Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Enabling grassroots solutions to the urban housing problem

30 October 2023 Photo Bobby Shabangu

The aftermath of damage to a building in Johannesburg, after burning. — A recent fire that engulfed a downtown Johannesburg building illustrates the challenge of housing a bulging urban population in safe, dignified conditions.

Opinion article by Prof Ivan Turok, Chuma Giyose, Claudia Hitzeroth, Zama Mgwatyu and Andreas Scheba

The tragic loss of 78 lives when fire engulfed a downtown Johannesburg building illustrates the challenge of housing a bulging urban population in safe, dignified conditions.

While the apartheid government resisted urbanisation and refused to build liveable neighbourhoods for black people, the ANC government and metropolitan authorities have been ambivalent, fearing that cities would be overwhelmed.

The ‘RDP’ mass housing programme has constructed about three million small units in peripheral dormitory settlements, far from jobs and amenities. A formulaic ‘one house, one plot’ approach has produced sprawl with sparse facilities. The scheme is currently being cut back and replaced by serviced sites rather than free homes. This is bound to perpetuate urban fragmentation, instead of helping to densify and integrate cities.

More dynamic and adaptable way

Meanwhile, a more dynamic and adaptable way of providing affordable urban housing has emerged from the grassroots, beyond the formal housing system. Many poor households, small building contractors, and emerging developers are responding to the massive demand for low-cost accommodation by investing whatever resources they can muster to construct rental units in their backyards. They are countering unemployment and hardship with laudable energy, initiative, and self-reliance.

Their dwellings range in quality from simple wooden and zinc structures to solid brick-and-mortar two-storey flats with internal ablutions. Standards are improving over time as tenants demand better accommodation and builder-developers learn to design superior homes.

Small-scale rental housing (SSRH) is also stimulating township economies by raising household incomes and creating local jobs across the construction value chain via the supply of building materials, repairs and maintenance, and rental agents and other property services. It is providing a valuable shot in the arm for a struggling building industry.

These positive features and their multiplier effects make SSRH the fastest growing segment of the housing market in the country. An organic process of transforming underused land into more valuable property is being replicated over and over again across cities and towns, driven by the insatiable demand for affordable accommodation. The momentum is fuelled by the emergence of novel lending institutions, such as the Trust for Urban Housing Finance.

Yet, the very success of this phenomenon creates other challenges, including overloaded infrastructure, stretched public services, and degraded open spaces through population growth and crowding.

Dangers of SSRH

Most emerging developers and contractors are unaware of the formal rules and systems that regulate house building and urban development. The informal and unauthorised nature of SSRH poses dangers for resident communities and risks for the developers themselves.

The health and safety of tenants occupying substandard dwellings can be compromised through fires and structural failures. And the developers might never recover the value of their investments if they remain informal.

Research has shown that the costs of regulatory compliance faced by builder-developers are prohibitive. Following the formal approval procedures and paying the requisite professional fees and administrative charges would more than double the cost of developing rental units because of their onerous nature. Most developers either do not apply for permission to build — or they give up out of frustration halfway through this time-consuming process.

Despite the immense opportunities and looming threats facing SSRH, the sector is almost completely ignored by national, provincial, and municipal authorities. The tenants seem invisible to decision-makers because at least they have a roof over their heads and appear better off than people occupying informal settlements.

Finding creative ways to help upgrade and regularise backyard housing means navigating a legal and regulatory minefield that just seems too complicated to public officials, who do not know where to start.

Responding to the policy vacuum

Several grassroots intermediary organisations have begun to respond to the policy vacuum by providing practical support to builder-developers and advice to the government about what actions and reforms are most urgent and important. NGOs are rolling up their sleeves and offering direct assistance and advocacy on behalf of the sector. They believe that empowered citizens should drive local development, so they support small-scale operators looking to construct decent, affordable accommodation.

Some of these organisations have set up training courses and mentoring programmes to help nascent contractors and developers to improve their knowledge and capabilities. Hands-on technical advice and expertise are also offered to individual developers to package their project proposals professionally to help secure external funding.

NGOs have learnt from direct experience that a broad spectrum of builder-developers are engaged in township housing. The support they offer needs to be carefully tailored according to the distinctive needs and potential of different enterprises.

At one end are ‘homeowner developers’, who build in a piecemeal, intuitive, and incremental way according to whatever resources they can secure from personal savings and networks. Women are well represented among this group. They aspire to make better use of their backyards to supplement their household income and create a durable asset for future security.

Micro-developers

At the other end of the spectrum are ‘micro-developers’ who are more proficient and strategic. They have more extensive, specialist networks and can raise longer-term loans to fund their projects. These entrepreneurs usually build larger blocks of between six and twelve units on each plot and operate across multiple sites.

Township developers do not tend to work together closely because of natural rivalry. The spirit of independence has limited their collective voice to engage with public authorities and financial institutions. Consequently, NGOs encourage developers to organise themselves and build trust so that they can learn from each other and speak with one voice about urgent regulatory reforms.

Township developer forums have been created in some places to raise their visibility and negotiating power. These bottom-up initiatives are making a meaningful contribution to reducing the affordable housing backlog and deserve to be taken seriously.

SSRH fosters urban density, enhances livelihoods, and is more sustainable financially than free government housing. The benefits extend beyond shelter to bolster township economies through new and dynamic enterprises, construction jobs, and skills.

The rich experience that NGOs have gained from working in close proximity to everyday realities provides valuable insight into how to scale up and strengthen the SSRH phenomenon. This know-how is unique and different from the mindsets and understanding available to policy makers operating at national or even municipal levels. It is vital that local and national authorities recognise and respect such hard-earned expertise.

Novel social arrangement

Yet, initiatives from below cannot succeed without wider state support. To achieve its full potential, SSRH needs public investment in essential infrastructure and services, including clean water, sanitation, electricity, and waste collection.

The government also needs to simplify the procedures that regulate house building for emerging developers to obtain the legal compliance that will help to raise long-term finance, building insurance and protect the value of their investments when they decide to sell.

One way forward in a context of mistrust between municipalities, developers, and residents is to negotiate a novel social arrangement that will restore mutual obligations and stability. A ‘new deal for communities’ could vary in detail between different places, depending on local circumstances.

Municipalities could commit to improving the infrastructure and streamlining building approvals, in return for developers contributing to the cost of public services by paying property taxes and service charges. NGOs could play a valuable role in communicating and negotiating such arrangements at neighbourhood level.

Prof Ivan Turok, NRF Research Chair – University of the Free State, Distinguished Research Fellow – Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, ITurok@hsrc.ac.za
Chuma Giyose, Project Co-ordinator, Development Action Group, Cape Town, chuma@dag.org.za
Claudia Hitzeroth, Project Officer, Development Action Group, Cape Town, claudia@dag.org.za
Zama Mgwatyu, Programme Manager, Development Action Group, Cape Town, zama@dag.org.za
Dr Andreas Scheba, Senior Researcher, Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, and Senior Lecturer, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, ascheba@hsrc.ac.za

This article was originally published in the Mail & Guardian

https://mg.co.za/thoughtleader/2023-10-24-enabling-grassroots-solutions-to-the-urban-housing-problem/

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger

2007-11-26

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept