THEORITICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3.1Global Nature of HDS
3.2 Theoretical Framework for the Study
3.2.3 The Urban Capitalist Approach
The Urban capitalist approach in an emerging market economy as Nigeria and the need for capitalist systems to reproduce its means of production, labour and relations of production in order to survive is a given in every housing study for the urban context. In an urban setting, there is the implication of private production and its limitations in the equitable distribution and consumption of goods and services. To achieve equity, there is need for interventions by the state to manage capital and social crisis in an urbanized capitalist system for housing to thrive equitably and profitably (Pugh, 1980, 1994; Tipple, 1994; Van, Willem, 2007; Williams, 1983). Since surplus value derived from housing could aggravate social imbalance by way of urban gentrification (Duanfang, 2007; Castell, 1996; Desoto, 2000). To this end, capital migrates to cities positioned by liberal policies through deregulation of the economy to attract investment and competitiveness. Hence, the ability of an urban center to produce becomes the main driving force for its existence. It is only by this method that cities can generate capital and surplus value accumulation. Housing in this regard, is a key driver of production, which in turn is a factor that stimulates HDS. The specialization of urban spaces (in the financial, real estate and insurance sectors) and touristization (transformation of neighbourhoods into centers
of attraction for capital/surplus value accumulation) are two consequences of the urban capitalist approach to HDS.
Nigeria is theoretically as capitalist democracy and upon this basis, most policy documents derived their origins (Awotono, 1987; Barney, 2006). However, it is obvious that such strict compliance in application does not exist in any social setting from which housing derives its own settings (Rapoport, 2001; Bertrand, 1990). The attempt to eliminate natural prowess of urban centers in favour of external capitalist controls and interests is often met with local resistance (Smith, 1998).More so, urban capitalism recognizes cities through filters which are Anglo-American and ethnocentric in perception; and this originates from Anglo-Saxon dominated ideologies of capitalist democracies (Robinson, 2002).
The reality of urban capitalist approach is evident in the cumbersomeness with which private capital (sometimes in conjunction with ill-advised public capital) creates the specialization of urban spaces in third world economies. The emergent nucleated urban spaces of affluence alongside abject poverty accentuate the failure of capitalism in such urbanized settings. The approach only works for a few stakeholders with linkages to the networks of local and foreign capital. The hierarchy of the urban space reveals the disconnection (in the environment settings) between capital and HDS.
In describing third world economics, Baradat (1997) posited that there is often a contradiction between socialism and nationalism and attributed such contrariety to communal cultures, which again epitomizes the existing lifestyle often neglected by analyst. Hence, in such emerging states, socialism is an extension of tribal-communal-ethnic relations in practice, rather than a commitment to traditional socialist goals and not even strict capitalist goals cannot escape similar interpretations. This underlying sentiment of third world cities like Lagos is such that the strict approach thought to influence HDS does not reflect realities. While the urban capitalist approach helps to understand the stratification of the city in economic terms, it also reveals the underlying movement of capital within the city, which is relevant to private participation.
In the application of the urban capitalist approach to initiate private participation in Lagos, factors such as ethnicity, religion, social and economic structure of society are relevant to the utilization of capital for productivity. Since the use of capital and accumulation of surplus value derived from productivity are not the preserve of a homogenous few/group.
In Lagos, the intrinsic worth of housing is in relation to sub-regional productivity and specialization of the urban space. This is evident in the intense productivity of central Lagos (or Isale-Eko, which is rather subsistence) and the localized specialization of its urban space.
This is lower in hierarchy of urban space value when compared to the intrinsic value of housing of the westernized settings of Ikoyi and Victoria Island where private capital specializes’ in re-inventing the urban space historically. The mid-rise blocks of flats in central Lagos and the high rise residential complexes typifies the variation to the nature of urban capital investment in the same city controlled by productivity and the intent to specialize urban space for high yield value (A cross-section of rental value was discussed earlier in chapter two).
An attempt is sort by this study to extricate PPP’s applicability from such extreme consequences of private capital through the understanding of the influence of urban capitalist approaches on HDS. Since, income related productivity of households and actors/partners is never a guarantee for access to adequate housing. In reality, the income related implication never really becomes the formal consideration for the arrangements among stakeholders in an attempt to achieve housing objectives. The reasons are not within the context of this study but studies show that, a sense of community, security, and trade/income is partly responsible for the basis of such preferred living coalitions and the acquisition of housing (Abiodun, 1974;
Aradeon, 1980, 2009; Okpala, 1981).
Urban capitalist approach in terms of ‘accumulation of surplus value’ is essential to the understanding of housing delivery systems in Lagos. Desperation towards ownership by households has created various ingenious delivery systems, which is outside the scope of this research.
However, it is important to note that such desperation simply gives credence to poor quality housing and effectively inadequate housing, based on certain terms of reference especially those of human right issues.
Therefore, the need for specificity, localization, individualization among actors as observed in current housing debate can be further understood from the point of the contextual economies and hence the capitalist approach in relation to accumulation of surplus value for which the
‘urban’ provides the settings.