low-income households
(Rust, 2002), low cost housing through the RDP remains the only option of
housing mode of delivery in many urban areas, including Tembisa.
The role of the State, which constitutes the third criterion
of a successful SHH, is clearly outlined in the Canadian SHH experience
analyzed above. This experience shows that the State facilitates the easy
access to urban land for low income, beneficiaries of the SHH project. Besides,
the State makes finance available for low-income households through the
mechanism of access which does not discriminate against poor people. Finally,
this experience also shows the availability of State through the third sector
(Non-Government Organizations or Community based organizations) to technically
assist owner builders. The role of State should be to initiate and encourage
rather than enforce a SHH project.
The framework proposed by the Turner model of SHH confers to
the State the role of enabling participants to be responsible. It seeks the
entire appropriation of SHH by participants themselves. The difference between
Turner's framework for a successful implementation of SHH and the Canadian
experience is that Turner insists on the overall responsibility of the
beneficiaries while the Canadian experience focuses only on the flexibility of
the government about the design. Both frameworks acknowledge the involvement
of State in the implementation of SHH.
The flexibility of governments in the SHH process is
important. In fact, it indirectly introduces the notion of dialogue between the
initiator, in this case the State, and beneficiaries (low-income households).
If the dialogue between the State and low-income people succeeds, the latter
may also initiate projects and propose designs and in turn be supported by the
State in term of finance and technical assistance (see Canadian experience of
SHH ). In South Africa, the lack of competence and capacity observed in
authorities in charge of housing delivery (Khan, 2003) and the high level of
uneducated people (Baumann, 2003) do not make possible the true dialogue
between the State and the participants of SHH project. This requires the
existence of a third sector which has the role of mediator between the
government and beneficiaries, discussed below.
The fourth criterion for a successful implementation of SHH is
the involvement of NGOs or CBOs in the SHH project. For Friedman
(1998)35(*), NGOs and CBOs
must play the role of mediator between the government and the population.
According to the 1994 Housing WP, the involvement of private sector, NGOs and
CBOs is seen as a prerequisite for a sustained delivery of housing. In the
Canadian experience presented above, the role of the third sector appears in
ensuring building technical assistance to the owner builders. This third sector
has the role of facilitating the dialogue between the government and the
participants of SHH. This requires them to acquire the capacity to understand
government resources and low-income people's needs. They should play a neutral
role and only seek the improvement of housing conditions of low-income
households rather than to take the government's side or to seek their personal
interests. This mediator role looks intricate in South Africa. Indeed, the
government has limited resources to satisfy people's housing needs
(Mthembi-Mahanyele, 1996). In the meanwhile, many poor households are badly
housed. The role of a third sector in South Africa should not, like in Canadian
SHH experience, be limited to technical assistance. It should also try to help
actors involved (government and builders) to understand each other.
The last criterion which should be enumerated is the
partnership between the government and the private sector. The 1994 Housing WP
and other policy documents cited above consider partnership between the
government and private sector as a prerequisite for a success housing delivery.
In developing countries and elsewhere, government alone cannot afford to solve
housing needs of poor people alone. Another argument for partnership may be
found in the access of urban land for poor people. In South Africa the
partnership between public and private sector looks necessary as the available
land for developing housing project belongs to the private sector36(*). As Payne (1999) argues, the
partnership between the public sector and the private sector constitutes a
better and durable solution for resolving the difficult access to urban land,
generated by the development of urban population, for low income people. In
general, land is seen as source of secure and profitable investment. It may be
argued that, «improving access to land markets is therefore a prerequisite
for improving housing situation and economic prospects for low-income
population» (Payne, 1999: 2). Another argument for partnership comes from
the advocates of neo-liberalism which note that currently, the world economy is
favorable to partnership and considers it as a useful opportunity to influence
urban land markets.
The assumptions made in this chapter may be summarized as
following:
- Although SHH is considered by some governments of developing
countries, like South Africa37(*), as a strategy or a tool to tackle severe housing
shortage associated with economic crisis (Henderson, 1999 and Mathey, 1992)
this practice should not be imposed on low-income households (Omenya, 2002).
Clearly, there is a need for the initiator of SHH (the State) to consult the
participants. The notion used to illustrate this assumption is flexibility
(Schulist, 2002).
- The second assumption is that the government should not
consider poor households as mere beneficiaries (Mthembi-Mahanyele, 1996). They
are participants and rich in initiative (Lankatilleke, 1990). Dialogue should
be considered as indispensable means for bridging the gap between the State and
the beneficiaries and also for understanding the real needs of poor households
(Friedman, 1998). Currently, the notion which also explains the importance of
households is «participation». As I argued above, the mode of
participation should not be uniform. It should consider the situation of every
participant. I used the term of positive discrimination and also
proportionality to argue that the mode of participation must be diversified
according to builders' availability.
- The role of women should not be neglected given her role in
the society and in development processes (Moser, 1992). Although the perception
of women in developing countries has been changing especially in urban area,
much still must be done.
Finally, SHH, although criticized, may produce great results
if government and poor households, mains actors, are committed to tackling
housing crisis.
The literature on SHH leads one to assume that the inability
of the South African government to meet the housing need of all its citizens
(manifested in the growing number of informal settlements and the significant
number of homeless) should in principle foster a widespread SHH programme.
Furthermore, concepts such as liberalism, neo-liberalism, poverty, inequalities
and housing need which stimulate SHH are not unknown in South Africa but do not
constitute a stimulus for successful SHH process. Are weaknesses of SHH
summarized above the reason for the non-widespread use of SHH process in South
Africa? Do other reasons which are not presented in the literature on SHH exist
and which do not allow the implementation of widespread use of SHH in South
Africa? These questions constitute the starting point of Chapter IV of this
work which is a case study of Tembisa, one of the South African Townships. The
aim of studying Tembisa is to identify reasons which do not allow a widespread
execution of SHH in South Africa. In so doing, this case study will enrich the
existing literature on SHH.
4.0: Chapter IV: Case Study in
Tembisa
4.1. Introduction of the case
Study
In the earlier chapters, I argued that the severe housing
shortage in South Africa and concepts of liberalism, neo-liberalism, poverty,
inequality and housing as a need should in principle stimulate the widespread
use of SHH adopted in South Africa as PHP. The literature on SHH demonstrates
that SHH does not present only strengths; it also presents weaknesses. The
findings of this research through the case study show that the failure of PHP
in some areas of South Africa and the limited use of SHH is not directly linked
to weaknesses of SHH. Instead, authorities in charge of Housing incorporated
SHH in National Housing policy as they believed that it could bring effective
housing solution. Among reasons which do not foster the widespread use of SHH,
the analysis derived from the case study points out that the attitude of
paternalism from the government and the dependency attitude that poor
households have, do not favour a widespread use of SHH in South Africa in
general and in Tembisa in particular.
Before presenting the main findings of this research, I will
firstly present the geographical situation of Tembisa; secondly I describe
Housing conditions in Tembisa. Finally, I will present findings obtained
through deep and open ended interviews with households and officials, which
will be followed by conclusion, recommendations for the government and
perspectives for future research.
4.2. Geographical situation of
Tembisa
Tembisa38(*) is one of the largest
townships
in South Africa, more specifically around Johannesburg. It was established in
1957 when
Africans were resettled from
Alexandra and
areas in
Edenvale, Kempton Park,
Midrand and
Germiston.
Presently, most people living there are from Pretoria, Eastern Cape, Transkei,
etc. It is situated to the north of
Kempton Park
on the
East Rand,
Gauteng,
South Africa; 17
kilometers from the Johannesburg International Airport and 38 kilometers from
Pretoria. Currently, its population is about a half a million people.
Like other South African townships, Tembisa has to respond to
challenges such as unemployment, lack of education, housing backlog, crime and
transport inadequacy as most poor people who live there work in Johannesburg
and have to spend almost 20% of their income in transport and almost one hour
by taxi before reaching the centre of Johannesburg.
4.3. Housing conditions in
Tembisa
Like in other developing countries, housing conditions are not
stable and constitute a sombre issue in South Africa. Thus, there are still
housing backlogs. One of the housing problems in South Africa is the issue of
informal settlements that authorities in charge of Housing seek to eradicate by
2014 (Sisulu, 2005a). Inadequate housing conditions that a significant number
of poor households face should in theory fuel a widespread use of SHH. The
housing statistics provided by the current Minister of Housing describe housing
conditions as following:
«A total of approximately 2,4 million households lives in
informal housing structures. From census data we know that of these households
about 400,000 are living in some form of structure in the backyard of a
property owned by someone else. About another 1 million live in a shack or
informal structure on their `own' stand - rented. About 740,000 of these 1, 4
million households are renting their dwelling - suggesting that of the 1
million or so living on their `own' stand in informal settlements, about one
third are renting the land and/or the dwelling. Of the 2, 4 million informally
housed households; about 800,000 are on the approved housing subsidy list and
still waiting for their homes. This suggests that there is about 1, 6 million
households who are in some way not formally part of the programmes to access
subsidies to obtain formal housing» (Sisulu, 2005b)
The housing situation described by the current Minister of
Housing presents a dark situation to which it should be added that; there are
still issues of quality, sustainable human settlement, affordability to poor
households and low supply for affordable rental accommodation as for those who
live in formal settlements
In Tembisa, housing conditions are no different from other
South African townships which experience a severe housing shortage and poor
housing conditions. Poor households who do not have access to marketable formal
land often invade land for the purpose of building shacks. As a result, there
is a multiplicity of shacks in eleven wards which comprise Tembisa. The
delivery of houses through the RDP programme seems to be the only effective
housing mode of delivery (see fig 1 in appendix). Other forms which are
mentioned in National Housing policy and policy documents such as PHP and the
form of SHH defined in this work as «market driven», seem to be
almost nonexistent. Although there are some dwellings obtained through bank
credits (see fig 2 in appendix), housing stock in Tembisa is essentially
constituted of RDP houses given the high rate of poor and unemployed people who
represent the majority of its population.
4.4. Findings of interviews
4.4.1 Categories of people
interviewed
Overall, ten people classified in three categories were
interviewed. The first category is related to the inhabitants of informal
settlements. The aim of selecting this category is to know why they do not
apply for subsidy granted through PHP39(*) or why they do not take steps to improve their
housing situations themselves in for example saving for the purpose of
upgrading. The second category is the residents of RDP houses. The objective of
choosing this category is to know their viewpoints regarding SHH and also why
they preferred RDP houses instead of PHP. The last category is legal
authorities of Tembisa, in charge of Housing, which are represented by two
councillors40(*). The age
of people interviewed varies between 19 years and 48 years, and they have been
staying in Tembisa from 4 to 11 years.
4.4.2. Description of People
interviewed
Among people interviewed, four people selected are residents
of informal settlements, 4 others are inhabitants of RDP41(*) houses and two are councilors
of Tembisa. Only one woman is working in the formal sector, as cleaner in
Auckland Park. She is a beneficiary of RDP house and her income is R 2500.
Other people interviewed are surviving by means of informal sector activities
such as street trading (see fig 5 and 6 in appendix) and part time jobs. One 48
years old respondent from an RDP house, said that she is surviving by means of
government assistance granted to her children.
In addition, all people interviewed are migrants and have
come to Tembisa for the purpose of finding a permanent job. To the question of:
how long have you been staying in Tembisa and where were you staying before you
reached Tembisa; the most recent respondent has been there for 4 years and the
respondent who has lived there longest has been there for 11 years. They are
from Transkei, Pretoria, Eastern Cape and East London.
4.4.3 Reasons of the
non-widespread use of SHH in Tembisa
4.4.3.a Land issue
Difficult access to land as one of the causes which does not
stimulate the implementation of a widespread use of SHH appeared in the
response provided by one informal settlement resident. He noted that they would
like to do something in order to improve their poor housing conditions but they
cannot, given the risk of being evicted. The only thing that they can do for
improving their housing conditions is to build more shacks42(*). For one of the councillors
interviewed, currently it is difficult to implement PHP in Tembisa given the
lack of public land. He added that, given land issue, the government has only
opted for RDP houses as housing mode of delivery. This raises the issue of
having access to land which is one of the prerequisites for implementing PHP.
In fact, as it clearly appears in Urban Development Framework of 1997,
«Effective Self-Help programmes and incremental housing
initiatives require well located serviced land, strengthening urban management,
promoting education and training, improving basic services, increasing the
availability of finance to the poor, increasing supply of building materials
and flexible building standards.»
The easy access to land is among the criteria enumerated by
Urban Development Framework for a successful implementation of SHH. However, in
developing countries, including South Africa, Doebele (1987) observed that the
record of governments in the effective management of land has been a
discouraging one. In South Africa, a significant part of available land is
privately owned and the government has to negotiate with them. As Huchzermeyer
(2002a) observes, this issue is difficult to deal with. In fact, the South
African constitution which is based on liberal and neo-liberal principles
protects private properties. This means that the democratic way for the
government to find land from the private sector is to negotiate with owners.
Acting otherwise, for example expropriating, would result in being
anti-constitutional.
4.4.3.b Right to accessing
adequate Shelter
Among people interviewed, especially those living in shacks,
no respondent is enjoying his housing conditions. They acknowledged their bad
housing conditions, especially lack of services such as water, electricity,
sanitation, etc. They do not see how they will solve their housing need if the
government does not intervene positively for them. All of them have already
applied for RDP houses a long time ago and are on the housing waiting list. The
only advantage indicated by the inhabitants of informal settlement is the
location as they are close to Johannesburg43(*). It may be observed among these residents the
intention of being permanent in Tembisa. There is only one respondent, a single
man, 28 years; who has Matric as level of education, he came from Pretoria and
has been staying in Tembisa for 4 years who noted that his living in Tembisa is
temporary for the purpose of searching for a Job. As Crankshaw (1996) observes,
policy-makers should not ignore this issue while elaborating policies. Whereas
it is urgent to find a durable solution for those who wish to remain in the
areas in opting for ownership, some poor people prefer a temporary solution, in
for example renting a unit. As Alder (2002) points out, ownership is not always
a priority among the urban poor. In addition, it can also be argued that the
ideal is to propose to poor people many housing delivery options so that they
can themselves opt for the solution which suits them. Presenting or proposing
only one option without consulting with low-income households seems to be a
paternalistic attitude which I will widely focus on in the part below.
Do the weaknesses of SHH enumerated in Chapter III constitute
the reasons for the limited use of SHH in South Africa? Although SHH is
challenged by some academics such as Burgess, Kerr and Tait (see the preceding
chapter), South African policy-makers seem to be favourable to SHH process
(Mthembi-Mahanyele, 1996; and Sisulu, 2005). In addition, SHH is incorporated
into National Housing policy through the 1994 Housing WP and other policy
documents such as the Development Urban Framework of 1997, and the Housing Act
of 1997. Given the promotion of SHH in policy documents, the lack of controlled
SHH in some urban areas for tackling the housing crisis resulting from urban
population growth seems to be paradoxical. The questionnaire of this research
was elaborated for the purpose of finding the main reasons which explain this
phenomenon in South Africa.
The support of government and poor households' participation
in the search for solving housing need are taken as the framework for analyzing
the reason for the failure to implement successful PHP
4.4.3.c. The ignorance of the
right to have access to adequate shelter
The first observation which comes from interviews is that
people do not know that housing is one of the human rights made clear in the
covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, in Human Habitat II
(1996), in 1994 Housing WP and in chapter II section 26 of the Democratic
Constitution of South Africa. RDP houses are considered by their beneficiaries,
and also by those who are on the waiting list, as a government gift, instead of
a government duty to provide adequate shelter for its citizens. This appears in
the responses provided to the question of: «how respondents find
government efforts to provide adequate shelter to all South Africans»? All
residents of RDP houses interviewed have acknowledged that government is doing
a great job but the problem is the population growth which continues to rise.
For the residents of informal settlements, government does not work very well
because they applied for an RDP house and have been waiting for a long time
without getting it. The appreciation of government depends on who gets and who
does not get a house. It seems logical that those who have been allocated a
house appreciate government actions and those who have not, criticize
government efforts. But the common element of both residents of RDP houses and
inhabitants of informal settlements is the ignorance of their right to adequate
shelter.
Regarding SHH and more specifically PHP, both residents of RDP
houses and inhabitants of informal settlements are unaware of the existence of
this housing mode of delivery in South Africa. This observation is based on the
response given to the question of which kinds of housing delivery they know.
All respondents said «RDP houses». This response looks logical from
respondents insofar as they are not aware of their housing rights. Indeed, PHP
is one of the ways for low-income households to enjoy their housing right. So,
the ignorance of this right goes hand in hand with the ignorance of the
existence of PHP.
The question which should be asked is whether or not the
ignorance of the existing housing rights of people is related to the lack of
education. The findings of this research reveal that even those who are
educated, at least with Matric, do not know their housing rights. Do people
with tertiary education know about their housing rights in South Africa? The
question cannot be answered in this case study as it did not focus on this
issue44(*). Maybe research
should be done in order to determine if people with tertiary education
recognize their right to adequate shelter. Besides, in this case, which actor
should take responsibility between low-income households and government? It
could be argued that for the government, poor households are responsible for
their lack of education and they wait for everything from the government and
are lazy to undertake a development project. This position is held by one of
councillors45(*).
According to low-income households living in RDP houses, councillors do not
meet their expectation and do not properly listen to them. It appears that for
low-income households interviewed, local authorities in charge of housing
delivery are incompetent, corrupt and do not properly address their different
needs, more specifically, housing need. This is not a new reality in South
Africa; some authors who have criticized South African Housing Policy did not
miss to point this aspect out. Khan (2003) notes the lack of capacity and skill
of public authorities to design and implement integrated development plans.
Besides, Omenya (2002) observes that «there is a lack of attention to the
peculiar needs of single people, migrant workers, the elderly, those in need of
temporary housing and people unable to access land legally». To this
critique, Central government would argue that this lack of institutional
capacity is a legacy of apartheid and not a failure of policy. This answer
looks unsatisfactory. In fact, Baumann (2003) who has tried to understand the
current South African economy, observes that the South African poverty is
deeply structured. According to him, the ANC government view about poverty
which advocates that the South African poverty is «basically a momentary
phenomenon, a relic of apartheid» (Baumann, 2003: 1) is questionable. For
Baumann, the ANC government strategies adapted for eradicating poverty are not
adapted to the South African context. Indeed these strategies are inspired from
Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and are based on
«post-fordism».
The ignorance of the existence of PHP also explains the
preference for RDP houses. However, some of the residents of RDP houses stated
that they would choose SHH if it costs less than RDP houses and also if they
were given the opportunity to learn how to build a house. This confirms
Shulist's (2002) assumption which states that with finance and technical
assistance almost everyone may build his own house.
In relation to the limited use of PHP observed in South Africa
despite the housing shortage, respondents ascertain the responsibility at the
level of both the government and poor households. It is observed at the level
of poor households the attitude of «dependency»46(*) which is manifested in waiting
for everything from the government and also paternalistic47(*) attitude which consists of
government acting for the good of beneficiaries without their consent.
4.4.3.d Attitude of dependency
The attitude of dependency is witnessed among poor households
interviewed, more specifically those living in informal settlements. This
attitude does not suit the framework for a successful implementation of SHH
which requires the active participation of beneficiaries. Potential
beneficiaries of low-cost Housing consider themselves simply as recipients of
government action, instead of participants. Thus, they marginalize themselves.
People living in informal settlements do not think to improve their housing
situations themselves or with government. They are waiting for houses from the
government and they forget that the government does not have enough resources
to solve housing need of all South Africans alone. As Mthembi-Mahanyele (1996),
the former Minister of Housing put it, the government will only help those who
help themselves. Dependency attitude is revealed when one of the councillors
interviewed affirmed that people are lazy to undertake hard work and
initiatives. He said that you can sometimes be confronted by people who inform
you that there have rats in their houses. The councillor was asking himself if
in such case people are not able to pay for product to destroy rats. He added
that people are only waiting for keys for occupying an RDP house. The
councillor's viewpoints about the failure to implement People Housing Process
in Tembisa seem to be confirmed by answers given by households interviewed. In
fact, all people interviewed, especially those living in squatter settlements,
respond to the question of: «what have you done so far in order to improve
your housing situation?» that they have applied for RDP houses. To the
question of if they were given an opportunity to choose between PHP and RDP
house, which kind of housing delivery they will choose and why, most
respondents said that they will choose RDP houses because RDP house is already
finished. In addition another element which confirms the attitude of
«dependency» observed at the level of beneficiaries is the responses
provided to the question of what the government must do urgently in order to
solve the issue of poor housing conditions. Most respondents, especially the
residents of RDP houses said that the government must build more RDP houses.
Like dependency attitude, Paternalistic attitude which may be
the cause of the attitude of dependency also does not support an effective
implementation of SHH programmes.
4.4.3.e Paternalistic attitude
From the government side, I observed paternalistic attitudes
which consist in taking decisions for poor people without considering their
viewpoints or associating them in the process of elaborating policies.
Paternalism, likened to the relation between a father and a child, seeks to
consider poor people as children, incapable of undertaking or initiating
development projects themselves. Lankatilleke (1990) criticizes this process
when he advocates that poor people are rich in initiatives and need to be
encouraged and supported. Helping poor people who are in need of housing to own
a decent house has moral considerations and seeks the good or interests of poor
households given the value that post-apartheid government confers to housing.
However, this becomes reprehensible to the extent that poor people did not
consent to policy development and its implantation.
Paternalistic attitude appears when, to the question of how
can PHP be effective and produce great results, one respondent said that there
is a need to ask people what they want instead of deciding in their place. This
is the position held by Omenya (2002) when he argues that poor people must
decide on what they want. The idea of consulting poor people is that durable
solutions, and the way to attain them, are in the hands of beneficiaries.
Besides, one respondent of an RDP house, 19 years old and the youngest of the
people interviewed, criticises the government action of supplying RDP houses to
poor people without working with them. According to her, government is
responsible for the multiplicity of shacks. Indeed, she argued that poor people
are waiting for RDP houses and even those who are able to solve their housing
need alone, for example through renting in formal settlement or by building a
decent house, prefer to stay in the shack and wait for RDP houses. This is to
say that having a shack effectively becomes a housing waiting list. As a
result, the number of shacks is getting higher and poor households are denied
the possibility of innovating and also creating. In addition, they become
unable to raise their problems alone. In this sense, the paternalistic
attitude, observed also in socialist States is the main cause of dependency
attitude among poor people.
The question which should be asked is whether this
paternalistic attitude, adopted by the post apartheid government, consisting of
supplying low-cost housing to poor households without consulting them, is bad
at all. Paternalism can produce great results if the real needs of
beneficiaries coincide with government actions realized for them. In the case
of beneficiaries of RDP houses interviewed, no respondent is completely happy
or did not complain about at least one of the weaknesses of RDP houses. Indeed,
those who work complain about building materials used in RDP houses. Others
complain about the size of the house which is too small for a big family. And
some others pointed out the security aspect as there is no fence and gives easy
access to strangers. They attribute the responsibility of the failure of RDP
houses to the government. However, if beneficiaries of RDP houses were involved
in its implementation, they would probably accept the weaknesses presented by
these houses. Indeed, one of the strengths of participation is, according to
Martin (1983), that people can easily accept the failure of a given
project48(*). This is to
say that true dialogue between authorities and beneficiaries should be required
before implementing any projects. This aspect appears in the question of:
«what would you do if you were given opportunities to act as authority in
charge of housing?». One respondent of an RDP house said that she would
try to listen to the communities' members in trying to understand their
problems, what they want to do, and also in trying to be honest as people are
suffering. In addition, dialogue seems to be necessary for helping low-income
households to understand the financial situation of the country which does not
allow government to supply adequate shelter for every poor household. This
element appeared when to the question of: do you not think that the government
is limited in resources for building RDP houses for everyone who is in housing
need, one respondent living in RDP house answered in saying that South African
government has a lot of money that it perceives from different taxes we pay.
This is true but the reality shows that in Tembisa, there are approximately up
to15 thousand49(*) people
who are on the housing waiting list. «If you multiply this number by the
amount of subsidy for building one house, which amount will you have?»
said one of the councillors of Tembisa. This is to say that true dialogue
between the government and poor households can sometimes solve the issue of
misunderstanding.
This issue of true dialogue also implies the issue of
participation, the element without which development can only profit the
minority as happens in neo-liberal countries. The question in this step is how
participation can be fruitful and produce results expected. Does it mean that
authorities should listen to everyone before implementing a given project? If
this is the case, we can experience logistic and timing issues. The ideal would
be to consult as significant a number as possible. Besides, dialogue may take
different forms. People can participate directly in being themselves actors or
they can participate indirectly in choosing their representatives. In all
cases, beneficiaries should not feel external to the project related to them.
Paternalistic and dependency attitudes observed respectively
from government and poor households do not contribute to the creation of an
organized and strong community. Therefore, poor households marginalize
themselves and do not seek to empower themselves in addressing alone their
housing need. These attitudes: dependency and paternalism, weaken the existing
community of poor people.
4.4.3.f The evidence of a weak
community
Another aspect found in the interviews which does not allow
the effective implementation of SHH or PHP in Tembisa is the inability to
create an active or strong community50(*). According to one of the councillors of Tembisa, PHP
was implemented in Tembisa before but did not produce the results expected.
Among the reasons, the councillor pointed out that participants in the project
were spending their time fighting and arguing. This was also confirmed by some
respondents especially to the question of: «how is your relationship with
your neighbours?» According to some respondents, their relationships are
bad and they cannot interact easily. Others recognized that they can sometimes
meet for discussing community matters but it is not easy to find an agreement,
especially when it relates to money issues. Some others again indicated that
there is no `trust' between them. So, they cannot easily work together. Some
poor households noted that they do not know other members of the community.
4.4.3.g Priority of needs
Alongside the reasons advanced for explaining the failure of
PHP in Tembisa, there is the failure from implementers to recognize the
existing diversity of cultures and background and the diversity of needs among
the beneficiaries. This raises the question of whether housing constitutes the
major priority in South Africa, more specifically in Tembisa. For the
post-apartheid government, Housing seems to be very important51(*). This appears in policy
documents such as 1994 Housing WP, etc. In addition, as Sisulu (2005b), the
current Minister of Housing affirms:
«Through a house the poor have an opportunity to propel
themselves out of poverty. There is now a truism that if you feed a man or
woman, you stay his or her hunger for the day, but if you educate him or her
you create an ability to stay his or her hunger for life. I would like to add
that if you help give him or her a fundamental asset like a house not only do
you empower him or her but you give him or her the kind of dignity whose value
is incalculable.
The assumption raised in this research seems to answer
negatively. In fact, this has appeared in the response provided to the question
of: «what do you expect from the government?» All respondents
answered that they urgently need a job. No respondent, however, mentioned
housing as response. This response also appears from one of the residents of
the informal settlement who works in a part time job with an average income of
between R 1000 and R 2000. To the question of: «why do you stay in bad
housing conditions while you can, with your income, rent a formal house where
you can have basic services such as water, electricity, sanitation?» She
answered that her job is temporary and she can be dismissed at any time.
Therefore, she needs a regular job which may allow her to properly look after
her children. This looks logical because with a job, a household may be able to
solve their housing need alone and stop displaying a dependency attitude.
Policy-makers do not adequately address the real problem
raised by society members. Taking housing as a central priority of all poor
people seems to be a mistake and can, instead of solving housing need, create
other issues. Huchzermeyer (2003a) shows that some beneficiaries of low-cost
housing in Cape Town were obliged to sell their RDP houses to allow them to
take care of their children who were suffering from Aids. This is to say that
while some poor people urgently need a house, others need cash money or a job
or something else. It should also be noticed that priority is dynamic and not
static. This element appears in the responses provided by the beneficiaries of
RDP houses who have complained about the size of the house and need to extend
their houses. It can be argued that when they were in informal settlements,
their priority was to obtain a RDP house and actually as they become a big
family they also need a big house52(*). This, properly speaking, manifests the problematic
of need and desire discussed in chapter II of this research.
Finally, this case study which has focused on deep and open
interviews made as significant assumptions that, on the one hand, the failure
to implement SHH in some urban areas in South Africa, including Tembisa is not
directly linked to weaknesses of SHH analyzed in the literature review. On the
other hand, with the attitude of paternalism and dependency, it will be
difficult and almost impossible to positively respond to the housing backlog
observed in South Africa. Indeed, with paternalistic attitude, the main problem
is that the government does not allocate enough funds to satisfy housing needs
of all South African poor households. Furthermore, this attitude may, in the
long run, endanger the decision to eradicate informal settlement by 2014 as the
government does not have enough resources to supply adequate houses for all
poor households whose income is less than R 3500 per month. Another aspect that
complicates the housing delivery is the incapacity of local authorities in
charge of housing to adequately use the money that has been allocated for
low-income housing. As Charlton et al (2003: 87) put it, «The financial
and maintenance burden on municipalities caused by the delivery of housing
projects is of major concern. Capital expenditure on housing delivery to date
has translated into severe operating expenses for both local authorities and
end users.»
Referring to dependency attitude, there is a risk for poor
households in South Africa to remain marginalized and excluded from society as
a whole. Even if the government were to find vital resources to satisfy the
housing need of all South African poor households, it is not certain that poor
households can take advantage of government intervention related to them. This
is to say that without participation and dialogue, no durable solution53(*) can be expected from the
housing sector where there is still much to do.
5.0 Chapter V: Conclusion and
recommendations
5.1 General considerations
The debate concerning SHH has shown that this practice,
although old in application, saw its revival as policy in developed countries
after the first and the Second World War. It was adopted as policy to
compensate the economy of scarcity and also to tackle the severe housing
shortage. SHH has allowed many households to be housed while the conventional
housing policy failed to solve the housing need of poor people. Cuban
experience of SHH in a developing country and Canadian experience in a
developed country have provided great examples of the way to respond to severe
housing shortage. It appears that SHH is an alternative to conventional housing
policy and a policy of crisis. In developing countries, through the World Bank,
SHH was adopted as housing policy to face the issue of housing crisis generated
by urban and population growth.
Despite the main advantages of SHH such as to house a
significant number of poor households and to consolidate networks among
participants of SHH projects, this practice, especially the State initiated SHH
(named in this research as the third form of SHH) was severely challenged by
some academics of whom Burgess is the main proponent. Mathey who is one of the
advocates of SHH points out that SHH is an effective policy and may produce
great results. For him, criticisim addressed against SHH is relevant only in
capitalist countries. In analyzing SHH in Cuba, Mathey has shown that critiques
related to SHH should not be generalized. His counter arguments stand if severe
housing conditions were isolated from other issues. However, as it was argued,
severe housing shortage which stimulates SHH is also linked with inequality,
poverty and unemployment. Therefore, a housing solution should be integrated,
and include other policies.
In South Africa, the policy adopted by the Housing Department
as PHP received great audience from authorities; and policy documents give
favourable space to this practice. However, in practice, PHP in some areas has
failed to house a significant number of households, as happened in other
countries, or has not been implemented given the difficult access to land. The
assumption of this research was not to argue that SHH is an ideal housing
solution. This may constitute a topic for appropriate future research. Instead,
it sought to enumerate the main reasons which hamper the widespread use of SHH.
Through open and deep interviews with residents from informal settlements, RDP
houses and an official, this research has shown that in South Africa, the
failure to implement widespread use of SHH does not result from the weaknesses
of SHH. The findings of this research show that the difficult access to land,
the ignorance from households of their right of having access to adequate
shelter, the attitude of dependency evident in households, the paternalistic
attitude from the government, the failure to constitute an active community and
the failure to establish real priorities of poor people are the main causes of
limited use of SHH in South Africa.
Therefore, the main question that has constituted this
research has been answered. This research also set out to discover whether SHH
or PHP is possible and desirable in South African context. To the first
question, this research responds positively. Indeed, the implementation of SHH
is possible in South Africa insofar as the criteria defined in the framework
for successful implementation of SHH are respected. In South Africa, the main
difficulty for the authorities to properly execute SHH is to supply land for
housing. To the question related to the desirability of SHH, the finding of
this research has shown that there are two categories of poor households.
According to the first category of poor households, SHH is not desirable
because it requires hard work and to spend more time, while they do not work
and would like to spend their time in making their livelihood. It is this
category of poor household who witness dependency attitude towards the housing
issue. For the second category of poor households, SHH is desirable to the
extent that it costs less than the amount required for RDP houses and they
would be given an opportunity to learn how to build a house. Finally, SHH
cannot be imposed as solution to severe housing shortage on every poor
household. They have to decide themselves the mode of housing delivery that
best suits them
5.2 Recommendations and
perspectives for future research
5.2.1 Recommendations
It seems important at the end of this research related to the
SHH debate to formulate some recommendations to the South African government in
order to improve housing conditions of poor households. These recommendations
are directly linked to the general issue of housing.
