NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
COURSE : HOUSING II
STUDENT NAME : ARTHUR SIMBA CHIGUMADZI
STUDENT NUMBER : N02018856G
Due date - FRIDAY 02 DECEMBER 2022
QUESTION 3 - What redistribution of wealth would be fair to allow
the government to pay for this provision? How might that
redistribution hamper other people's ability to house themselves?
Wealth redistribution - as a concept - this is the transfer of wealth and resources in a
variety of methods where the wealth is taken from or syphoned from a source that has a
superior/larger amount of it to then give it to a source or an individual that has been deemed
as in need and by state or other governing forces due to them possessing an lesser amount that
is inadequate to cater for their needs.
As a realistic endeavour - it utilises some social framework or system that evaluates the
party in need or “deserving of” state assistance, such frameworks designed to facilitate
redistribution are taxes, government confiscation or reclamation, government/state policy,
monetary regulations, social welfare, land reform and public service systems, settlement laws
such as the tort law and separations and divorces.(BOURGUIGNON, 2018)
METHODS OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
CAPITALISM - this is a political and economic system which enables private parties to own
and operate property and supply/production chains and run them in a manner geared toward
maximising profitability and furthering their own personal interests.
Capitalist wealth redistribution occurs through the existence of the state that is granted certain
powers of authority, although there are limitations to the overall redistribution of wealth that
make it somewhat ineffective. The ability for wealth and property to be passed down from
family member to family member makes it such that the wealth is always controlled by a
small subset of people or groups of people. There are moderately effective methods of
redistribution such as taxation and state welfare that are restricted by legal regulations
because of their respect of private ownership and do not allow for very significant sums to be
extracted. The finances made from taxes make up the government reserves for social welfare
schemes and housing programmes. (www.oecd.org, 2017)
In terms of housing the government can fund certain housing schemes as well as subsidise
rent and enforce price control on accommodations. They can mandate private partners to
follow building codes to ensure suitable and adequate accommodation is provided in line with
the preset requirements for what would constitute adequate housing, and they can also seek to
assist local co-ops and self help organisations in providing houses for the members of those
communities.
NEOLIBERALISM - This a political and economic system that is heavily oriented toward
free-market capitalism, which is a form of capitalism geared toward market driven reform
where there is little to no government oversight and regulation, no price control, lowering of
trade barriers and further privatisation of control of economic supply chains as well as
significantly restricting government spending.
Neoliberal wealth redistribution would only occur on two levels, one would be where a
relatively poor individual is able to develop something of their own, a product or service and
sell it to make money, which would be very rare, the second and more practical instance
would be that those who already have most of the wealth are able to use that wealth to
generate more wealth. Due to the limitations of the government's ability to charge taxes or the
removal of their ability to regulate sizes of corporations to prevent monopolies by using
antitrust measures, these wealthy individuals become richer and richer while the poor become
even poorer.
There would be no real avenues to allow for wealth redistribution as the state can do nothing
and all allocation of wealth is determined by the free market that rarely allows for newcomers
as smaller business always get crowded or priced out of the market by large companies that
have the ability to mass produce and possess superior resources that they use to either buy out
the new companies or steal their ideas for themselves.
There would be no welfare or even government grants that could be used to fund startup
companies meaning there can almost never be any wealth redistribution in a direction that
benefits the poor. In housing terms there would continually be less and less resources
available for those that required them. Landlords would be able to charge however much they
wanted for rent due to lack of price control and they could buy up all the council provided
land so that they can own and lease all of it making ownership virtually impossible.
There would be no laws stating the housing provision would have to meet any standards and
also its likely the housing would be inadequate in terms of number of units provided as
private individuals are likely to decide there is little benefit to providing affordable housing
for people and the housing that would be available would be too expensive for most people
which would lead to the proliferation of slums and informal settlements (Slum Dwellers
International, Zimbabwe, 2020).
SOCIALISM - A political and economic method of governance where the methods of
production, trade and distribution are owned, operated and governed by the state for the
benefit of the community/people as a whole.
Socialist wealth redistribution occurs through the state, the state operating on behalf of the
people. There is state ownership and state operation of all economic elements and production
components such that the state determines who needs what and provides it for them. There
would not then be an upper and lower class in the traditional sense since private citizens are
not allowed to own and operate any means of production. This results in all people having the
same base starting plane and then having their own personal achievements or ability to work
determine their social status.
If this were to be implemented in the current landscape it would have to result in government
seizure of privately owned operations and governing it themselves. The government has the
rights to govern and control all of these assets. In regards to housing this would lead to mass
housing developments needing to be created where most spaces are identical to facilitate and
purvey the idea of all being equal before the state, for example all single able bodied men
would be housed in similar housing apartments and you only gain access to a home of you are
married and have a child. The state would have to see to the provision of all amenities and
services for its populace.
COMMUNISM - This is a political, economic and social mode of governance where all
property and nation/community assets are owned and operated by the community themselves
as well as having each member of that community contribute and be awarded equally based
on their output, their ability to care for themselves and their dependants, and their unique
needs. Communism has no central government or state with authority over the people but
relies on a system of self governance by the people.
Communist wealth redistribution in societies that practise it is not a goal to be achieved or
means to be sought out given everyone is theoretically supposed to be allotted an adequate
amount depending on their need for it. It is controlled by the people and is operated by them.
If this were to be achieved and implemented in the way that's billed then the redistribution
effort would be unnecessary as everyone would be adequately provided for and no one would
necessarily have more than their peers.
A system would have to be put in place that somehow objectively evaluates the amount of
resources/wealth that an individual or a group of united individuals would need and ensure
they receive an amount that is adequate for them and their dependents. To successfully
evaluate needs the above mentioned criteria would be brought into play, the individual's
ability to care for themselves, the number of dependents they have, their unique requirements
in regards to health and diet, as well as their general output as productive members of society.
The need for wealth itself is to be eliminated as access to all goods and services is free and
production is oriented toward manufacture for use rather than manufacture for sale which
creates a significant decline in the function that wealth has in the society. If everything is
produced and provided for the people by the people then there is no need to have money and
you simply access what you need and that is all.
In reality in order to achieve this in the current climate there would have to be significant
political and social revolution that begins with the seizure of all privately owned and operated
property and assets to be pooled together and made available to all. The rich will lose plenty
of what was theirs and it would be given to the poor with the hopes of achieving a stable
equilibrium.
In housing terms that would result in the seizing of privately owned land and property to
allow for the provision of housing for those unable to afford or access it. Limitation and
restrictions to peoples such as the high cost of acquiring land and issues of tenure are
overcome as land is made available for free and those with excess land have that land reallocated such that there is then a split based upon need where those with larger families
receive more land or larger houses and those that live alone get smaller homes and so forth.
DEMOCRACY - This is a system of governance where the nation has a constitution that
contains laws and regulations representative of the majority will of the people and adjacent
positions of authority are held by publicly elected and authorised representatives. There are
two somewhat distinct incarnations of democracy which are:
Liberal democracy - this is a mode of constitution regulated governance that prioritises
protection of individual rights and individual freedoms with the abilities and scope of
government political power is limited and controlled by that constitution.
Liberal democracy wealth redistribution occurs through the same way it does in capitalism,
the state has some legal binding in the constitution and in conjunction with the people can
adapt and change those regulations to suit those that need them the most. Government can
charge taxes and then use the income from those taxes to finance housing provision
enterprises.
In housing specifically the government can attempt to put in place policies that benefit those
that have limited access to housing supply.
Representative democracy - This is a mode of governance where communities elect
individual representatives to make decisions and govern with their interests in mind.
Representative democracy wealth redistribution occurs through the elected individuals
determining what is best for the people they represent. In regards to housing these elected
individuals can attempt to put in place policies and set up frameworks that can encourage the
community and private sector benefactors to see about acquiring and supplying housing
solutions in the easiest way possible.
DETERMINING FACTORS - any method that should be used to evaluate the best, or most
adequate method of redistributing wealth should be carried out with the foremost
consideration being the inherent good of the citizens of the state and by extension the state
itself. The best subsystem should be that which benefits those in need the most while
affecting those wealth is redistributed from the least.
HOW DO THESE METHODS HINDER OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR THEMSELVES AS THEY CHOOSE?
CAPITALISM and NEOLIBERALISM - there is no hindrance to those with wealth as they
can do as they please, the only hindrance to those that do not have wealth is their lack of
wealth.
SOCIALISM - The seizure of assets by the state makes it such that you are unable to
purchase and own private land. You are restricted to what the state decides to give you, those
who desire more or desire less cannot change their situation as it is what has been decided by
the state.
