Approaches to Low-Income Housing in the Third World

Nientied, Peter and Jan van der Linden.  “Approaches to Low-Income Housing in the Third World” The Urbanization of the Third World. Ed. Josef Gugler.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. 

I have primary sources from important scholars, such as Turner, Mangin and Pradilla, however I wanted to take a look first at a secondary source that summarizes and critiques these historical perspectives.  In this article, the authors set out to appraise the arguments used by Marxists and non-Marxists in regards to the housing issue.  They also assess the differences as well as the common ground between both views and their impact on global housing policies, especially as they are promoted by institutions such as the World Bank.

They focus initially on Turner as representative of the “liberal” approach.  They provide a helpful summary of some of Turner’s key ideas:

1.      Housing is a process, not just shelter; housing is a verb

2.      House should be assessed based on its human use value, not its material value; should not be seen as ‘what it is,’ but ‘what it does’

3.      Housing needs change and vary depending on the individual/family; because these needs cannot be generalized, the state fails to adequately meet these diverse needs.  Therefore, dwellers should make decisions about housing.

4.      Without denying dweller autonomy, local governments must facilitate the housing process by providing infrastructure, proscriptive laws and access to building elements (land, materials, credit, etc.)

These ideas were reflective of Turner’s belief that governments should not resort to eradication of settlements; instead, it should view self-help housing as a possible solution to housing problems.

As the authors point out, Marxists soon began to critique Turner’s approach, arguing that it failed to challenge the capitalist economic and social structure which they perceived to be the cause of poverty and underdevelopment.  Rod Burgess was one such individual who argued that Turner’s approach maintained the status quo. 

Burgess’ ideas can be summed up as follows:

1.        Turner fails to recognize the relationship between use value and market value; instead, he incorrectly assumes that use value is more dominant

2.      Turner blames industrialism without recognizing it as a part of capitalism; squatters actually operate within the capitalist system by being part of the ‘petty commodity production’ cycle and perpetuating the cheap reproduction of labor.

3.      Turner’s view of government is “bourgeois” and overlooks class-based issues; he fails to recognize the interests of political leaders and their manipulation of squatters; he forgets that government is supported by capitalism and therefore cannot legislate against its own capitalist interests.

Essentially, Burgess views self-help as a way of lowering wages, reproducing cheap labor, preventing political protest, and converting housing into a capitalist commodity.In looking at the divergences between these two approaches, the authors argue that the two approaches “have a different method of analysis, they start with different questions and refer to different principles” (145).  While the Marxist approach seeks to relate housing to capitalism by positing the issue in a wider urban context, the liberal approach focuses on localized field evidence and empirical data.  As stated by Harloe, each side is essentially trying to answer fundamentally different questions.

In addition to addressing these theoretical differences, the authors argue that the housing issue in developing countries has actually been over-exaggerated.  They support this idea by arguing that that housing is not seen as the most important aspect for low-income groups.  Instead, they tend to focus on economic conditions and services.  Also, even though rural living conditions are worse, urban housing is more visible and therefore attracts more attention.  They also argue that most governments are actually apathetic and rarely implement housing policies in a complete and meaningful way.

After discussing the mistaken identification between World Bank policy and Turner’s theory as well as the role of the state, the authors conclude by arguing that both Marxists and non-Marxists can find common ground.  Interestingly, they point to the often contradictory nature of the state, whereby its welfare nature “represents both the achievements of past working-class struggles and the requirements of capitalist production” (152).  Thus, researchers can – and should – research “positive elements,” such as squatter settlement upgrading, where the state has met the needs of the urban working class.  Such programs can also lead to community organization and increased political power for the settlement dwellers; by achieving these positive benefits, they argue that “upgrading programmes may serve several, often conflicting, interests” (153).

Barriers and Channels for Housing Development in Modernizing Countries

Turner, John F.C. “Barriers and Channels for Housing Development in Modernizing Countries.” Journal of American Institute of Planners 33.3 (May 1967): pp. 167-181.

Turner is seen by many as a pioneer in self-help housing research. Writing in the last 1960s and later, his work focused initially on Latin America and particularly on Peru and Mexico. However, once invited to work in the U.S., he realized along with other researchers, that his theories regarding housing development were applicable to the U.S. context as well.

This article clearly presents Turner’s argument that squatter settlements “offer uniquely satisfactory opportunities for low in come settlers” (167). Much more flexible than standardized housing policies supported by the government, these settlements actually meet the specific needs of settlers. Challenging the principle of minimum modern standards, Turner argues that “ordinary families in urbanizing countries do…prefer to live in large unfinished houses – or even large shacks – rather than in small finished ones” (167). While it is unclear what he would define as an ordinary family, Turner’s point is obvious. Unlike middle income families who can rely on stable wages and employment to provide social security, lower income families look to property ownership for security. Geographic stability, while an impediment for wealthier groups, is actually an “agent of social mobility” for settlers. Turner also highlights the role that generational concerns play; families tend to view this geographic stability as something which will help their children to “achieve a higher social status” (167).

Even if this geographic stability and possession of land means the settlers must sacrifice and wait for public services, Turner claims that most view the process of self-help as worth it. Before turning to his case study of Pampa de Cuevas in Lima, Turner makes sure to emphasize the incredibly rapid urbanization occurring in Latin American cities. Squatter settlement growth rate of 12 percent per year double rates of city growth; two-thirds of the growth in Peruvian urban population is made up of squatters. Using Pampa as an example, he argues that the majority of individuals prefer illegal squatting to the limited legal alternatives.

Whether unable to find other accommodation or searching for home-ownership, Turner’s settlers are motivated by a variety of reasons and produce a much more diversified social population than state-sponsored housing programs. While urban tenements might be closer to work, the squatter settlements provide for a more complete fulfillment of settlers’ needs. Settlers are able to achieve greater independence at an earlier stage in life (many are young families) and living conditions are constantly – even if gradually – improving. One “physical advantage” of this type of housing is that living spaces are larger than in “instant development” (urban housing programs). “Progressive development,” as Turner calls it, also solves the problem of obtaining credit and struggling with long-term mortgages. Furthermore, he claims that “it…stimulates the investment of nonmonetary resources – those that are in most abundant supply in a developing country” (177) and strengthens social and familial relationships.

Clearly, Turner challenges “instant” housing projects and argues for autonomy in self-help settlements. While Turner’s work can clearly relate to the experience of Villa El Salvador, it also provides an interesting tool for analyzing the government’s involvement in the colonias.

Historical Perspectives on the Practice and Purpose of Self-Help Housing

Harms, Hans. “Historical Perspectives on the Practice and Purpose of Self-Help Housing.” Self-Help Housing: A Critique. Ed. Peter M. Ward. London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1982.

With a strong emphasis on capitalist market structure and class conflict, Harms looks at self-help housing policy from a historical perspective. He differentiates between two interpretations of self-help housing: that held by individuals such as John F.C. Turner which sees it as a positive, autonomy-granting solution to housing problems and that held by individuals who challenge the benefits of self-help housing. Harms immediately adopts a class conflict-based view of self-help housing; he views it, as a practice adopted by dominated groups and as a mechanism used by groups in power to maintain the status quo. Furthermore, much of his discussion is colored by class-based perspectives. He maintains that one’s class determines the way in which an individual will view, and experience, the self-help housing issue.

One interesting point Harms makes involves the commodification of housing. Unlike “precapitalist” societies that were traditionally based on self-help subsistence lifestyles, today’s capitalist society turns houses into commodities, valued for their economic worth on the market. Clearly, this is problematic when looking at the housing needs of the poor; instead of building houses that accommodate lower income groups, houses are built that will sell on the market. For this reason, housing production is directly related to the “stratification of society.”

By looking, first, at the political nature of housing production, Harms makes an argument that self-help housing can either be a tool for collective action, or a tool for controlling public protest against the State. This emphasis on a “struggle from below” and the State’s attempts “to maintain the social relations of production” (20) is reminiscent of Marxist theory.

In terms of economics, Harms seems to disagree with those who view self-help housing as a cost-efficient – and therefore positive – alternative for the poor. Instead, he sees self-help policies as attempts to cut back on social expenditure. It also leads to the devaluation of labor and places heightened economic responsibilities on the individuals who must construct their own dwellings.

Unlike others, such as Gilbert, Harms sees self-help housing as a survival necessity, not as a calculated decision based on cost-benefit analysis. Focusing on the emergence of self-help housing in Latin America, particularly around the time of the Cuban Revolution, he claims that adoption of self-help policies by those in power was a reluctant, gradual process. Only because the revolution challenged the “existing structure of domination in the region” (23) did governments take the advice/instruction of other countries and transnational organizations to address the housing issue. Much like theories of leader co-optation, Harms views self-help housing programs as efforts to control potential protest and contain potential social movements.

Harms’ section on self-help housing in the U.S. focuses on market mechanisms and the “filtering process” whereby housing becomes available to lower income groups once middle to upper income groups vacate the housing for newer, better quality homes. He cites the Great Depression as a moment of economic and political tension; once the market and filtering process broke down, a severe housing crisis occurred, forcing the government to create the US Housing Authority and public housing initiatives. One example from Pennsylvania highlights the success and limitations of state-initiated and big business-funded self-help housing projects.

One aspect to consider for my project might be to look into a 1969 report sponsored by HUD and researched by Turner and the Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, “Self-help Housing in the U.S.” While it deals primarily with inner city self-help issues, it might shed some light on the way in which self-help housing has been viewed historically. According to Harms, the report was a result of political unrest and housing issues during the civil rights era. Reflecting the government’s interest in reducing public expenditure and intervention, the report focuses on income levels to differentiate between independent self-help, organized self- and mutual-help and employed self-help. Independent self-help was characterized by moderately low income groups and represented the majority of individuals participating in self-help. Because of their income level, this group was seen as relatively stable and apolitical. Harms does point out that the report failed to capture much attention from HUD; perhaps due to its relationship with the private building industry, HUD apparently failed to provide technical and financial assistance to non-profit organizations working in the field of self-help.