The first recommendation is to bridge the existing gap between
the formulated housing policies and their implementation. In fact, the practice
shows that what is executed in term of housing is different from what is
formulated. The National Housing Policy and policy documents give the option
for poor households to choose the mode of housing delivery which suits them;
however, in reality, poor households have only RDP as a viable mode of housing
delivery.
Secondly, government has to promote education so that poor
households can know their rights54(*) and their duties. This has the advantage of making
poor households responsible and empowering them. In addition, the
acknowledgement of their rights may stimulate them to search for adequate
solutions related to their housing need.
Thirdly, the government must reduce the attitude of dependency
among poor households which results in disempowering poor households through
transforming them into mere recipients. It is observed that the erection of
shacks has become an effective housing waiting list or the way to be
beneficiary of RDP house. The dependency attitude can be broken if poor
households realize that the government does not have enough resources to supply
houses for all poor households. True dialogue seems to be an effective tool for
attaining this objective. Without breaking the dependency attitude, it will be
difficult, almost impossible to eradicate informal settlement by 2010 or to
solve the issue of the housing backlog.
Thirdly, the South African government must stop practicing
paternalism. This implies a shift of housing policy. A new policy55(*) should not be based on
ownership as the only option, and should not presume to impose solutions on the
beneficiaries; instead, a new policy should seek to invite beneficiaries to
participate in its implementation.
Fourthly, the government should seek to strengthen communities
in creating structures which allow community members to choose the
representatives who seek to address the need of poor people. This is already
mentioned in the WP on local government. In South Africa, with democracy,
people elect according to their will and their interests. It can be said that
authorities are not imposed but they are chosen. However, as most respondents
observed, once they are in power, their representatives change, in that they no
longer to address their needs. It should be pointed out that the
representatives are the fruits of their community. So, if communities are not
organized, they are likely to produce authorities who will not seek the good of
all members.
Finally, government must seek to integrate the housing issue
with other challenges such as, unemployment, lack of education, HIV and Aids,
etc. It is clearly established that most poor households need jobs and believe
that through this they are able to improve their poor housing conditions.
Creating jobs may constitute one of the effective ways to empower poor
households and to include them in the whole of society. This is to say that the
South African policy makers must establish priorities which also meet poor
households' needs.
5.2.2 Perspective for future
researches
Throughout this research, it comes out that some issues raised
deserve proper research. Firstly, it is established that most people
interviewed with Matric as level of education ignore their right of having
access to adequate housing. However, this research did not focus on people with
tertiary education. So, this deserves proper research56(*). Secondly, some residents of
informal settlements interviewed have income which varies between R 1000 and R
2000. It should also be interesting to find the way how those people can
initiate saving in order to improve their poor housing conditions.
Thirdly, the approach of government with regard to housing is
defined in this research as paternalistic attitude which is criticized on
ethical grounds. However, this attitude may in some circumstances be useful,
especially for the poorest of the poor who cannot find proper solution to their
housing need by themselves. Research deserves to be conducted to determine the
criteria in which paternalist attitude may constitute an effective housing
solution for poor households.
It is also acknowledged that there is a need to elaborate a
new housing policy which will not focus on ownership option only, but which
will include other options such as rental and which will not deepen
segregation. Another perspective may also be taken, which does not envisage the
elaboration of a new housing policy but which examines keeping the current
housing policy to see how it can be fully implemented. This deserves proper
research insofar as it should focus on the way the implementation of current
housing policy can respond to housing need of poor people.
Finally, this research pointed out the reasons which have
prevented a widespread use of SHH but did not examine if SHH can bring social
inclusion and job creation in South Africa. This is to say that research is
needed to determine whether or not the current political, economic and social
situations of South Africa welcome the SHH process.
References
Alder, G. (2002), Ownership is not a priority among the urban
poor:
The case of informal settlements in Nairobi. Habitat
Debate. 5(3).
http://www.unchs.org/unchs/english/hdv5n3/viewpoint.htm.
Amis, P. (1995), Making sense of urban poverty.
Environment and Urbanisation, 7(1), 145-157.
Angel, S. (2000a), Tenure, Chapter 23 (pp316-340) in
Housing policy Matters. A global Analysis, Oxford University Press,
London.
Angel, S. (2000b), Housing Subsidies. Chapter 9(pp 109-131) in
Housing Policy Matters. A Global Analysis. Oxford Univeristy Press.
London
Atkinson, A.B. (1980), Wealth, Income, and
Inequality, Oxford University Press
Baumann, T. (2003), Housing Policy and Poverty in South
Africa.» Chap, 2(85-114) in Khan, F. & Thring, P. (eds) Housing
Policy and Practice in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Heinemann (PTY)
Johannesburg.
Bond, P. and Tait, A. (1997), The failure of Housing policy in
post-apartheid South Africa, Urban Forum, 8(1), 19-41.
Bradshaw, York.W. and Wallace, M. (1996), Global
Inequalities, Pine Forge Press Thousand Oaks, California - London - New
Delhi
Burgess, R. (1985), The Limits of State Self-help housing,
Development and Change, 16, 271-312
Burgess, R. (1992), Helping some
to help themselves, Third world Housing Policies and Development strategies in
Mathey, K, (1992), Beyond Self-help housing, edited by Kosta Mathey, Mansell,
London and New York
Carruthers, Bruce.G and Babb, Sarah.L. (2000),
Economy/Society: Markets, Meanings, and Social Structure, Pine Forge
Press, Thousand Oaks, London, New Dellhi
Charlton, S., Silverman, M., and Berrisford, S. (2003), Taking
Stock, Review of the Department of Housing's programme, policy practice
(1994-2003)
Colclough, C. (1991a), Structuralism versus Neo-liberalism: An
Introduction in Colclough, C. and Manor, J. (1991). States or Market?
Neo-liberalism and the Development Policy Debate, Clarendon Press.
Oxford
Colclough, C. (1991), Who should Learn to Pay? An Assessment
of Neo-liberal Approach to Education Policy, in Colclough, C and Manor, J
(1991) States or Market? Neo-liberalism and the Development Policy
Debate, Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Constitutions of the Republic of
South Africa as adopted by the Constitutional Assembly on 8 May 1996.
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/bills/sacon96.html?rebookmark=1
Conway, D. and Porter, R., (1997), Caribbean housing futures:
building communities for sustainability. Chapter 12, in Conway D. and Porter,
R. Self-help housing, the poor and the state in the Caribbean,
Knoxville, Jamaica
Crankshaw, O. (1996), Social Differentiation, Conflict and
Development in a South African Township, Urban Forum, 7(1), 53-68
Department of Housing (1997a), Housing Act, in
www.housing. gov.za
Department of Housing (1997b), Urban Development framework, in
www.housing.gov.za
Department of Housing (2004), «Breaking New Ground»
- A Comparative Plan for the Development of Sustainable Human Settlements. As
approved by Cabinet and presented to MINMEC on 2 September 2004, Pretoria:
Department of Housing.
Department of Housing (2005), National Housing Programme:
Upgrading of Informal Settlements. Chapter 13, National Code, Pretoria:
Department of Housing
Dingle, T. (1999), Self-help housing and Co-operation in
Post-war Australia, in Housing Studies, Vol 14(3) pp 341-345
Doebele, William.A. (1987), The Evolution of Concepts of Urban
Land Tenure in Developing Countries, in Habitat international, Vol
11(1) pp7-22
Dwyer, D.J. (1975), People and Housing in the Third World
Cities: Perspectives on the problem of spontaneous settlements, Longman
London and New York
Elster, J. (1986), Self-Realization in Work and Politics: The
Marxist conception of the Good Life in Frankel, E., Fred, P., Jeffrey, M.Jr and
Ahrens, Paul. J (1986), Marxism and Liberalism, Basil Blackwell for
the Social Philosophy and Policy Center Bowling Green University
Erguden, S. (2001), Low-cost Housing: Policies and constraints
in developing Countries. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Spatial Information for Sustainable Development, Nairobi, Kenya,
25th October by Acting Chief, Housing Policy Section, UN-Habitat
(http:
//www.fig.net/figtree/pub/proceedings/nairobi/erguden-CMTS1-1.pdf)
Failure, in http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_failure.html
Fiori, J. and Ramirez, R. (1992), Towards a conceptual
Framework for the Analysis of Self-Help Housing Policies in Developing
Countries, in Mathey, K. (1992), Beyond Self-help housing, edited by
Kosta Mathey, Mansell, London and New York.
Fitchett, A.S. (2001), Low-Income Housing in Alexandra
Johannesburg. Empowerment, Skills Development and Job Creation. in Building.
Fordham, R., Finlay, S., Gardner, J., Macmillan, A., Muldoon,
C., Taylor, G. and Welch. G., (1998), Housing Need and the Need for
Housing, England and USA.
Friedman, J. (1998), The new political economy of planning:
The rise of civil society. Chapter 3 (19-35), in Friedman, J. and Douglass, M.
(eds.), Cities for citizen: Planning and theRise of civil society in a
global Age. John wiley & sons, chichester.
Gelb, S. (2004), Inequality in South Africa: Nature,
causes and Responses, African Development and Poverty reduction: The
Macro-Micro Linkage, forum paper, Cornell University.
Gerber, Larry. G. (1983), The limits of Liberalism,
New York University Press New York and London
Giddens, A. (1984), Element of the theory of structuration.
Chapter 1 in Giddens, A. (1984), The constitution of society: outline of
the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cmbridge.
Gray. J. (1986), Liberalism, Open University press,
12 cofferidge close stiny Stratford, Milton Keynes.
Hall, E.R and Lieberman, M. , «Microeconomics:
Principles and Applications» in
http://www.getbestinfo.com/newsite/index.php?definition_id=3124&gclid=CKHNv4bNgYQCFR9cEAodaVwFlQ
Harms, H. (1992), Self help housing in Developed and Third
World Countries, in Mathey, K. (1992), Beyond Self-help housing,
edited by Kosta Mathey, Mansell, London and New York.
Harvey, D. (1997), From managerialism to entrepreneurialism:
the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism, Geografisca
Annaler, 71B, 3-17
Henderson, Susan. R, (1999), Self-help
Housing in the Weimar Republic: The Work of Ernst May, in Housing
Studies, May 99 Vol 14(3) pp 311-328
Hopkins, K. (2003), Democracy, Government Policy, and law in
South Africa: A reply to Marie Huchzermeyer, Urban Forum 14(1),
108-118
Huchzermeyer, M. (2002a),
Adressing Seggregation Through Housing Policy and Finance, in Harrison, P.,
Huchzermeyer, M., and Mayekiso, M. (2002), Confronting Fragmentation: Housing
and Urban Development in a Democratizing Society, University of Cape Town.
Huchzermeyer, M. (2002b), Informal settlements: production and
intervention in twentieth century Brazil and South Africa. Latin American
Perspectives, 29(1), 83-105.
Huchzermeyer, M. (2003a), Low income housing and commodified
urban Segregation in South Africa. In Ossenbruegge, J. and Haberburg, C
(eds.), Ambiguous restructurings of Post-Apartheid Cape Town - The spatial
form of Socio-political change. LIT Verlag, Muenster, Hamburg and London.
(pp 115-136)
Huchzermeyer, M. (2003b), Housing rights in South Africa:
Invasions, evictions, the media and the courts in the cases of Grootboom,
Alexndra and Bredell. Urban Forum, 14 (1), 80-107
Hurst, Charles. E. (1995), Social Inequality Forms, causes
and consequences, Allyn and Bacon, Boston London Toronto Sydney Tokyo
Singapore.
International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16
December 1966
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm
Kabeer, N. and Humphrey, J. (1991), Neo-liberalism, Gender,
and the limits of the Market, in Colclough, C and Manor, J (1991) States
or Market? Neo-liberalism and the Development Policy Debate, Clarendon
Press. Oxford
Kerr, D., and Kwelle, N. (2000), Capital accumulation and
political reproduction of the urban housing problem in Botswana. Urban
Studies, 37(8), 1313-1344.
Khan, F. (2003), Housing Poverty and the Macroeconomy. Part 1
(77-84) in Khan, R. & Thring, P. (eds) Housing and Practice in
Post-Apartheid South Africa. Heinemann (PTY) Johannesburg.
Lamberti, Mark. J. (2002), Entrepreneurship and corporate
Governance, A presentation to the Wits Alumni Association, in
http://www.gradnet.wits.ac.za/archive/ReunSpeeches/120602.asp
Lankatilleke, L. (1990), Community action planning: a case
study from Sri Lanka. Trialog, 23/24, 24-27
Literature Review, in http://www.library.cqu.edu.au
Mabin, A. (1995), On the problems and prospects of overcoming
segregation and fragmentation in Southern Africa' s cities in the post-modern
era. In Watson, S and Gibson, K (eds) Post-modern cities and Spaces.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp 187-198
Marais, L., Rensburg, Van.N. and Botes, L. (2003), An
Empirical comparison of Self-Help Housing and contractor driven Housing:
Evidence from Thabong (Welcom) and Mangaung (Bloemfontein) in Urban
forum 14(4), 347-365
Marcuse, P. (1992), Why Conventional Self-help Projects Won't
Work, in Mathey, K, (1992), Beyond Self-help housing, edited by Kosta
Mathey, Mansell, London and New York.
Martin, R.J. (1983), Upgrading, in Rodell, M. J. and Skinner,
R.J.(1983), People, Poverty and Shelter, Problems of Self-Help Housing in
the Third World, Methuen London and New York
Martinez, E. and García, A. (2005), Neoliberalism:
Origins, Theory, Definition, in
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
Mathey, K, (1997), Self-help Housing Strategies in Cuba: An
alternative to Conventional Wisdom? Chapter, 9 (164-187) in Potter, R.B. and
Conway, D. (1997), Self help Housing, the Poor and the State in
Caribbean. University of Tennessee Press, USA.
Moser, Caroline.O.N. (1992), Women and Self-Help Housing
Projects A Conceptual Framework for Analysis and Policy Making, in in Mathey,
K, (1992), Beyond Self-help housing, edited by Kosta Mathey, Mansell,
London and New York.
Mthembi-Mahanyele, S. (1996), Government will help those who
help themselves, in Housing in Southern Africa, November, pp 21-24
Nientied, P. and Van der Linden, J. (1988), Approaches to low
income housing in the Third World. Chapter 9 (138-156) in Gugler, J. (ed).
The urbanization of the Third World, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, state and utopia, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Obudho, R.A. and Mhlanga, Constance. C (1988), «The
development of Slum and Squatter Settlements as a Manifestation of Rapid
Urbanization in Sub-Saharan Africa, in Obudho, R.A. and Mhlanga, Constance. C.
(1988), Slum and Squater Settlements in Sub-Saharan Africa Toward a
Planning strategy, Praeger, New York Westport, Connecticut London.
Okun, A.M. (1980), Equality of income and opportunity in
Atkinson, A.B. (1980) Wealth, Income, and Inequality, Oxford
University Press
Olufemi, O. (2000), Feminization of poverty among the street
homeless women in South Africa. Development Southern Africa 17 (2) pp
221-234
Omenya, O. (2002), Sustainable Self-help Housing in South
Africa? A paper presented at the conference of Housing and Urban Development in
Sub Saharan Africa in Accra, Ghana, from 22nd to 26th
July 2002.
http://www.auhf.co.za/accra/Ghana_conference.Doc
Osbone, P. (1991), Socialism and the limits of
liberalism, Verso, London. New York
Parnell, S. and Hart, D. (1999), «Self-Help Housing as a
Flexible instrument of State control in 20 th-Century South Africa, in
Housing Studies, May 99 Vol 14(3) pp 367-386.
Payne, G. (1999), Making common Ground: Public-Private
Partnerships in Land for Housing. Intermediate Technology publications,
London. (Chapter 1 «introduction» pp 1-16)
Pojman, L.P. and Westmoreland, R. (1997), Equality: Selected
Readings, New-York: Oxford University Press.
