63
Sultan (2002) and UN-Habitat (2011) argue that housing provision can only be said to be sustainable if it is inclusive. As is clearly visible in the inner city of central Lagos, exclusionary housing cannot be said to promote a sustainable city. Robert et al. (2014) note that such housing promotes urban sprawl and air pollution resulting from the long commuting distance from home to work as well as the loss of green (open) space, all of which are contrary to the principles of sustainable development. Inclusionary housing creates class mixing which is considered sustainable because of its ability to promote distributional justice and social equity that are considered primary elements of sustainable development. The introduction of inclusionary housing in central Lagos will guaranteed the accessibility of some of the low income earners within the state an access to affordable and decent housing, promote socially inclusive inner city within central Lagos. Table 3.2 summarizes the aspects of sustainable development which inclusionary inner city housing may help to achieve.
Table 3.2: Aspects of Sustainable Development Achievable by Inclusionary Inner City Housing
Social Environmental Cultural Economic
1. The right to adequate housing and the right to access the city centre.
2. Affordable, decent and sustainable houses for all, including
economically and socially
disadvantaged groups.
3. Socially inclusive inner city growth.
1. Support climate change mitigation by reducing the job-home location gap which may reduce levels of carbon
consumption.
1. Cultural integration and cohesion.
1. Inclusive housing market.
2. Improved housing supply and effective demand.
3. Stabilization of housing market.
4. Improved housing support and finance options.
5. Housing affordability for all income groups.
6. Income mix.
Source: UN-Habitat, 2011
64
good it should compete for resources based on its profitability. Neoliberalism results in the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer (Heywood 2012 and Michelle 2016). It is an economic policy that is directly based on individualism characterised by the rule of the market and cutbacks in government expenditure on social services like roads, education, health and housing. Deregulation, the privatisation of state and publicly-owned goods and services and the elimination of public goods and their replacement with individualistic goods are other features of this school of thought. Neoliberals believe that housing provision should be the outcome of free market processes - every person for themselves and the strongest and the hardest working survive (Decker & Varady 2009). Individuals should thus live where they can afford to live. It is obvious that this philosophy will mean that the rich enjoy the best quality housing in the most suitable location within the city while the poor are either left homeless or live in poor quality housing in disadvantageous locations. Theorists like Adam Smith, the father of liberal thought believe that the free market has the ability to solve all social and economic problems as it offers equal opportunities based on talent and hard work and provides rich and poor alike with the incentive to work (Turner 2008).
According to Heywood (2012), neoliberals argue that it is impossible for the government to have all the knowledge required to centrally plan and guide the economy and attempts to do so are doomed to fail. From this premise, it is argued that housing provision should be treated like any other economic good and as such should be separated from the political sphere.
Thus, the housing market should be left in the hands of individuals who will engage in exchanges at will, based on self-interest. Buyers and sellers of houses seek to maximize individual gain. Like other goods, housing provision should be commoditised and as such, should be free from any form of interference and any other controls capable of distorting the housing market. For neoliberals, government should be less involved in housing provision and should not interfere in the housing market in any way. The state’s responsibility is to create the conditions necessary for free market operations. Thus, neoliberals support the privatization of state enterprises, deregulation of state goods, withdrawal of subsidies and reduced welfarism. They argue that this will lead to efficiency, competitiveness, innovation, freedom and the optimal distribution of capital resources. However, advocates for this policy fail to recognize that, while the market mechanism might be efficient, it can never equitably distribute societal resources like housing. Bauman (1998) describes the neoliberal school of thought as a consumerist approach while the welfare liberal belongs to the welfarism school of thought. According to Bauman (1998), neoliberals seek to give consumers space to make
65
choices and take risks, while welfare liberalism also known as liberal interventionism enables government to manage risks. According to Turner (2000), liberal interventionism seeks to strike a balance between individual liberty and social justice with market regulation standing side by side with government intervention in providing the basic needs of life like housing, health and education. Welfare liberalism is a reaction to neoliberalism. Welfare liberalists believe that government intervention is not just a necessary evil, but a tool to help citizens, especially those that are economically weak. This stance considers housing delivery support as welfare where the government supports those that are economically less privileged in meeting their housing needs. Malpass (2008) notes that, competition is regulated in the welfare liberalism approach to housing provision that is premised on a commitment to fair distribution of wealth and other basic goods like housing and education.
This study supports the position that housing provision should not be left totally in the hands of the free market, although it does not concur with the notion that the market should be totally controlled by the state as this may affect housing supply and indirectly reduce its provision and the poor would still bear the highest brunt of such control.
The study subscribes to the welfare liberalism economic school of thought in terms of housing provision in the inner city of central Lagos as this would protect the welfare of the poor. This stance is informed by the fact that, as stated by various authors (Guran &
Whitehead 2011; Malpass 2008; and Morrison & Burgess 2013, among others), neoliberalism is considered undemocratic (autocratic) (apolitical) because it removes politics from the housing market. According to the neoliberal school of thought, housing delivery is non- participatory and exclusive. Neo-liberalism also immensely widens the income and wealth gap between the poor and the rich. It promotes economic stratification and polarization and has the ability to totally exclude the poor from participating in the housing market.
On the other hand, welfare liberalism is considered ideal because it calls for the regulation of private and voluntary (not for profit) organizations to ensure accountability and meet the housing needs of the poor. This approach acknowledges that housing is a basic human need that is not always satisfactorily provided for by the traditional nexus of family, charity and market. As such housing consumption should be mediated between the market mechanism and consideration of consumers’ income.
This chapter examined the land use structure in the inner city of Central Lagos and how it has contributed to the quantitative decline of the housing function and inadvertent exclusionary
66
housing practice. It discussed the evolution of urban land use patterns and how these affected land use in the inner city. Location theories such as urban land use models, the central place theory and the rent bid theory were employed to explain the challenges associated with the study location. The concepts of social justice and sustainable development were unbundled to justify the need for inclusionary housing in the inner city of Central Lagos. Given that the review showed that inclusionary housing could meet the housing needs of the poor in a free market economy without draining scarce government resources, the chapter concluded by examining neoliberal and liberal options to provide inclusionary housing in the inner city of central Lagos. The succeeding chapter presents a historical overview and experiences of inclusionary housing in selected countries.
67
CHAPTER FOUR
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW