WOW !! MUCH LOVE ! SO WORLD PEACE !
Fond bitcoin pour l'amélioration du site: 1memzGeKS7CB3ECNkzSn2qHwxU6NZoJ8o
  Dogecoin (tips/pourboires): DCLoo9Dd4qECqpMLurdgGnaoqbftj16Nvp


Home | Publier un mémoire | Une page au hasard

 > 

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

( Télécharger le fichier original )
par Andre Mengi Yengo
Witwatersrand of Johannesburg RSA - Master 2006
  

précédent sommaire suivant

Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy

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»

précédent sommaire suivant






Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy








"Aux âmes bien nées, la valeur n'attend point le nombre des années"   Corneille