Poverty, in
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,
contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:373757~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html
Rodell, M.J. (1983), Site and Services and low-income housing,
in in Rodell, M. J. and Skinner, R.J. (1983), People, Poverty and Shelter,
Problems of Self-Help Housing in the Third World, Methuen London and New
York
Rodell, M. J. and Skinner, R.J. (1983), Introduction:
contemporary Self-Help programmes, in Rodell, M. J. and Skinner, R.J. (1983),
People, Poverty and Shelter, Problems of Self-Help Housing in the Third
World, Methuen London and New York
Rust, K. (2002), we're all here - now where's the party? :
understanding logjams around housing finance, Johannesburg:
Housing Finance Resource Programme.
Schulist, T. (2002), «Build your own Home» State
assisted self-help housing in Canada, 1942-1975, Planning Perspectives
17(4) pp 345-372
Schutz, E.J. (1992), A Case for Housing Prefabrication in
Squatters' Settlements, in Mathey, K, (1992), Beyond Self-help
housing, edited by Kosta Mathey, Mansell, London and New York.
Sihlongonyane, M.F. and Karam, A. H. (2004), The impact of
the National Housing Capital Subsidy scheme on the Apartheid City: The
case of Johannesburg. In the proceedings of the National Planning History
Conference, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Sisulu, L. (2005a), speech at the housing summit of the
provincial department of housing in Gauteng,
www.housing.gov.za
Sisulu, L. (2005b), speech at the Black management forum 2005,
Annual report, Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg, in
www.housing.gov.za
Smart, B. (2003), Economy, Culture and Society, A
Sociological critique of neo-liberalism, open University Press, Buckingham
Philadelphia.
South African White Paper on Housing, 1994
www.housing.gov.za
Spiegel, A., Watson, v., and Wilkinson, P. (1996), Devaluing
Diversity? National Housing Policy in the new South Africa, in Urban Forum
(7), pp1-30
Stavrou, (2001), The Role of Communications in Key National,
Regional, Provincial and Local Government Development Initiatives, in The
Southern African Journal of Information and Communication - Vol 1, No 1,
2001, http://link.wits.ac.za/journal/j-01-as.htm
Tait, J. (1997), Housing, subsistence and simple commodity
production in theories of dependent urban reproduction. Chapte 2(23-48) in
Tait, J (1997) From self-help Housing to sustainabable settlement:
Capitalist Development and Urban Planning in Lusaka, Zambia. Ashgate,
USA.
Tawney, R.H. (1980), The religion of Inequality, in Atkinson,
A.B. (1980) Wealth, Income, and Inequality, Oxford University Press
Taylor. (1960), The classical liberalism, Marxism and the
twentieth century, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tembisa in,
http://www.answers.com/topic/tembisa
Tembisa, in
http://www.tstservices.co.za/servicedet.asp?id=34&p=3
Tipple, A.G., Wilkinson, N. (1992), Self-Help Transformation
of Government-Built Flats, in Mathey, K, (1992), Beyond Self-help
housing, edited by Kosta Mathey, Mansell, London and New York.
Turner, J.F.C. (1972), Housing as a verb, in Turner, John F.C.
and Fichter, R., (eds) Freedom to build, New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Turner, J.F.C. (1986), Future directions in housing policies.
Habitat International, 10(3), 7-25.
UNCHS (Habitat), (1996), Habitat Agenda and Istanbul
Declaration. United Nation, New York. (http:
//www.unchs.org/unchs/english/hagenda/index.htm)
United Nations Human Settlement Programme (2003), Challenges
to Sustainable Urbanization. Extract from chapter 2 in The challenge of
Slums: Global Report on Human settlements 2003. London: Earth scan
Publications Ltd
University of the Witwatersrand Research Team (2004),
Study into supporting Informal Settlements: Background Report 7 -
Recommendations. Report prepared by Baumann, T. and Huchzermeyer, M., for
the Department of Housing.
Wakerman, R. (1999), Reconstruction and the self-help housing
movement: The French experience, in Housing Studies, May 99 Vol 14(3)
pp 355-366.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987),
our common Future, Brundtland commission, New York: Oxford University Press
Wits University Graduate School of Public
and Development Management, Strengthening Participation by Development
Countries in International Decision- marking: Case Study of South Africa, in
World Bank (1992) The housing indicators Program, Washington. DC, the World
Bank
Younge, A. (1999), An overview of the Urban-Environmental
Situation in South Africa. Paper produced for the international conference
south to south: Urban environmental policies and politics in Brazil and
South Africa, Institute of Commonwealth Studies. London 25-26 March.
* 1 The right to everyone to
access to adequate shelter is recognized Chapter XI of the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, UNCHS Habitat II (1996) and all
the democratic constitutions including South Africa (Chap II section 26).
* 2 SHH is defined in this
research as successful, if it provides an important number of adequate houses
to poor households in comparison with conventional programme, allows social
inclusion of poor, etc. In a few words, I define SHH as successful, if it
allows empowering poor households.
* 3 This is a programme
adopted by the South African government related to neo-liberal policies. This
programme comprises 4 objectives, namely: «a competitive fast growing
economy which creates jobs for all work-seekers, a redistribution of income and
opportunities geared towards the poor, a society in which sound health,
education and other services are available to all and an environment in which
homes are secure and places of work are productive» (Stavrou, 2001)
* 4 The reconstruction
Development programme (RDP) initiated in 1994 by the Post-Apartheid government
aims to correct the unjust system, especially the access to basic needs created
by the Apartheid regime. For Urban Development Framework (1987), RDP seeks to
help poor South Africans to meet their basic needs and a sustainable
development.
* 5 Many authors have shown
that it deepens the segregation created and planned under the apartheid regime
and reinforces the vulnerabilities of poor people as they are isolated from the
centre of economic activities (Huchzermeyer, 2002a and 2003a; Baumann,
2003).
* 6 This is especially in terms
of the population which is about a half a million of people.
* 7 Authorities interviewed are
two of the councilors of Tembisa.
* 8 Although this is research
does not widely focus on the importance of private sector and NGOs, it however
considers partnership between the public and the private sector as one of the
criteria for implementing successfully SHH.
* 9 The conception of good is
considered as a view of the best way to live. This conception of good also
takes in its account happiness, welfare, virtue, piety, meaning, or intrinsic
value.
* 10 Rawls has elaborated
two main principles of justice. The first is in relation to freedom which every
citizen must enjoy and the second is about the fair opportunities of chance.
The second principle has, according to Rawls, the aim of avoiding
discrimination and inequalities in the society.
* 11 Rawls does not ignore
in some cases the existence of inequality within the society. This may look
contradictory to main principles of liberalism to which he belongs. However,
Rawls' innovation is his second principle of justice which is that inequality,
if it happens, should allow poor people to acquire what he calls basic needs.
This is why Rawls is considered as egalitarian.
* 12 The state of nature is
considered by some philosophers such as Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes as before
the existence of authority. If Rousseau presents the state of nature as the
state where human being is not corrupted by private property, Hobbes considered
this state as the state of anarchy in which there are no rules to protect human
beings. Thus, the state of nature is for Hobbes the worst state that all
rational human beings must necessarily avoid.
* 13 In his theory of
entitlement, Nozick explains how individual may obtain his property fairly. The
first principle argues that a given property may be acquired if it was not
owned before. The second principle starts that individual may also acquire a
property through exchange. The third and last principle announces that only
through the first and the second principles an individual may fairly obtain a
property. These principles constitute the bases of libertarianism, a movement
of thought of which Nozick is the main proponent (See Robert Nozick, quoted in
Pojman and Westmoreland, 1997: 257).
* 14 See for this purpose
defenders of the theory of modernization and also the Marxist view about the
growing population.
* 15 For the main act of
Apartheid , see African History, Apartheid Legislation in South Africa, in
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/blsalaws.htm
* 16 The closer relationship
between poverty and developing countries does not mean that they are no poor
people in developed countries.
* 17 The dependency theory
which originates in Latin America in 1960 situates the underdeveloped countries
in comparison with the developed countries and focuses on the relation between
rich and poor countries. The goal or the purpose of dependency theory is to
identify the main causes of underdevelopment or the «development of
underdevelopment» of the third world. According to dependency theory, the
dependent countries or third word are underdeveloped because of imperialism,
capitalism, and inequality in exchange that means that underdeveloped countries
are exploited especially in relation to the developed countries. In other
words, the causes of underdevelopment are external.
