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

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 form^23(*). 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 integrated^25(*). 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.

* 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.