Conformación de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación

The section reviews Sunil Kumar’s conceptualisation of landlords, the extent to which the concept of landlord is different from that discussed under the “consumption” approach, some conceptual and policy implications of the consumption approach with regard to three forms of landlord, and the strengths inherent in the conceptualisation of landlords as petty commodity producers in overcoming conceptual problems.

Kumar’s starting point is the recognition of low-income landlords as petty commodity producers. He argues that the concept of “petty commodity underpin[s] the production of low-income rented housing and help[s] to establish the various forms of landlords” (Kumar,

1996:107).

Relating the production of self-help housing to the production of low-income rental housing, he argues that the latter results from the conversion of non-commodity (low-income housing) into commodities. Therefore, low-income householders who have entered the production process by producing housing for home consumption may for a variety of reasons convert houses into commodities when the aim of production is that of exchange. The conversion of houses produced for consumption to units satisfying the need for exchange, is also not a static process. Low-income housing that has assumed the status of rental housing can easily be withdrawn from the market, and revert to the status of low-income rental housing. Thus, according to this perspective, the production of low-income rental housing oscillates between commodity and non-commodity status. Kumar’s location of the production of low-income rental housing within the processes of low-income housing production distinguishes his conceptualisation of low-income rental from that of the consumption-oriented approach. It should be remembered that, under the consumption approach, the continuity of the existence of low-income rental accommodation was based on rents and the profitability of the rental sector. Implicit in this perspective was the association of withdrawal of rental stock from the market and the profitability of rental housing. Rents remained the incentives, both for the continuity of landlordism and the production of low-income rental housing. This perspective has also used the mobility of tenants to explain high rents, and the hostile relationship between landlords and tenants. However, according to the productive approach, even the mobility

within tenant households, explained by the conversion of commodity forms of housing to non­ commodity forms is better understood if located within the production process. As the approach begins its analysis on how low-income housing is produced, and insists on the ability of low-income rental housing to oscillate between commodity and non-commodity status, rental accommodation cannot have a fixed status. Therefore, the conversion o f rental accommodation from a commodity to a non-commodity form, meaning the withdrawal of rental housing stock from the market, and evictions and tenants’ mobility, is also best understood if the analysis begins at the level of production rather than consumption.

The temporary exchange of housing, argues Kumar (1996), is different from permanent exchange. The difference is determined by whether property rights have been transferred from the producer (landlord) to the tenant. Under temporary exchange, access to housing is determined by the ability of the tenant to pay rent. The house being rented to tenants remains in the possession of landlord. The exchange is deemed temporary because the landlord may discontinue letting and the “property rights” have not been transferred to tenants. With permanent exchange, landlords cede the property rights to tenants. Again, since the temporary nature o f rental of low-income housing is based on whether property rights are in the possession of tenants or landlords, this also implies the relationship between the two is temporary, determined by the duration of tenancy, the extent to which landlords continue renting space. Hence the various forms of policy intervention, such as those forcing landlords to sign contracts with tenants, stipulating when and under what circumstances tenants can be evicted are in contradiction with the nature of landlordism, which is a temporary phenomenon.

Kumar further locates the development of low-income landlords by emphasising the interaction between the capitalists’ and non-capitalists’ production. Identifying the characteristics of petty commodity production he states that the production is market- oriented, and that ownership of the means of production, the level of technology, workforce and output all operate on a small scale. He states that the production of low-income rental accommodation requires the producer to have access to elements of housing production. These include land, capital, and building materials. One other characteristics of petty commodity production which distinguishes it from the capitalist forms of production is “the

reproduction of the labour power of households attained directly either through commodity production, or a combination of commodity production and the sale of labour power” (Kumar,

1996:119).

In defining low-income landlords, Kumar places them within the production and exchange continuum. On the extreme end of the continuum is the production of low-income rental housing which has resulted from the conversion of use value into exchange value. This refers to the changes in the purpose of low-income housing production, whereby the production is no longer geared to the satisfaction of the producer’s consumption but is later converted to rental housing and let to tenants. Explaining the circumstances leading to the conversion of houses produced for consumption as that of exchange, he states that the production of low- income housing requires the producer to have access to capital. Finance will enable him/her to purchase building materials, land, engage in a construction process using paid labour, family labour or a combination of both. The construction process often increases household expenditure as it does not constitute a separate budget. While elements of housing production continue to be purchased from an unchanged household budget, producers are also expected to continue to satisfy human basic needs such as food, clothing, travel, educational expenses, and so on. Where loans have been used to purchase land, building materials, and so on, household budget increases as the producers are expected to make repayments. In order to meet these expenses, producers are forced to convert houses produced as use value, into exchange value to satisfy consumption. This results in the conversion of one or more rooms that are let to tenants in order to meet these expenses. Kumar states that subsistence landlordism is a form of landlordism arising from these conditions. This form of landlordism is associated with the lowest income earner owning a single plot. The production of low-income rental housing is characterised by large usage of unpaid labour, second-hand and cast aside materials, while manufactured and industrialised materials are used on a small scale. It is also possible during the construction phase for subsistence landlords to hire the services of specialised labour, such as for laying the roof (Kumar, 1992).

In the middle is a form of landlordism that has not arisen as a desperate means by the producers to supplement their income; in this case rents are important only for the improvements of dwellings. Rents can also be used to purchase household items. Therefore,

renting under this form of landlordism should be regarded as “a deliberate attempt to generate additional income” (Kumar, 1992:22). Since the petty bourgeois landlord in this form of landlordism may have started as a subsistence landlord, when the need for rental income was essential for consumption, but later decided to use rents to finance home improvements, the motive behind the production of rental accommodation is not “necessarily intended as an exchange” (ibid). Like the subsistence landlord, petty bourgeois landlords own single plots. The production process includes greater usage of skilled waged labour, and mechanically operated equipment. There are possibilities for petty bourgeois landlords to use the services of members of their families such as carpenters to reduce the cost of housing production (ibid). Under this form of landlordism, it is possible to have upward and downward mobility.