* 18 Modernization theory
has as its aim the suppression of traditional society represented by culture
which is considered as an obstacle to development and the consecration of
modernity represented by rationality. The application of modernization theory
in the process of development brings improvement of quality of life and
economic growth especially by industrialization and introduction of new and
advanced technology.
* 19 It is obvious that this
assumption depends on a definition of SHH as some rich people commission their
own housing or do housing improvements with their own labour. However, rich
people may undertake housing activities with their own hands not because of
lack of money as they can afford to pay a contractor but they can do it as a
hobby to keep themselves busy.
* 20 For the social contract,
see the philosophers such as Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes and also Rawls. Even
though their position about social contract is not the same, all of them agree
that the social contract is the justification of the existence of government
* 21 For this assumption,
see the second form of SHH named State supported SHH in this research. Indeed,
this form of SHH presented the beneficiaries as the main actors of SHH insofar
as they have started to solve their housing need themselves and the State
legalizes their efforts.
* 22 Community which may be
understood as «a geographically defined set of people who are enough in
number for direct democracy...» (SANCO, 1994 quoted in Chipkin, 1996: 218)
is one of the ambiguous and contested concepts in the literature review. For
Chipkin (1996) who has written «Contesting community. The limits of
Democratic Development», the difficulties related to this concept occur
when the representatives of community need to be chosen .
* 23 Regarding the housing
issue, Burgess (1985) understands the artisanal form as the form «where
housing is produced at much lower level of circulation of
capital»(Burgess, 1985: 276). Referring to Burgess, the artisanal form of
housing is no different from informal settlement. Again, in referring to
Pradilla (1974); Molina (1976); Burgess (1978); and Portes and Walton (1981);
Burgess argues that «the artisanal form performs an important function
within the general workings of the capitalist mode of production by providing
cheaply the basic housing necessary for the labour force and the industrial
reserve army of labour installed in the cities» (Burgess, 19985: 276).
* 24 For the development of
all the 10 critiques of Self-Help Housing enumerated, see Peter Marcuse (1992,
16-21pp). Some of these critiques may also be found in Burgess (1992) and Tait
(1997).
* 25 The conclusion assuming
that the solution of housing crisis should be integrated derives from the
concept of housing defined by the Department of Housing, more specifically in
Housing Act of 1997. These concepts are enumerated above.
* 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.
* 30 This is one of housing
modes of delivery promoted by the Housing WP. In addition, the same policy
document encourages the State to grant housing subsidy to poor households who
earn less than R 3500.
* 31 I have already defined
the concept of community. I mean by organized community, a community whose
representatives seek to address needs of all community members, especially
those of poor people. In South Africa this role is devoted to Local Government.
(White Paper on Local Economic Development).
* 32 Obviously, this option
discriminates against some poor households such as those who have no «able
bodied» members, elderly, disabled, and now the growing number of
Child-headed households (AID orphans), etc. However, the notion of
proportionality presented below, which does not impose a uniform form of
participation, solves this issue. In addition, it is the role of the State,
through Social grants to cover this category of poor households.
* 33 Rational policy may be
understood as policy that people understand and which seek their general
interest (see Hopkins, 2003).
* 34 A special mode of
participation should be found for this category of poor households. They can
for example participate in advising those who actively participate in the SHH
project.
* 35 Friedman (1998) does
not talk directly about NGOs and CBOs. Rather, he analyzes the role of civil
society which in some extent comprises NGOs and CBOs. In fact he defines civil
society as a mass movement which is different from government.
* 36 In urban areas, much
unused or under-used land such as parks, Land-fill sites, etc, belongs to the
government. However, this land is not always appropriate for developing a
housing project. Using such land for the purpose of housing project can
sometimes compromise some aspects of the city life.
* 37 Although South African
government adopted Self-Help Housing practice under the term «People's
Housing Process» for solving housing crisis brought by urban growth, it is
observed that this practice did not receive great audience. This is properly
speaking the object of this research.
* 38 Tembisa come from a Nguni
name which means `Promise' or `Hope'.
* 39 RDP house is not the only
subsidy that exists in South Africa. In the internet site of the Department of
Housing (
www.housing.gov.za), it is mentioned
that people of which income varies between O and R 3500 may also be granted
subsidy for PHP.
* 40 There are eleven
councillors, one for each ward, but I could not talk to all of them; so I chose
those who are in charge of the wards where households interviewed live.
* 41 The ward selected for
interviews is called extension eleven. The choice of this ward is the ease of
access as it is near to the main road.
* 42 It is worth noticing that
the squatters interviewed in extension eleven (see fig 7 in appendix) did not
only invade land for the purpose of building shacks. They pointed out that it
was also the way to fight crime as the space invaded was being used by
criminals for killing people.
* 43 Saying that they are
close to Johannesburg is also questionable. In fact, people from Tembisa have
to use a large part of their income for transport, 25% for those who are
earning 2500 and 50% for those who earn 1500. They have also to spend almost
one hour before reaching the centre of Johannesburg.
* 44 It would be interesting
if there were some people among respondents who have tertiary education.
Unfortunately, I did not find one in the ward that I have selected as sample.
They are in other wards.
* 45 Surely, this is not the
publicly stated opinion of higher levels of government. Indeed, in promoting
PHP as the dominant policy, authorities in charge of housing expect willingness
and capacity from poor households to engage with the process.
* 46 Attitude of dependency
derives from the theory of dependency which is presented in Chapter II. Like
the proponents of dependency theory who advocate that the causes of under
development are external, the poor households in Tembisa believe that solutions
to their problems, especially those related to housing issues, should come from
the government.
* 47 This concept comes from
Latin `Pater' which means father. It is an analogy
comparing the relation between a father and his son; in political sphere this
analogy is taken when a given government is convinced that its policies or laws
seek the good of its citizens even though its citizens did not consent to the
elaboration of those laws. On ethical grounds, paternalism is criticized
because it considers citizens or beneficiaries of policies or laws as children,
thus, unable to choose what is good for themselves.
* 48This raises the
problematic of participation and failure. A broader view of participation is
the positive reaction to the failure which is considered as inherent to human
nature and in its giving opportunities to learn from one's mistakes and limits
and to become more aware for future projects. Failure is seen by some authors
as more meaningful than success. Indeed, as Smiles argues, «it is a
mistake to suppose that men succeed through success; they much oftener succeed
through failures. Precept, study, advice, and example could never have taught
them so well as failure has done»
(http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_failure.html). According to this author,
community that participates in the project learns more in failing than in
succeeding.
* 49 If the population of
Tembisa is estimated to be half a million of people, this means that a
significant number of poor households in Tembisa is on the housing waiting
list.
* 50 I mean by active and
strong community, a community that is able to define their main problems and to
propose tentative solutions. This is to say, following Lankatilleke, that an
active and a strong community have solutions to their problems in their hands.
In turn, they need recognition, in term of finance, to solve their problems.
* 51 Although housing seems
to be the major priority, budget speeches and Presidential «State of
Nation» speeches give similar importance to health, education, employment,
safety and security and economic growth. Actually, with the hosting of the 2010
Soccer World Cup, security issues will probably command great importance.
* 52 The dynamic of needs may
also be explained by Maslow's «hierarchy of needs»
* 53 Durable solution in
South Africa related to housing issue is a solution which favours inclusion,
avoids segregation of poor households and also seeks to empower poor households
in considering them as actors of development and not as merely recipients of
development projects.
* 54 By rights, I mean the
right to have access to adequate shelter. In South Africa the Housing Acts and
other policy documents related to housing are published in the Government
Gazettes. The solution should be to make a large diffusion and accessibility of
this journal to poor households.
* 55 The elaboration of a
new housing policy should constitute a topic of debate. In fact, is it a
solution for addressing the housing issue in South Africa? It is true that
South African Housing policy presents many weaknesses and the government
already responded in publishing a document titled «Breaking new
ground». Obviously, the new housing policy will rectify the weaknesses
observed in the current housing policy but will not bridge the existing gap
between what is formulated and what is implemented. The shift should also
analyze what has not been implemented. In fact, the real issue is not to
elaborate a new policy but to improve the housing conditions of 2,4 million of
households living in informal settlements.
* 56 Surely, they are a few
number of poor households who have members with tertiary education in Tembisa.
However, in other wards that I did not choose as sample, you can find some
people who are still schooling in University or other tertiary education.
