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.
| 