COMMUNISM - The wealthy individuals would lose their wealth and their property. The
seizure of private assets and their conversion into shared and separated elements makes it
such that nobody chooses how to house themselves but instead their housing situation is
determined by their circumstances, if they do not have children or dependants they simply are
unable to get a larger space or have the luxuries they desire if they are not afforded to
everyone else
DEMOCRACY - An increase in taxes and potential policy changes that make owning large
pieces of land or owning multiple properties expensive negatively affect those that desire it as
there is now a financial downside and inconvenience to desiring to live the life of luxury that
is desired.
THE BEST WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION METHOD
A mix between neoliberal/capitalist and socialist wealth redistribution means would be the
most effective method of achieving it, yes there are criticisms that state those that had
amassed assets and wealth are to have some amount of that stripped from them, yes, this is
true, but as stated the significant factor being considered here is the inherent good, how to
benefit the most people while harming the fewest. The richest 1% have as much wealth as the
poorest 90%. What that means is that we can uplift up to about 90% of people while only
adversely affecting 1% of the population. That would be a sustainable and dare I say
admirable feat if the end result was better living conditions and financial situation for those
affected. The specific measures are further elaborated in the conclusion
IN CONCLUSION
To achieve a true utopian society is impossible, to achieve a utopian method of wealth
redistribution where nobody at all has any grievances is also impossible, but through a
combination of the state benefactors operating through increased taxes specifically for the
wealthy as well as instituting a burden of provision for those that employ people. This burden
being represented through a minimum wage and profit sharing system, the workers are
entitled to some share of the profits from the company or enterprise they work for as well as
employers being government mandated to provide a minimum wage that enables even entry
level employees to make enough money such that they are able to take care of themselves.
They can further encourage private sector responsibility by having policies that favour
compliant companies that potentially offer housing schemes to their workers.
This is all achieved while retaining the capitalist respect for private ownership but a restricted
version that has significant antitrust laws in place and even startup schemes to promote
healthy market orientation and regulation.
WORD COUNT [2344 words]
QUESTION 4 - How would we define fairness in this context? And
whose interests would be paramount, the givers or the receivers?
Fairness in context would be difficult to accomplish. The closest we could get to fairness
would be to accept that the government has a responsibility to provide for those citizens and
occupants of its nation that have failed or were unable to provide for themselves, knowing
those we then see that there is an incidental social responsibility held by those that have to
assist those that do not, these individuals are in many cases the same individuals that work for
you, for wages to low to enable them to afford rent and so you have a responsibility to give
out a fair wage and if that fails then to contribute in some way, through taxation to the
improvement of that individuals situation. A lot of those with wealth are often found to have
manipulated and taken advantage of those that do not have to further enrich themselves.
(Boghosian, 2019)
Therefore methods of attempting to balance out the wealth are put in place where those that
have more pay more in taxes as they have more in excess of what they need. This is the most
ideal scenario where we can accomplish the inherent good of benefitting as many as we can
while adversely affecting as few as we possibly can.
Methods of wealth redistribution
CAPITALISM
Capitalist wealth redistribution occurs through the existence of the state that is granted certain
powers of authority, although there are limitations to the overall redistribution of wealth that
make it somewhat ineffective. The ability for wealth and property to be passed down from
family member to family member makes it such that the wealth is always controlled by a
small subset of people or groups of people. There are moderately effective methods of
redistribution such as taxation and state welfare that are restricted by legal regulations
because of their respect of private ownership and do not allow for very significant sums to be
extracted. The finances made from taxes make up the government reserves for social welfare
schemes and housing programmes.
In terms of housing the government can fund certain housing schemes as well as subsidise
rent and enforce price control on accommodations. They can mandate private partners to
follow building codes to ensure suitable and adequate accommodation is provided in line with
the preset requirements for what would constitute adequate housing, and they can also seek to
assist local co-ops and self help organisations in providing houses for the members of those
communities.
NEOLIBERALISM
Neoliberal wealth redistribution would only occur on two levels, one would be where a
relatively poor individual is able to develop something of their own, a product or service and
sell it to make money, which would be very rare, the second and more practical instance
would be that those who already have most of the wealth are able to use that wealth to
generate more wealth. Due to the limitations of the government's ability to charge taxes or the
removal of their ability to regulate sizes of corporations to prevent monopolies by using
antitrust measures, these wealthy individuals become richer and richer while the poor become
even poorer.
