CHAPTER 6: HOUSING POLICY AND PRACTICE
6.1 Introduction
Housing policy and practice are globally understood in terms of quality, quantity, price, ownership and control (Malpass & Murie 1999). This understanding embraces aspects related to the planning of housing, housing production and consumption, the market and the control of the State in all aspects of the housing process. According to Malpass and Murie, housing policy and practice are "usually thought of in terms of State housing policy, at both national and local levels" (1999,4). This means that the housing policy needs State intervention.
The role of elaborating housing policy, which is the prerogative of governments (Hopkins, 2003) aims at responding to the exigency to provide adequate shelter for everyone and to create sustainable human settlements (United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (UNCHS) Habitat, 1996). Although the role of housing development in employment generation, especially for unskilled people is globally recognised (World Bank, 1993), developing countries have failed to establish a viable housing policy allowing everyone to access adequate shelter. Erguden (2001) attributes this failure to the existing gap in the developing countries between policy formulation and the implementation process. He argues that in developing countries there is a lack of valuable implementation strategies, and this, together with a poor promotion of security of tenure and an inadequate supply of affordable land and infrastructure negatively affects the implementation of housing.
The housing crisis, as observed in the production and the extension of informal settlements mostly experienced in developing countries, including South Africa, is a highly visible dimension of poverty and exclusion (Huchzermeyer, 2002). These housing inadequacies in developing countries more specifically in cities have also witnessed the poor service provision in terms of room density or physical quality. In fact, in developing countries, the majority of the urban population are living at standards, that are clearly unacceptable when compared to the way most Europeans or North Americans live. In urban China, homes are so crowded that each person occupies an average of only 4.8sqm (Fujima, 1987). Similarly in Bombay 77% of households, with an average of 5.3% persons, live in one room (Misra, 1978) and many others are forced to sleep on pavements at night (Ramchandran, 1974). In
Ghana, room densities range from 2.5 to 3.2 in the cities of Kumasi and Accra (Hinderink, Sterkenburg, 1975).
In 1998, the Global Strategy for Shelter (GSS) to the year 2000 acknowledged the increase in the number of urban poor living in informal settlements and recommended that governments should withdraw from direct intervention in housing provision and focus on creating enabling strategies instead. This meant that the government or the public sector should encourage partnerships with other sectors, both private and non governmental organisations (NGOs) for making the housing market work better for low- income people. One of the reasons for partnerships, most influenced by the opponents of neo-liberalism, is that governments are generally ineffective in supplying required land and housing according to the diverse needs of communities (Payne, 1999). In addition, as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1990, Human Development Report stated that: "following this, the limited financial and human resources of municipalities and central governments make it particularly important to use the energies of all actors on the urban scene. The best way to release these energies for government is to shift from directly providing services to enabling others to provide them - being it formal or informal producers, community-based and non- governmental organisations or the urban residents themselves. Enabling strategies can yield the highest returns in the provision of shelter and urban infrastructure" (UNDP, 1990,92).
Again, in 1991 the World Bank presented a paper entitled "Urban Policy and Economic Development", an agenda for the 1990's which advocated for the private sector to be the main agent of development (World Bank, 1991). However, Devas and Rakodi (1993) contended that these enabling policies were clearly an attractive concept, but that there seemed to be little consensus about their precise meaning, let alone how exactly they were to be achieved or carried out.
The differences in housing conditions in different Third World cities are a function of differing levels of the per capita income, the distribution of wealth, the rate of urban growth, and the form of societal organisation. Perhaps no one had played a greater role in drawing our attention to the rationality of the poor with respect to their housing situation than Abrams (1964), Mangin (1967), and Turner (1967, 1969). They demonstrated that the shanty, which was so often denigrated as the ultimate and penurious living conditions, was frequently the basis of an adequate shelter. Rather than merely being a shack without services, it was the foundation upon which the more
fortunate, better off, or more innovative managed a way out of their poverty. Over time, the method of spontaneous housing tends to improve as inhabitants built outside walls, extra rooms, a solid floor, a solid roof, and sometimes a second floor. Abrams (1964), Mangin (1967), and Turner (1967, 1969) where able to show that over time many poor families were even able to consolidate their housing.
Most governments acknowledge certain responsibilities in assuring that their citizens are given access to minimum living standards, including the provision of decent and affordable housing. The scope of standards and the effectiveness of government intervention can vary significantly from one country to another. The Capital Market System, which is characterised by a minimal role played by the national government and the involvement of the private sector through a 'socialist redistributive system' features widely in the different approach to housing provision and urban development.
Housing provision in capitalist nations such as the United States, Canada, and Japan has been patterned according to a 'free' market model. It treats housing as a commodity and the provision of housing is based on supply and demand, where transactions are driven by profit of private investors. A fundamental assumption underlying the capitalist model of housing provision is that households that are unable to compete for the more desirable housing stock will occupy housing units that are vacated by the affluent households, who move into post Apartheid housing of higher standards (Tucker, 1989). The government's role in this housing delivery process is minimal, restricted to actions intended to ensure smooth market functioning.
By contrast, in centrally planned socialist nations such as China, Vietnam, Cuba and until recently, Nicaragua, in the Third World, a major theoretical premise of societal organisation is that the State distributes costs and benefits, resulting from functioning and development, equally among all segments of the population. According to this egalitarian ideology, the State must maintain full administrative control over rationally conducted planning, production, management and consumption processes. In line with these normative principles, housing is viewed and often legislated as an entitlement, and construction, distribution and management of housing are essential State responsibilities (Otnes, 1988; Marcus, 1990).
The capitalist and socialist models can fulfil a useful heuristic function in analysis. Each has its particular merits and demerits (Turner, 1976). The national system of housing provision commonly involves, in different ways and in different degrees actions by the
public sector (government), the private sector (profit seeking investors) and the popular sector, which are the end users. During the last decade, the inter-relationships among these three sectors has changed significantly in many countries such as in South America and Asia (van Vliet 1990 b). Although the changes that can be observed are complex and vary amongst nations, they typically revolve around post Apartheid roles of national government. The two trends that are particularly salient are 'privatisation and decentralisation'.
In different countries, these developments can occur for different reasons. Privatisation in Britain has been substantially inspired by considerations of political ideology, whereas in the United States, proponents have put more emphasis on the economic benefits of privatisation as a pragmatic technical exercise (Swann, 1988). In Hungary, privatisation in housing provision during the 1970's was propelled more strongly by political factors, with economic factors becoming dominant during the 1980's and 1990's.
During the past decade, with the influence of neo-liberalism, there has been a considerable socio-economic polarisation in housing in countries such as the United States, Canada and Britain, particularly across tenure lines (van Vliet, 1990 a). The result has been residualisation of the rental sector, typically already marginal to economic and political processes. Actual public housing expenditure was re-orientated towards consumers of housing within a framework that strongly favours private home- owners over renters. The privatisation of housing provision, one of the consequences of neo-liberalist policies is likely to intensify this polarisation. Unfortunately, greater reliance on market processes makes the economically disadvantaged more vulnerable, since they are not in the position to compete effectively in the market for quality housing.