Marais, J. G. L.Sefika, Moeketsi Simon2015-11-102015-11-1012-Jun2012http://hdl.handle.net/11660/1536Thesis (Ph.D.(Development Studies))--University of the Free State, 2012𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 The argument in this dissertation is that housing studies focus mainly on the politicaleconomy paradigms and ignore the role played by other social theories. On the one hand, conventional economic theory, mainly built on new-Liberal principles, suggests that privatisation is required to ensure that markets work better. In the housing field, privatisation is mainly seen as a way to ensure the initiation of a secondary housing market. On the other hand, Neo-Marxist views argue that privatisation leads to a range of negative impacts, such as eventual homelessness and the unaffordable nature of housing bonds. The main problem with these two political and economic viewpoints is that they are blind to other social theories and ignore, to a large degree, the historical context of housing, especially in South Africa. The debates in this study point out that the pathdependency theory (with historical methodology as a sub-approach) in housing policy discourses provides additional understanding of privatisation, especially in the South African context. In contradiction to general observation, housing processes in South Africa may be locked in their own trajectory, and they may not be similar to those in the parent colonial power such as Britain. This study identifies a policy and research gap in privatisation. It is the first attempt to assess the privatisation of housing in South Africa through empirical evidence since the introduction of the Discount Benefit Scheme two decades ago. The international literature shows that there has been an effort in both developed and developing countries to privatise rental housing stock. This move is related to the overwhelming pro-market policy developments after the Second World War. Neo-Liberal and Neo-Marxist thinkers put forward various opinions for and against the process. With South Africa having had strong economic and political ties with Britain during apartheid, the South African government also privatised the nearly 500 000 state-owned housing units. Researchers in South Africa also made postulations that were either Neo-Liberal or Neo-Marxist in assessing the future possible impact of housing privatisation, this despite the work of Turner and Tipple on the social context of housing. The dissertation tests the original argument of the political-economy continuum by interrogating the empirical evidence obtained from the suburb of Rocklands, Bloemfontein. In this environment, tenants improve the state-subsidised core houses through what Tipple terms “transformations”, which are more a response to social needs than to economic imperatives. The empirical analysis looks at the outcomes of housing privatisation relating to the physical effects on housing after transformations, the processes involved in transformations that accentuate self-dependence and resourcefulness and the capacity of tenants to borrow from the market and trade their improved assets in the market. The main findings from the empirical evidence support a key theoretical assumption that housing debates should look beyond the binary political-economic debate. The findings in the study refute the political-economic assumptions forwarded in the Neo-Liberal and Neo-Marxist theories. However, the findings in the study support Tipple’s contentions on the critical role of the social and historical context of housing. To this effect, the main findings in the study are similar to Tipple’s contentions, namely that privatisation leads to transformations that combat housing stress, that transformations produce economic multipliers in the locality, that transformations occur outside the basis of secure tenure and that income is not the most important variable in housing extensions. The study goes further and suggests the historical context of housing, whereby privatisation is a way of ensuring a foothold in urban South Africa. Such a foothold in urban South Africa is important considering the historical exclusion of black people from urban South Africa. The social context of black housing in South Africa is characterised by a long quest for urban citizenship and housing rights. These characteristics give rise to a distinct housing environment not observable in the developed countries.𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒌𝒂𝒂𝒏𝒔 Hierdie verhandeling argumenteer dat behuisingstudie hoofsaaklik op politiekekonomiese paradigmas fokus en die rol wat deur ander sosiale teorieë gespeel word, ignoreer. Aan die een kant doen die konvensionele ekonomiese teorie, wat op neoliberale beginsels gegrond is, aan die hand dat privatisering nodig is om die markte beter te laat werk. In die behuisingsveld word privatisering hoofsaaklik beskou as ʼn manier om te verseker dat ʼn sekondêre behuisingsmark aan die gang kom. Aan die ander kant argumenteer die neomarxistiese sienings dat privatisering tot ʼn verskeidenheid negatiewe invloede lei, soos uiteindelike dakloosheid en die onbekostigbaarheid van huislenings. Die grootste probleem met hierdie twee politieke en ekonomiese sienings is dat hulle blind is vir ander sosiale teorieë en tot ʼn groot mate die historiese konteks van behuising, veral in Suid-Afrika, ignoreer. Die debatte in hierdie studie wys daarop dat die roeteafhanklikheidsteorie (met ʼn historiese metodologie as sub-benadering) in behuisingsbeleidsdiskoers ʼn bykomende insig in privatisering bied, veral in die Suid- Afrikaanse konteks. In teenstelling met die algemene beskouing is dit moontlik dat behuisingsprosesse in Suid-Afrika in hulle eie trajek vasgevang is en nie soortgelyk is aan prosesse in die oorspronklike koloniale mag nie, soos byvoorbeeld Brittanje. Hierdie studie identifiseer ʼn beleid- en navorsingsgaping in privatisering. Dit behels die eerste poging om die privatisering van behuising in Suid-Afrika deur middel van empiriese getuienis te beoordeel sedert die Afslag-voordeelskema twee dekades gelede bekendgestel is. Die internasionale literatuur dui aan dat daar in sowel ontwikkelde as ontwikkelende lande ʼn poging was om huurhuisvoorraad te privatiseer. Hierdie beweging hou verband met die beleidsontwikkelings na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog wat oorweldigend ten gunste van ‘n markekonomie was. Neoliberale en neomarxistiese denkers het verskeie menings vir en teen die proses op die tafel geplaas. Omdat Suid-Afrika gedurende apartheid sterk ekonomiese en politieke bande met Brittanje gehad het, het die Suid-Afrikaanse regering ook die amper 500 000 behuisingseenhede in staatsbesit geprivatiseer. Navorsers in Suid-Afrika het ook vooruitskattings, wat óf neoliberaal óf neomarxisties is, gemaak toe hulle die moontlike toekomstige impak van behuisingsprivatisering beoordeel het; dit ten spyte van Turner en Tipple se werk oor die sosiale konteks van behuising. Hierdie verhandeling toets die oorspronklike argumente van die politiek-ekonomiekontinuum deur nader in te gaan op die empiriese gegewens wat uit die voorstad Rocklands, Bloemfontein, verkry is. In hierdie omgewing verbeter huurders die staatsgesubsidieerde kernhuise deur wat Tipple “transformasies” noem, wat meer van ʼn reaksie op sosiale behoeftes as ekonomiese imperatiewe is. Die empiriese analise kyk na die uitkomste van behuisingsprivatisering wat met die fisiese gevolge op behuising ná die transformasies verband hou, die prosesse in die transformasies wat selfversorgendheid en vindingrykheid beklemtoon en die vermoë van huurders om by die mark te leen en hulle verbeterde bates op die mark te verhandel.Die belangrikste bevindings uit die empiriese getuienis ondersteun ʼn belangrike teoretiese aanname, naamlik dat behuisingsdebatte verder as die binêre politiekekonomiese debat behoort te kyk. Die bevindings in die studie weerlê die politiekekonomiese aannames wat in die neoliberale en neomarxistiese teorieë aan die hand gedoen word. Die studie se bevindings ondersteun egter Tipple se betoë oor die deurslaggewende rol van die sosiale en historiese konteks van behuising. Wat dit betref, is die belangrikste bevindings in die studie soortgelyk aan TIpple se betoë, naamlik dat privatisering lei tot transformasies wat behuisingstres teenwerk, dat transformasies ekonomiese vermenigvuldigers in die lokaliteit daarstel, dat transformasies buite die grondslag van vaste eiendomsreg om voorkom en dat inkomste nie die belangrikste veranderlike in behuisingsuitbreidings is nie. Die studie gaan verder en wys op die historiese konteks van behuising waarvolgens privatisering ʼn manier is om ʼn voet in die deur van stedelike Suid-Afrika te kry. So ʼn voet in die deur in stedelike Suid-Afrika is belangrik in die lig van die historiese uitsluiting van swart mense uit stedelike Suid-Afrika. Die sosiale konteks van swart behuising in Suid-Afrika word gekenmerk deur ʼn lang strewe na stedelike burgerskap en behuisingsregte. Hierdie eienskappe lei tot ʼn unieke behuisingsomgewing wat nie in ontwikkelde lande voorkom nie.enLow-income housing -- South AfricaHousing theoryHousing transformationSelf-help housingHousing privatisationBuildings -- Privatization -- South AfricaThesisUniversity of the Free State