There would be no real avenues to allow for wealth redistribution as the state can do nothing
and all allocation of wealth is determined by the free market that rarely allows for newcomers
as smaller business always get crowded or priced out of the market by large companies that
have the ability to mass produce and possess superior resources that they use to either buy out
the new companies or steal their ideas for themselves.
There would be no welfare or even government grants that could be used to fund startup
companies meaning there can almost never be any wealth redistribution in a direction that
benefits the poor. In housing terms there would continually be less and less resources
available for those that required them. Landlords would be able to charge however much they
wanted for rent due to lack of price control and they could buy up all the council provided
land so that they can own and lease all of it making ownership virtually impossible. There
would be no laws stating the housing provision would have to meet any standards and also its
likely the housing would be inadequate in terms of number of units provided as private
individuals are likely to decide there is little benefit to providing affordable housing for
people and the housing that would be available would be too expensive for most people which
would lead to the proliferation of slums and informal settlements (Slum Dwellers
International, Zimbabwe, 2020).
SOCIALISM
Socialist wealth redistribution occurs through the state, the state operating on behalf of the
people. There is state ownership and state operation of all economic elements and production
components such that the state determines who needs what and provides it for them. There
would not then be an upper and lower class in the traditional sense since private citizens are
not allowed to own and operate any means of production. This results in all people having the
same base starting plane and then having their own personal achievements or ability to work
determine their social status.
If this were to be implemented in the current landscape it would have to result in government
seizure of privately owned operations and governing it themselves. The government has the
rights to govern and control all of these assets. In regards to housing this would lead to mass
housing developments needing to be created where most spaces are identical to facilitate and
purvey the idea of all being equal before the state, for example all single able bodied men
would be housed in similar housing apartments and you only gain access to a home of you are
married and have a child. The state would have to see to the provision of all amenities and
services for its populace.
COMMUNISM
Communist wealth redistribution in societies that practise it is not a goal to be achieved or
means to be sought out given everyone is theoretically supposed to be allotted an adequate
amount depending on their need for it. It is controlled by the people and is operated by them.
If this were to be achieved and implemented in the way that's billed then the redistribution
effort would be unnecessary as everyone would be adequately provided for and no one would
necessarily have more than their peers.
A system would have to be put in place that somehow objectively evaluates the amount of
resources/wealth that an individual or a group of united individuals would need and ensure
they receive an amount that is adequate for them and their dependents. To successfully
evaluate needs the above mentioned criteria would be brought into play, the individual's
ability to care for themselves, the number of dependents they have, their unique requirements
in regards to health and diet, as well as their general output as productive members of society.
The need for wealth itself is to be eliminated as access to all goods and services is free and
production is oriented toward manufacture for use rather than manufacture for sale which
creates a significant decline in the function that wealth has in the society. If everything is
produced and provided for the people by the people then there is no need to have money and
you simply access what you need and that is all.
In reality in order to achieve this in the current climate there would have to be significant
political and social revolution that begins with the seizure of all privately owned and operated
property and assets to be pooled together and made available to all. The rich will lose plenty
of what was theirs and it would be given to the poor with the hopes of achieving a stable
equilibrium.
In housing terms that would result in the seizing of privately owned land and property to
allow for the provision of housing for those unable to afford or access it. Limitation and
restrictions to peoples such as the high cost of acquiring land and issues of tenure are
overcome as land is made available for free and those with excess land have that land reallocated such that there is then a split based upon need where those with larger families
receive more land or larger houses and those that live alone get smaller homes and so forth.
DEMOCRACY -There are two somewhat distinct incarnations of democracy which are:
Liberal democracy - this is a mode of constitution regulated governance that prioritises
protection of individual rights and individual freedoms with the abilities and scope of
government political power is limited and controlled by that constitution.
Liberal democracy wealth redistribution occurs through the same way it does in capitalism,
the state has some legal binding in the constitution and in conjunction with the people can
adapt and change those regulations to suit those that need them the most. Government can
charge taxes and then use the income from those taxes to finance housing provision
enterprises. In housing specifically the government can attempt to put in place policies that
benefit those that have limited access to housing supply.
Representative democracy - This is a mode of governance where communities elect
individual representatives to make decisions and govern with their interests in mind.
