CHAPTER 7: SOCIAL HOUSING AND THE CREATION OF SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS
7.3 Social housing in Europe
7.3.3 Challenges facing social housing in Europe
political systems should aim at ensuring economic efficiency and promoting at the same time social equality.
Ensuring the balance between neo-liberal policies which recommends 'free-market' and the intervention of government in the social housing sector remains one of the biggest challenges in Europe. The following section of this chapter will highlight the challenges that face social housing in Europe.
7.3.3.1 Balance between neo-liberal policy and interventionist approach in the social housing sector.
A free market system is one of the main characteristics of the neo-liberal policy. It aims to leave market functioning to the golden principle of 'supply and demand'. Economists believe that in the free market system, government intervention is not needed to regulate the market. Indeed, the golden principle of 'supply and demand' should itself regulate the market. With the focus on the principle of competition in the free market system, the continuous search of efficiency and effectiveness has become the biggest advantage of the neo-liberal principle.
The interventionist approach or welfare state has for objective to tackle inequalities created by the market approach and to ensure that access to adequate housing does not become the exclusive realm of high income groups or 'wealthy people' only. The advantage of maintaining two approaches that is the market-based and interventionist approach is that all income groups are served and it is likely to create an integrated society where all income groups share the same facilities. The focus on low-income households should not lead the policy-makers to omit middle and high income groups.
A housing solution that works for all income groups must be integrated. In other words, housing provisions should avoid to create or to reinforce segregation like as in the case of South Africa (Huchzermeyer, 2003).
It may be argued that the combination of a neo-liberal principle which is market-driven and the interventionist approach is likely to improve the quality of the existing housing stock which may result in enhancing urban regeneration. Besides, the housing needs of low-income households are taken into consideration. Addressing the challenge of finding the balance between neo-liberal policies and the interventionist approach may mean that it is possible for the Government to find a housing solution which can satisfy the housing needs of all income groups.
The main objective of social housing which is to accelerate the provision of adequate housing for low-income households leads to identify social housing as a 'safety net' for low-income households. This conception leads to the facto segregation. Keeping social housing as a safety net for low-income households while other income groups have the access to social housing is the challenge that social housing has to face in Europe.
7.3.3.2 Approach to integrate all income groups in social housing
The concept of a safety net refers to the environment where low-income households feel safe and comfortable and where it is possible for poor people to undertake economic activities such as trading to generate income. Designed for people in the greatest need for housing, the main beneficiaries of social housing are essentially low- income households and in some cases, like in South Africa, middle income groups.
Obviously, the 'safety net' presents many advantages for low-income households. It may be argued that 'safety net' contributes to create a friendly environment and a place where low-income households can safely undertake their activities to interact and connect with other people from the same background. The reinforcement of social linkage which may lead to economic advantages that are important for the survival of low-income households is the most significant assets which can be derived from 'safety net'.
While a 'safety net' is very beneficial for the residents of social housing, it is likely to become synonymous of a place where it is possible to identify poor people and those who are in the greatest housing need. As social housing is inhabited by low-income people and people in greatest need of housing, the risk in creating segregation is very high in social housing. The question that arises from the restructuring of social housing is how to keep together the concept of a 'tenure of choice', where the access to social housing is no longer a function of income groups or of being in a desperate housing need but of a choice, and the concept of 'safety net' which promotes social assets for low-income households.
In Europe, Sweden and the Netherlands the access to social housing is not limited to a category of income households. All income groups, including higher income groups may access social housing (Kirchner, 2007). As an advantage, the social housing has not been stigmatised or identified as a factor which spreads segregation and a concentration of poverty. While the integration of all income groups in the social housing sector presents advantages and can be favourable to market-based principles, it can also discriminate against poor people who cannot compete with middle and high income groups. In their study related to the reform of social housing in England, Fitzpatrick and Pawson (2007) point out that the challenge of keeping together the understanding of social housing as a mixed 'tenure of choice' and the 'safety net' for low-income households can be addressed if the government gives attention to the
distribution of the choices created. This means that the government should ensure that access to social housing does not discriminate against poor households.
The last challenge that social housing has been facing in Europe is about the implementation of sustainable policies in the social housing sector. In fact, it is believed that social housing can play a determinant role in the implementation of sustainable policies which has environmental, economic and social benefits. While there is no doubt that registered landlords are aware of sustainable issues and that they integrate the sustainable policy in the construction of post Apartheid social housing units, it is not evident that the implementation of sustainable policies is extended to the entire housing stock. The challenge to be addressed is to implement sustainable policies in the entire social housing stock and not only in the post Apartheid social housing units.
7.3.3.3 The implementation of sustainable policy within the social housing sector
The implementation of sustainable policy in the social housing sector has environmental benefits as it can significantly reduce the emission of carbon dioxide.
Implementation such as energy efficiency does not only have environmental benefits, it can, also produce economic benefits for the residents. In fact, the concept of 'energy efficiency' which is one of the means to foster sustainable development refers to the rational utilisation of energy which becomes in developing countries including South Africa a scarce and costly resource. In saving energy, households save money which they can use for other ends such as education, food and entertainment.
However, in Europe, as Sunikka and Boon (2003) have stated, the progress in sustainable management in the social housing sector has been slow. This is because the implementation concerns only the post Apartheid social housing units which in principle constitute only 1 % of the entire social housing stock. The question that arises is how registered social landlords and local authorities who are aware of sustainable issues do not extend them in the entire social housing sector.
One of the plausible explanations may be that the government estimates that the expansion of environmental policies in the entire social housing stock may be more expensive than the construction of post Apartheid social housing units which incorporate environmental policies. This approach explains the transfer of the ownership of the social housing stock to the registered landlords or non-for-profit organisations. Among reasons that motivated the transfer of social housing stock, the
literature points out the need to promote efficiency and effectiveness in bringing about competition in the sector, the need to improve the quality of social housing stock and the desire to bolster urban regeneration (Malpass, 2001; Smit, 2006; Gibb & Nygaard, 2006).
The second explanation of not incorporating the environmental policies in the entire social housing stock is the adoption of neo-liberal policies which encourage the private sector to be more and more involved in service delivery. In fact, neo-liberal principles require governments to reduce their expenditure for social services and to intervene as less as possible in social services, including the housing sector. Related to rental housing, including the social housing sector, the reduction of government budget opens the door for private sectors to invest in the housing sector (Lux, 2001). One of the advantages of the neo-liberal policy is to stimulate the search for efficiency and effectiveness in the housing market and the promotion of economic growth. Proponents of neo-liberal principles believe that economic growth will bring about poverty alleviation. However, the reality contradicts the assumption of neo-liberal principles as it shows that it either creates or deepens inequalities instead of bringing the improvement of poor households' living conditions.
In South Africa, before the release of BNG, the rental housing sector and social housing in particular has been a subject of scant attention from the government (Department of Housing, 2004). This is because the housing policy contained in the 1994 Housing White Paper privileges ownership option over the rental option to which belongs the social housing sector (Omenya, 2002). In South Africa, social housing is conceived as one of the housing solutions for the urban poor who have chosen the rental option. The main challenges facing the social housing sector in South Africa are firstly that this mode of housing delivery is not designed for the poorest of the poor who earn a monthly income between 0 and R1500. It requires households who have a regular and formal income and who are earning a monthly income between R1500 and R7500 (Tonkin, 2006). The second challenge is that the stock of social housing or the supply is very limited and does not satisfy the demand for social housing (SHF, 2005). Finally, unlike in Europe, the focus on environmental issues in the management of social housing in South Africa does not receive a very close attention (Tonkin, 2006).
The following part of this chapter will analyse social housing in South Africa, with emphasis on the issue of sustainability.