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

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 community^31(*). 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 community^32(*).

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 policies^33(*). 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 project^34(*).

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 sector^36(*). 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 Africa^37(*), 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.

* 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.