Representative democracy wealth redistribution occurs through the elected individuals
determining what is best for the people they represent. In regards to housing these elected
individuals can attempt to put in place policies and set up frameworks that can encourage the
community and private sector benefactors to see about acquiring and supplying housing
solutions in the easiest way possible.
The government responsibility to care for those that are unable to is then the inciting factor
and what drives them to action. The wealthy whether they like it or not are by extension also
under a social responsibility to do the same, they may not like it or want to but it is something
that has to be realised.
When evaluating “fairness” we again consider the inherent good. We evaluate based upon
what we feel all humans deserve, basic humans rights, and what concessions need to be made
to achieve that. While housing is not considered a basic human right it runs adjacent to other
declared human rights, rights to safety, tight to freedom of expression and protection from
unfair persecution, discrimination and prosecution.
The basic human rights are stated human rights but that is not where the government's role
ends, people need more than just the basics in order for the state to have achieved its goal
which is to set up a framework that enables citizens to live life in environments that are safe
and arranged such that you can prosper in them. In some nations like the United States of
America they have enshrined housing as a legal right enforced by law, while that is not the
case it does align with the provision of basic human rights.(unhabitat.org, 2016)
As well as evaluating the human needs of food and water, a place to live and sleep, safety and
security which may not be human rights per se they are definitely human rights adjacent and
are just as important as any of those enshrined by the UN and the Geneva conventions. The
only way for a government to know that they achieved this adequately would be (through an
association of all these mentioned qualities) to provide adequate housing for its citizens, in
conclusion of this paragraph then it is a paramount concern that in order to be able to meet
and moderately exceed the basic human rights laid out such that its responsibility to its
citizens is fulfilled they must ensure that housing is provided Therefore those with excess in
majority should be prepared to give up a little more to ensure the benefit of all.
THE DETERMINING FACTOR - When evaluating “fairness” we again consider the
inherent good. We evaluate based upon what we feel all humans deserve, and what
concessions need to be made to achieve that.
HOW DO THEY WORK?
Whose interest is paramount? - the definitive answer would be that it should be the receiver
whose interests are prioritised in this situation. The receivers stand to be the most vulnerable,
they do not have the protection that wealth and property gives you and are therefore those
with the most to gain. (Elkjær and Iversen, 2021)
Their elevation to a state where they can say their basic human rights and the government
responsibility to its citizens have been met is more profound and important than the
unsubstantial negative impact faced by those that have been given. Yes by giving they would
have lost out on the excesses that they enjoy or believe they requires but if that is a sacrifice
to make it possible for someone who lived below the adequate threshold where their basic
human rights were in danger then it is a negligible negative impact in the framework of the
inherent good for all. Those who are givers are from an objective comparison point of view
already prosperous, yes the taxing may prevent them buying a car or a second house but by
comparing that to someone who was homeless they are prosperous.(Chambers, 1995)
Is the taxation and potential repossessing of some parts of the givers income or property
harmful to them. The answer is yes it is, but the harm perpetrated against them is minimal but
it can facilitate the elevation of a lot of people living in poverty or squalor to adequate home
status. The greater significance is experienced by those that had less and gained a lot than
those who had a lot and only lost a little.
WORD COUNT [2302 words]
(due to redefinition of reallocation methods)
QUESTION 5 - Once the government is supporting housing provision
through taxes, how do we make sure to allocate it to the person most in
need of it? And how would “need” be defined?
To ensure we allocate it to those most in need there exist some suitable criteria that can be
used to evaluate it. The communist principles of need are a good starting point based on the
premise that those who are most vulnerable are those that are the top priority, so young
children, pregnant women, people with significant life altering health concerns and
individuals with disabilities would be classified as those in need more-so than others. The
evaluation of need would be carried out first by addressing problems that would lead to those
in need failing to access the housing even if it were on offer. In the most objective methods
there would be a panel of people knowledgeable and experienced about issues faced by
people that would evaluate submission and requests for government assistance.
Certain socio-economic groups are more likely to need assistance compared to others and
within that there has to be a concerned effort to ensure that knowledge about possible
assistance is communicated to the communities that actually need it. A good example would
be how America and Americans had information about social welfare and unemployment
benefits made known to them through education in schools and also outreach programmes to
underprivileged communities to inform them of the existence of these methods of gaining
government assistance. Once the issue of ignorance and socio economic challenges is
addressed then strides can be made to further chase and attempt to accomplish an allocation of
housing as it is made available to those that need it the most. (Noor, 2017)
The definition of need would then be classified by vulnerability and the level of danger and
potential harms faced by individuals were they to continue without adequate housing. Young
infants would be classified as more vulnerable to cold weather and catching an infection and
dying from it compared to an older individual that is able to move and at the very least
attempt to remedy their situation whereas children do not have that ability.
