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).
| 
