THEORITICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3.1Global Nature of HDS
3.2 Theoretical Framework for the Study
3.2.1 The Marxist Approach
The Marxist approach as it affects class conflicts, and the social systems in relation to partnership arrangements. This is premised on the fact that, housing is a commodity and a source of surplus value for certain forms of capital, its nature makes it a necessary consumption for worker’s, and the effect of social relations of capital on housing becomes a thing of note. For the private investor whose capital creates productivity and his motivation is profit driven in the existing market economy, there is a contrast with the public sector theoretically, whose capital creates productivity yet not profit driven. However, in contrast the value of housing to the public sector is economically different from that of the private sector.
Their goals implicitly are different; such relationship is rather complex especially where precedence has been set that the private sector simply pouches on the housing programs of the public sector so as to survive in the market economy. Simply put, the public sector initiates the market systems through institutions for the private sector to pursue the opportunities through existing and perceived loopholes. To limit this process flaw, it is important to analyze the relationship issues for possible correlations (Prins, 1994). This does not imply the absence of a situation whereby in creating an enabling environment, the private sector would now entrench itself in accumulation of private surplus value to the detriment of establishing an equitable society. Baradat (1997) established this departure on moral grounds by the Marxist approach from Ricardo’s labour theory of value, which indicates the morality content of value and eliminates the notion of price implicit to value. While Marxist theory homogenized labour such that, equilibrium of price implicit to value would converge into equitable redistribution of surplus value based on an assumed state of healthy competitiveness.
Therefore, infusing a sense of morality between the public and private sectors initiatives for housing becomes imperative. Since, the provision of any ‘capital’ initiates the process of
partnership between government and the private sector as stated in the national housing policy framework for PPP (FMHUD, 2008).Unfortunately, there are no empirically agreed basis for the measurement of morality associated with the interaction between capital, private, and public sector service delivery intentions and the accumulation of surplus value. By this variableness, the Marxist theory lays the foundation for healthy competitiveness that this research explored in the housing debate to consolidate the nature of the housing process and product in relation to the efficiency of PPP.
Since PPP is a structured arrangement between the public and private sector of an economy, it is essential to note that such union can only exist within acceptable legislations and political acceptability’s/sensibilities of stakeholders. Baradat, (1997), described the nation-state as the politicized union or unity of a people. A merger of this reality with the provision of any capital from a particular private interest group practically changes the ‘settings’ for housing delivery systems to operate. Implicitly, it becomes more complex than the simplistic production and distribution of housing as a product as suggested by most viewpoints in this study. There is evidence of class conflict between those in government (public sector) and those outside of government (private sector). As is often the case, this becomes a tool for politics and swaying or appeasing the people (Olutuah, 2007).
Therefore, while Nigeria is yet to grasp the definition of its existence as a nation-state, the divide along cultural, ethnic, and religious lines as a common class distinction feature is prominent in its established socio-cultural strata. To objectively plan for housing for all by the year 2000, 2010, or by 2020 is questionable. The social structure requires context specific delineation to ensure proper service delivery in the public sector. A whimsical inclusion of the private sector would obviously be plagued with the same problems of division and national framework flaws that the public sector is unable to solve.
Even the city of Lagos in its diversity suffers from such social imbalances in housing as seen in the government housing which predominantly benefits government employees; while the private sector housing, are either cultural, religious or economic in the nature of neighbourhood concentration of its’ household groupings. Therefore, the seemingly nucleated city is actually a configuration of several social focus groups living together along perceived delineation, which they have evolved among themselves for purpose of convenience (Aradeon, 1980, 1991, 2007, 2009; Lawal, 2006; Mabogunje, 2002).To this end the housing in Lagos are structured along sentiments which favour socio-cultural divides rather than strict economic lines of delineation. The middle-income group represents the formal private and public sectors
of the economy where class is in terms of viewpoint and not just income alone. It is this shared perception, which makes for approaches such as the omnibus spatial concepts a proliferated practice in the cities’ realties of design intentions.
The housing shortage only increases the likely arrangements along these patterns rather than a direct mixture by need/demand alone. Aradeon(1988) insist that housing continues to be provided among actors/partners of social focus groups whose ability to influence institutions(formal/informal)grants them exclusive access to housing and in most cases multiple home ownership (Daramola,2007). This in turn confirms the Marxist notion of accumulation of surplus value to a few. To this end, the nationalism as epitomized by the national plans and planned housing programs will continue to fail. Similarly, the strict economic substructure extrapolated as the motivation of society by Marxism falls short of interpreting the foregoing analysis of the Nigerian and Lagos context of social relations.
Evidently, outside influences, which are stronger than the motivation of economics alone, seem to create the settings for housing delivery systems. The social culture and subculture only exists along certain lines, first ethnic, then religious, before economic (Aradeon, 1978, 1980;
Amuwo, 2009; Rapoport, 1983;Adebayo,2002;Abiodun,1974,1980). These first two are clearly absent in Marxist consideration before it attempts to justify class struggle and social imbalance from economic standpoint. This departure gives credence to subsequent analysis in this study.
In the delineation of the effect of class struggle among actors/partners, there is an observed approach, which has instilled target solutions as the objective for housing delivery systems.
This defines theoretically the social ‘focus groups ‘as the object for target housing delivery (Aradeon, 2007). The ability of society to form and rally around such groups or the connectedness to such groups simply grants them access to any housing within established housing delivery systems (Aradeon, 1991; Castells, 1996; Jiboye, 1997; Islam, 1996). This approach often becomes the yardstick for government success and the private sector in isolation of the larger population (LSMH, 2007). In this regard, the pattern for adequate housing evolves to accommodate such notions, which are non-material standards (Mabogunje, 1978). The consequence of these non-material standards is the modification of theoretical objectives that are in synchrony with the perceived lifestyle, value systems, as well as the settings expressed as omnibus spatial concepts in housing. An understanding of this influence on housing delivery systems would improve the techniques used to achieve housing delivery and subsequently adequacy. Since target delivery of house-type and cost remains an important criterion to the partnership policy framework currently in practice (FMHUD, 2007).
The stratification of society by the Marxist approach to justify value enables this research to precipitate its class distinction approach. Instead of attempting to categorize the social focus groups based on ethnicity, religion, employment, income, etc, this research drew its social stratification of PPP from the nature of initiation of the housing delivery system where partnership is (or not) a causal factor. The variability here is public or private or a coalition of both or other emerging forms which is yet unknown in the open literature.