Community methods of addressing that exist and are used by individuals to attempt to provide
solutions for themselves such as:
Self help housing - This is a situation where a group of individual or even a community
band together and decide to take matter into their own hands in regards to improving their
housing situation, it can manifest in a wide variety of means and methods such as reclamation
projects where the members of the community work together to refurbish dilapidated and out
of use s or to occupy abandoned properties. Through working together they help themselves
to homes outside of the general legal processes that begin with acquiring land and building a
home or renting one out.
This is a more cost effective solution as there are no significant capital inputs required but
rather the community labour but the downsides are that it usually occurs outside of local
authority guidelines which can result in their eviction when discovered or if the space is then
to be demolished or allocated a different use they have no legal ground to make a claim to the
home as it was never theirs to begin with. (PH1.2 HOUSING POLICY OBJECTIVES AND
OBSTACLES Definitions and methodology Key findings The majority of countries have a
national housing strategy in place, 2021)
These can manifest through social movements that rely on a community banding together
around an idea or a goal of doing for themselves what other parties have failed to do for them.
The do it for yourself mentality spreads and the attitude and mentality held by the local
people can become one of action.
More modern self help housing schemes even include the construction of whole new homes
with available resources although it is still usually on land they do not own and often
materials they found rather than purchased. There is a limit to the quality that these homes can
achieve given how they are constructed using limited resources and the likely possibility that
they do not have construction experience or expertise.
Government and private sector stakeholders can get involved to help facilitate and fund
certain self help housing schemes in order to grant them control of the land they’re
constructing n, access to materials and construction expertise and council services such that
the homes constructed or refurbished are in line with council regulations and building codes
and face no risk of demolition.
Self help approaches are required for people t aid and assist themselves because government
or state can only do so much at any time, there are notable efforts by many global authorities
to address homelessness but there is also a need for the people to begin to look into ways they
can adopt to help themselves
Social movements - These are a very organised and gal oriented grouping/coming
together of individuals united behind a common social idea or a social goal. Their purpose is
to mobilise a large enough group that shares the same values and ideas in order to make a
statement, through a pooling of manpower, expertise and resources achieving freedom of
action to pursue their goals and also to enable the possibility of social change. Some social
movements develop into fully fledged political activist parties with the goal of enforcing the
desired social change or required action by taking an active role in governance and
government operation.
In the context of housing a social movement is almost always executed by (lower income and
lower social class individuals)
FIVE THEORIES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
1. DEPRIVATION THEORY - This is where a community may feel denied access to
resources that they require for personal self development and supply of their basic
necessities. These resources can be of an economic, cultural or social nature but in
this instance relate specifically to housing.
2. FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE - This is a theory that determines that social
movement can arise in response to a perceived societal dysfunction that has not been
addressed by relevant authorities.
3. POLITICAL PROCESS THEORY - This is a theory that states that social
movements often occur in relation to prevailing political conditions, such that if
mobilisation structures such as the rights to peaceful protests are in place then social
movements are likely to prosper whereas if they aren't then they are more likely to
falter and fail to gain traction.
4. RESOURCE MOBILISATION THEORY - A theory that believes that
communities that share an idea or grievance take advantage of available resources to
start a social movement and that were these resources lacking the movement would
not come about. Their success is dependent on availability of resources.
5. CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE - This is when individual and by extension
communities critique their societies and find significant systemic issues that need
addressing. These systemic inequalities hinder or disadvantage a specific minority
group and the social movement aims to rectify that.
Having evaluated why a social movement is likely to begin we can understand that there are
occurrences of individuals having to take matters into their own hands and round up/mobilise
groups of affected or disenfranchised individuals who are looking to affect a change in their
sector. In relation to housing they would be looking to address the fact that low income socioeconomic groups are generally the ones to suffer housing shortage and have the highest
demand. They have also noted that these groups tend to be neglected and often have no
frameworks put in place to assist them to prosper. (John F.C. Turner, 1976)
Through a process of ANALYSING AND CRITIQUING we can conclusively say that most
social movements are carried out by people who are either those in “need”/experience the
injustice first hand or people that are sympathetic to those in need and we could use this to
decide who to prioritise first as the groups that protest are the groups that have a lack, or feel
aggrieved whereas the groups that have and do not need are comfortable to the point where
they are unlikely to even have reason to mobilise.