At the end of the continuum, Kumar states that petty capitalist landlordism is different from subsistence and petty bourgeois forms of landlordism, in so far as the purpose of production is concerned. Under the petty capitalist form of landlordism, the production of low-income rental housing is a deliberate attempt to expand one’s capital. This is also evident in the ownership of more than a single plot.

Again, the upward and downward mobility could characterise petty capitalist form of landlordism. It is possible for petty capitalist landlords to have started as subsistence landlords for the purpose of production of rental accommodation to have changed from that of earning additional income for home improvement to that of producing rental accommodation solely for exchange and to expand capital, as signified by the ownership of more than a single plot (ibid).

In contrast to Edwards (1990) and Gilbert and Varley (1989), who suggest that the production of low-income rental housing is “landlord-led investment’, Kumar makes a distinction between two forms of low-income rental housing production, subdivision and tenant-led investment. The former occurs when low-income housing produced for self­ consumption is converted into rental housing. Under this form of production, householders convert one or more rooms, which are let to tenants. The latter is evident in circumstances in which landlords request tenants to engage in house construction. The dwelling unit is later occupied by the tenant and the expenses incurred during the production process are adjusted

against rent. While subdivision, according to Kumar is common among subsistence landlords, landlord-led investment characterises petty capitalist landlords.

It is worth noting the fundamental differences between the consumption-oriented approach and the productive oriented approach, and their treatment of rents in particular. Under the former, rents are used as a distinction between landlords and tenants. On one level, rents contribute to poverty and the exploitation of tenants; as Edwards (1990:264) notes, the payment o f rent by the tenant results in income being redistributed to landlords, thereby making the overall distribution of income more unequal. On another level, rents seem to determine the continuity of the production of rental accommodation, implying that where renting is profitable it will serve as an incentive for landlords to continue renting space. The latter’s emphasis is on what the rent

does

to household income and its ability to eliminate poverty. Rents serve as a regular source of income, as an upliftment of standards of living where they make substantial contributions to the level of subsistence, as an income to maintain homes, and as a form of investment for a new plot, hence they make a contribution to the expansion o f low-income rental accommodation. Because the productive oriented approach insists on the differentiation of landlords,

not

according to the type of accommodation produced such as the number of rooms, houses, flats and so on, but according to the

purpose

of production, they

cannot

be viewed as a homogeneous group. Thus the claim that they are exploitative remains unfounded. Another difference lies in the treatment of rents to explain the continuation of the production of low-income rental housing. As the production approach stresses that the production of low-income rental housing should be located within the productive exchange continuum, and even production itself oscillates between commodity and non-commodity whether profitable or not, low-income rental accommodation can at any time be removed from the market when it ceases to cater the needs of tenants. Likewise, the mobility between one form of landlordism and another, regarded as upward, downward or even the dissolution of landlordism itself, is determined by the role of rents, when they cease to be regarded as important in meeting a minimum subsistence level and begin to be used to maintain dwelling units. According to this perspective, landlordism does not continue because landlords are making a profit, but again what matters is what rent

does

to household income rather than whether renting is profitable or not.

Under the productive approaches, low-income landlords are not separated from self-help housing production. Therefore, low-income landlords are the object of investigation. First, low-income landlords are not perceived as a homogeneous group but are divided into three distinct groups, differing according to their financial circumstances as well as the purposes for letting space. The underlying motivation among subsistence landlords is a desperate need for cash while petty capitalists have a desire to make profits. This is also evident in the behaviour of these landlords and their financial circumstances. Subsistence landlords live below the poverty line. Such differentiation of landlords helps to eliminate some of the misconceptions of landlords as wealthy landowners. As policies address the conditions of the people they were created for, the promotion of rental housing production is landlord-oriented, and acknowledges diversities within forms of landlordism that may call for different policy interventions. Second, landlordism is not a permanent phenomenon. Landlords may choose to rent accommodation and may stop at any time; this may be determined by both internal and external factors. Landlords may have accumulated so much that they no longer wish to continue renting space, the rental space might be required for household expansion, and so on. Thus policies designed with a prior knowledge of landlordism, and rental housing production as being temporary phenomena, will be aware of the oscillation between landlordism and non­ landlordism, and will refrain from imposing the need to sign contracts on landlords and tenants, prescribing when, and under what conditions tenants will be accommodated, or evicted, as these will be inconsistent with the nature of landlordism. Thirdly, rents are viewed neither as a source of conflict between landlords and tenants (which is erroneously interpreted as the cause of many evictions among tenant households), nor as a symbol of wealth (as some landlords may remain poor while receiving rents). Imposing rent-control measures without considering the rents’ contribution to the landlords’ income will severely impact upon subsistence landlords, whose survival depend on rents, albeit below the poverty line. Such policies will further perpetuate poverty, by depriving landlords of the only source of regular income available to them, namely rents. Finally, as mobility between one form of landlordism and another, particularly towards petty capitalist forms, is not viewed as being exploitative as it means the expansion of rental housing, policies, instead of legislating against multiple ownership of plots and houses, should encourage such movement.

In document Propuesta de reforma a los requisitos y procedimientos para designar a los ministros que integran la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (página 97-124)