Landlordism in Third World Urban Low-income Settlements: A Case for Further Research
Landlordism in Third World Urban Low-income Settlements: A Case for Further Research
复制标题
第三世界城市低收入住区的地主统治：进一步研究的案例
DOI：
10.1080/00420989650011816
复制
发表时间：
1996
期刊：
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
S. Kumar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Kumar
第三世界城市中的低收入住区由业主、1地主2和租户混合组成。3然而，低收入住房政策明确地侧重于促进业主自住。有可能确定这种偏见的两个主要原因。首先，较贫穷的家庭试图通过擅自占用或购买非法分割的土地来解决其住房需求，这导致他们被视为所有者。鉴于政府没有能力或不愿意通过提供已建成的住房单位来满足低收入家庭的住房需求，有人认为，政府干预的重点应是促进低收入家庭自助或自我管理的住房建设过程。第二，许多政府在社会地主角色方面的负面经验以及任何解决租房问题的努力可能产生的不受欢迎的政治副作用（吉尔伯特和瓦利，1991年，第13页）也是促进住房所有权的原因。有人可能会说，把重点放在所有权上并没有错，因为研究表明，大多数城市家庭更愿意拥有而不是租房4（例如，见Edwards，1982年a;吉尔伯特和Varley，1991年，1990年）。然而，核心问题不仅仅是低收入家庭是否渴望拥有，而是他们能够在多大程度上获得所有权。首先，通过擅自占用土地获得土地越来越困难（例如，见Potts和Mutambirwa，1991年）。在某些城市，如哥伦比亚的布卡拉曼加，擅自占用从未真正成为一种选择（Edwards，1982年a）。事实上，鉴于土地价值上升和收入下降，也正在重新审查低收入家庭获得土地的能力（例如，见Angel，1983年; Baross，1983年; Baross和货车der林登，1990年）。最近在大马尼拉进行的一项调查发现，土地成本平均占住宅总价格的50%（Strassmann和Blunt，1994年）。第二，相对于收入水平而言，建筑成本正在增加。对坦桑尼亚达累斯萨拉姆的场地和服务设施、棚户区和改造区进行的一项比较研究得出结论认为，鉴于建筑业价格上涨过快，过去十年中设法节省收入建造房屋的低收入房屋建造者是在极大的牺牲下这样做的（Magembe和Rodell，1983年，第54页）。在尼日利亚，建筑部门的成本，无论是建筑材料还是劳动力成本，
Low-income settlements in Third World cities are comprised of a mix of owners, 1 landlords2 and tenants. 3 Yet, low-income housing policy has unequivocally focused on promoting owner-occupation. It is possible to identify two main reasons for such a bias. First, the attempts by poorer households to® nd solutions to their housing needs either by squatting or purchasing land in illegal subdivisions resulted in them being perceived asowners’. Given the inability or unwillingness of governments to meet the housing needs of low-income households through the provision of completed housing units, it was argued that government intervention should focus instead on facilitating the self-help or self-managed process of housing production undertaken by low-income households. Secondly, the negative experiences of many governments in their role of social landlords and the ªundesirable political side-effectsº which ªmight ensue from any attempt to tackle the rental problemº (Gilbert and Varley, 1991, p. 13) were also responsible for the promotion of home-ownership. It might be argued that the focus on ownership is not misplaced since studies have shown that a majority of urban households prefer to own rather than rent4 (see, for example, Edwards, 1982a; Gilbert and Varley, 1991, 1990). However, the central issue is not just one of whether low-income households aspire to own or not but the extent to which ownership is accessible to them. First, obtaining land by squatting is becoming increasingly dif® cult (see, for example, Potts with Mutambirwa, 1991). In certain cities, such as Bucaramanga, Colombia, squatting was never really an option (Edwards, 1982a). Indeed, the ability of low-income households to acquire land is also being re-examined in the light of rising land values and falling incomes (see, for instance, Angel, 1983; Baross, 1983; Baross and van der Linden, 1990). A recent survey in Metro Manila, found that the cost of land was, on average, 50 per cent of the total dwelling price (Strassmann and Blunt, 1994). Secondly, the cost of construction is increasing relative to income levels. A comparative study of sitesand-services, squatter and upgraded areas in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, concludes that ªlow-income house builders who have managed to build houses in the past decade with savings on their income have done so at a very great sacri® ce in view of the exorbitant price rises in the building industry ¼º (Magembe and Rodell, 1983, p. 54). In Nigeria ª costs in the construction sector, whether in terms of building materials or labour costs,