WORD COUNT [1360 words]
QUESTION 6 - Who should provide housing?
What does provide mean in this scenario - This isn't exclusively referring to simply
providing a fully constructed and fitted home to people for no charge as for most societies and
indeed economies that is an untenable plan as the provider would exhaust their financial
reserves long before the entire nations demand has been satisfied, rather this is in reference to
providing people with the opportunities to gain access to housing through their own means as
well as providing some few via the state. Rent control to prevent landlords charging
exorbitant prices and enforcing dwellers rights/renters rights are all part of a larger provision
that is referred to and something we should always keep in mind when discussing the issue of
provision. Provision also includes a stipulation that the housing should meet all the
requirements of adequacy as listed further below.
Who should provide - In my opinion the issue of providing housing should be the
responsibility of the state, they have the tools and authority that sets policies and legislation
that determines how easily accessible housing is and can actively make the process and
peoples prospects of obtaining adequate housing easier or harder.
The parties capable of providing - these are broken down into three layers each
tackling what each party can provide. The government is the prime answer as they can
allocate funds for housing construction and price control through subsidies and grants since
they charge taxes, they can facilitate housing construction and provision through their policies
and they have the authority and ability to make available land and land allocation schemes. It
is also theirs and the local authorities responsibility to provide essential services to all urban
dwellings.
The private sector - can provide funding and information by granting access to technical
data to teach and inform people on the avenues available to them as well as technical
expertise on house construction and the processes that needs to be gone through to make
construction efficient and safe. They can also go about providing goodwill capital inputs,
which could be in the form of money or materials that they produce or acquired for the
purpose of giving back to the community.
The third parties - would be the skilled or able individuals, architects, builders and other
industry stakeholders who can make it possible to achieve housing by charging lower prices
for services or having special arrangements where they assist local community endeavours to
enable them to achieve housing support. Architects can provide a few housing plans that can
be duplicated as modules across a neighbourhood and town planners can create a mock up
layout of a neighbourhood infrastructure to guide people on how to go about setting up and
setting out homes.
The parties that would be receiving - we would have the lower class or those that do
not have homes due to an inability to provide housing for themselves be the ones benefiting
from this the most. The provision of these resources would allow the government, and those
whose responsibility it is to fulfil their social responsibility to the rest of the population. There
exists internationally published guidelines to use when evaluating the receiver and they are
listed below, these are recognised by the United nations and it is recommended that all its
members observe them. (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner,
2022)
● Those with dependent children of their own, or children they are responsible for. A
dependent child is one under the age of 18, or under age 19 if in full-time education,
and who normally resides with you
● Those who are pregnant or have a member of their family who is pregnant. Proof of
pregnancy would be needed
● Those who are homeless because of an emergency such as a serious fire or flood
● mental or physical ill health or disability
● leaving accommodation due to violence or threats of violence which are likely to be
carried out
Demand and supply - would have to be a considered factor to be solved or at least
mitigated, the higher the demand there is should serve as an indicator that determines whether
or not more significant policy shifts should be implemented. These considerations are what
would determine how well and how prosperous an individual would become.
Those who cannot afford due to social inequalities - We have to review the nature
of how most nations are set up, the government or state is generally the highest power in the
nation with the ability to bring about some form of policy reform that could enable housing
and its provision to be achieved more easily. Therefore the responsibility of a government to
its citizens is to put in place these support systems to enable even low income families to be
able to get access to adequate living accommodations. Given how the home is the centre of a
lot of our social, emotional and cultural lives it is therefore no small matter to see to it that
people are able to access housing.
Not just access it, but access it in a manner that is actually beneficial, there is a need to
prioritise in social welfare endeavours those that are under-served or mistreated intentionally
through some form of discrimination. Taking into account barriers that exist to bar people
from achieving housing themselves that are more than just price, zoning and building codes is
the only way to start investigating solution that could actually benefit them.There is also
issues of ignorance, unavailability of space, discrimination against different socio economic
groups that require assistance with housing provision and many other factors.
Increasingly viewed as a commodity, housing is most importantly a human right. Under
international law, (unhabitat.org, 2016) to be adequately housed means having secure
tenure—not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken away. It
means living somewhere that is in keeping with your culture, and having access to
appropriate services, schools, and employment.
Too often violations of the right to housing occur with impunity. In part, this is because, at
the domestic level, housing is rarely treated as a human right. The key to ensuring adequate
housing is the implementation of this human right through appropriate government policy and
programmes, including national housing strategies.
Adequate housing was recognised as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in
article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 11.1 of the 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other international human
rights treaties have since recognised or referred to the right to adequate housing or some
elements of it, such as the protection of one’s home and privacy. (OHCHR, 2020)
Adequate housing must provide more than four walls and a roof. A number of conditions
must be met before particular forms of shelter can be considered to constitute “adequate
housing.” These elements are just as fundamental as the basic supply and availability of
housing. For housing to be adequate, it must, at a minimum, meet the following criteria:
● Security of tenure: Housing is not adequate if its occupants do not have a degree of
tenure security which guarantees legal protection against forced evictions, harassment
and other threats.
● Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure: Housing is not
adequate if its occupants do not have safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, energy
for cooking, heating, lighting, food storage or refuse disposal.
● Affordability: Housing is not adequate if its cost threatens or compromises the
occupants’ enjoyment of other human rights.
● Habitability: Housing is not adequate if it does not guarantee physical safety or
provide adequate space, as well as protection against the cold, damp, heat, rain, wind,
other threats to health and structural hazards.
● Accessibility: Housing is not adequate if the specific needs of disadvantaged and
marginalised groups are not taken into account.
● Location: Housing is not adequate if it is cut off from employment opportunities,
health-care services, schools, childcare centres and other social facilities, or if located
in polluted or dangerous areas.
● Cultural adequacy: Housing is not adequate if it does not respect and take into
account the expression of cultural identity.
The government therefore, as the appointed protector of its citizens human rights and bearer
of the responsibility to build the nation such that its citizens prosper and then the ones that
bear the responsibility for providing “adequate” housing to its citizens. That duty cannot be
taken lightly and for any nation to make strides toward prosperity and sustained development
it must first invest in infrastructure that would assist to keep its populace adequately protected
and provided for.
WORD COUNT [1433 words]
References
Boghosian, B.M. (2019). Is Inequality Inevitable? Scientific American. [online]
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1119-70.
BOURGUIGNON, F. (2018). Redistribution of Income and Reducing Economic Inequality IMF F&D Magazine. [online] IMF. Available at:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2018/03/bourguignon.
Cadman, D. and Payne, G. (2019). The Living City. Routledge.
Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environment and
Urbanization, 7(1), pp.173–204. doi:10.1630/095624795101286816.
Elkjær, M.A. and Iversen, T. (n.d.). The Democratic State and Redistribution: Whose
Interests Are Served? American Political Science Review, [online] pp.1–16.
doi:10.1017/S0003055422000867.
Fichter, R. (1972). Freedom to Build.
John (1976). Housing by People. London : Marion Boyars.
Noor, P. (2017). Utopian thinking: Free housing should be a universal right | Poppy Noor.
The Guardian. [online] 10 Apr. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/10/free-housing-universal-right-freemarket.
OHCHR. (n.d.). OHCHR | The human right to adequate housing. [online] Available at:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequatehousing#main-content [Accessed 2 Dec. 2022].
PH1.2 HOUSING POLICY OBJECTIVES AND OBSTACLES Definitions and
methodology Key findings The majority of countries have a national housing strategy in
place. (n.d.). [online] Available at: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PH1-2-Housing-policyobjectives-and-obstacles.pdf.
Slum Dwellers International. (n.d.). Slum Dwellers International -. [online] Available at:
https://sdinet.org/.
Slum Dwellers International. (n.d.). Zimbabwe. [online] Available at:
https://sdinet.org/affiliate/zimbabwe/ [Accessed 30 Nov. 2022].
unhabitat.org. (n.d.). Housing Rights | UN-Habitat. [online] Available at:
https://unhabitat.org/programme/housing-rights.
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2022). OHCHR | The
human right to adequate housing. [online] OHCHR. Available at:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing.
www.oecd.org. (n.d.). Income redistribution - OECD. [online] Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/economy/public-finance/incomeredistribution/.