De las garantías judiciales relacionadas con los aspectos

Both proponents acknowledge the role of government in determining housing tenures, whether low-income households are to become homeowners or tenants. Low-income householders are viewed in relation to housing tenures, be it rented or owned. Turner’s call for the intervention of government is based on the premise that first, homeownership, as in squatter settlements had often taken place without the residents actually owning land. Second, this form of homeownership prevented the residents from making meaningful investments on housing, because of the insecurity of tenure. Finally, the role of state here, is crucial because by legislating tenure, positive effects such as the promotion of ownership of houses and land, may also lead to the development of neighbourhood. Implied here, is that homeownership and landownership become one. A number of contradiction arise from the perception of low- income householders as either homeowners or tenants. If the discussion is limited to the provision of secured tenure, it can be argued that the presence of government in low-income settlement, participating in land improvements, lead to an increase in the cost of land. This is noted in the introduction of tax systems, the manner in which householders have to pay for sites and even the operation of financial institutions, providing credit for land. In short, the land becomes expensive, since it is affected by these factors. The consequences are that the poor are increasingly excluded. The promotion of secured tenure is contradictory because, while the aim of intervention had been to promote homeownerhip and landownership, the two are separated. The réintroduction of homeownership without landownership. This is observed in freehold tenure settlements in South Africa where it is possible for low-income householders to become homeowners without owning land (chapter 7). Second, the informal tenures, previously deemed unsuitable and responsible for the minimum investments on housing are increasingly being re-introduced. The only difference between the informal tenures and informal settlements being that the former is an impact of the promotion of secured tenure, created in legalised settlements , but in a different format. Access to land is no longer

free, householders have to pay rent and the arrangements are mediated by the landowners and intermediaiies. Finally, the problems of landownership are recreated elsewhere. These may further affect investments, consumption of services between landowners and non-landlowners.

Because householders continue to be perceived as homeowners and tenants, without being located within land tenure systems, even these concepts are subjected to several criticisms. A homeowner, according to these perspectives is distinguished from a tenant, as the former owns home and the latter rents space from the landlord. Under the category of tenants, Gilbert, introduces another category of sharers, who may not necessarily own homes but share them with kin and other members of the household. Tenancy, as used by both Turner and Gilbert, hide other forms of land relations that may exist, which may not simply be explained by the fact that one pays rent or not and whether he/she owns a dwelling. If the analysis begins with the ownership of land and relate these forms of housing tenures to ownership and non ownership of land, there would be several degrees of tenancy. Such as, a tenant who rents a room; a tenant who rents land but has build his/her house; a tenant who rents land but did not build a house for owneroccupation, instead, rent space to another tenant; a tenant who has double classification, being the homeowner and a tenant at the same time. Homeowner, for having full ownership of a dwelling and a site where the dwelling has been constructed , and being a tenant on other sites on the grounds that he/she rents land. For instance,when the concepts are applied in some situations, they may be confusing, when one stops being a tenant and become a homeowner? Is it when he/she owns a home and land? Or owns a home and not land? For instance, a homeowner and a tenant could be the same person. A homeowner can be a landlord as well, when the home he/she owns is used for other purposes, such as being let to tenants. Or does homeownership depend on what the house is used for? Shall this category continue to be applied even if , in this case homeowners are now deriving rents from renting space? One of the policy implication that may arise from the lack of understanding of these groupings is the detrimental effects that they may have. Because each grouping will require policy interventions that are specific to its formation.

Even the category of a homeowner, may include a landowner, whose relation to land is that of ownership . If tenancy is used to mean the renting of space, unless these are studied within land tenure systems, the concept is inapplicable under certain conditions. There are

householders whose relation to land is neither that of tenancy nor a sharer, but access to land is determined by the landowner. It is only when the analysis move away from the categorisation of low-income householders as tenants and homeowners, and concentrate on the low-income householders’ relation to land,development of low-income landlords that we are able to overcome these conceptual problems. Also , categorising low-income households into homeowners and tenants is of limited use to the study of low-income landlords. They tell us little about the forms of landlords operating in low-income settlements, their relation to ownership of land, which are the aims of the research.

While tenancy studies often imply that tenancy has resulted from the commodification of land, as Amis (1982) making reference to the commercialisation of land in squatter housing in Nairobi, Kenya, puts it: “It is beginning to look as if the subsistence shelter aspect of urban squatting is a transitional urban phenomenon” (Amis,1982:23). Edwards and Amis fail to establish a relationship between self-help policy and tenancy. The two are viewed separately. The development of tenant markets seems to be divorced from the production of self-help housing. This misrepresentation of self-help policies is due to a number of factors, the main being that the focus of these studies is on tenants, who they are and why they consume rental housing. Secondly, by remaining with the consumption of rental housing, the perspective fails to explore the production of such housing. These conceptual problems have not only prevented us from understanding the producers, as the approach conceals the range of affordable low-income rental accommodation produced, they also have implications for housing policy in general, and the understanding of the development of low-income landlords - which is the object of this study. As Section 1.5 demonstrates, policies derived from the investigation of tenants are detrimental to landlords and affect the production of low-income rental housing.

The consumption approaches explain the mobility within tenant households by basing their analysis on rents, evictions and the relationship between landlords and tenants. Evictions - interpreted as high mobility among tenant households , are based on tenants’ inability to pay rents, conflicts and so on. In reference to the relationship between landlord and tenant in Caracas, Venezuela, Gilbert and Varley (1991:167) state: “ ... what most characterises

relations between owners and tenants, especially in the self-help settlements, are the informal legal arrangements, the ‘solidarity’, and the mutual trust, which contribute to the ‘good’ relationship, ‘without problems’ ” (quoting CEU, 1989).

How mobility is defined under the production oriented approach is in respect to landlords than tenants. Mobility can take place between forms of landlords and even within the same form of landlordism. Subsistence landlords can either be residential or absentee. Mobility can be from residential to absentee subsistence landlordism. It is not accompanied by evictions as the movement requires access to a second plot. The implication of the consumption oriented approach if applied to the study of low-income landlords is that; it is not designed to suit the investigation of landlords since it originated from tenancy studies. Additionally, high mobility among tenant households has no relevance to the study of low-income landlords since there is no relation between the mobility of tenants and the origin of the forms of landlords. Mobility is one of the significance’s of informal land relations. Mobility from residential to absentee subsistence landlords is determined by land tenure and informal land relations with an ability to have access to a second plot without purchase. There are various reasons why low-income householders converted into landlordism. These include a desire to earn extra income to save for a second plot and embark upon capital expansion.

Rents, as used by the consumption approach are another cause of eviction leading to mobility. Rents play a different role for landlords. For subsistence landlords' households, rents may be the only source of regular income. Households may even sacrifice the space they have and let it to be shared by tenants. To petty bourgeois landlords, rents may be used to purchase household items, savings for education, medical insurance and so on. Rents, together with household income are used as a yardstick, to determine the form of landlordism within the poverty line.

The difference between the two approaches, in so far as rents are concerned raise the question. W hether a meaningful government intervention policy derived from a limited understanding of the analysis and the role or rents can ever be capable of addressing the needs of low-income landlords. This may lead to the inaccurate categorisation of landlords, since the approach does not acknowledge the role of rents or even the variations between the petty

capitalist landlords (Chapter 2) as some may be heading households whose level of subsistence is below the minimum level.

While evictions may be related to estranged relationships between tenants and landlords, rent cannot always account for mobility within tenant households. Kumar (1992; 1996; Section 1.7) has stated that the production of low-income rental accommodation should be analysed within the production-exchange continuum. Rental housing can move from commodity to non­ commodity status. Low-income rental housing can enter the market when it is made available to tenants through the payment of rents, and it is also possible for low-income rental housing to be removed from the market, when the producers, the landlords, revert to non-landlordism. Therefore, the production of rental accommodation should be explained in terms of both internal and external factors underlying the production process, and not only by the investigation of tenants, the number of evictions, the relationship between landlords and tenants, and so on. Furthermore, in his definition o f landlords, Kumar has suggested that some householders can be forced to provide low-income rental housing (subsistence landlords) in order to meet other expenses, such as loan repayments. This form of rental accommodation results in the conversion of rooms for tenants, meaning the sharing of premises by both the producer (landlord) and the tenant. It is also possible for the production of rental accommodation to be a deliberate attempt by the low-income householders to increase the value of landed property. This may result in the ownership of more than a single plot (petty capitalist landlords). In line with the production process, it is obvious that the relationship between a landlord, operating at a subsistence level, and the tenant with whom he/she shares his/her house will tend to be direct, whereas under the petty capitalist landlords the relationship may be indirect, with the landlord owning several plots and delegating some of his responsibilities to intermediaries, caretakers, and so on. On another level it is possible to have a producer, who has produced more than a single structure on a piece of land, but who occupies a separate house from the one rented to tenants. Even here the relationship between tenant and landlord may not be as direct as in the case where a house is shared with tenants. Thus the relationship between the two cannot be effectively be explained by merely focusing on tenants; how low-income rental housing is produced plays an important role in determining these relationship. Other factors, such as the size or acreage can also explain the direct and indirect relationship between the producer (landlord) and the consumer (tenant). Does house-

sharing by landlord and tenants make tenants less mobile? And landlords more friendlier? Are landlords who do not share plots with tenants more hostile and tenants highly mobile? It is argued that, while the approach has contributed towards understanding of the consumption of rental accommodation, it tells us little about why rental accommodation was produced. Therefore, the relationship between landlord and tenant is best understood if located within the land tenure system.

Even with regard to the producers Gilbert has argued that diversities exist among landlords. Some were found to be as poor as the tenants and others were generally better off than the tenants. Commenting on landlords in Bogota, he states: “most landlords are themselves poor and are renting one or two rooms in their own house to supplement their own limited incomes. Renting seems to be an essential part of the consolidation process; without tenants, ownership would be more difficult for the landlords” (Gilbert, 1983:472). While Gilbert refers to the heterogeneity among landlords , some being poor and some being rich, his arrival at this conclusion is often based on the scale of operation. Gilbert and Turner’s understanding of the role of rents is worth mentioning. On one level. Turner has suggested that cheap forms of rental accommodation are beneficial to migrants who are not so much concerned about the quality of the accommodation. They can put up “in a run-down” tenement, as long as they can save for a plot and a new house. On another level Turner has implicitly acknowledged the role of rents to landlords when he states: “often families will deliberately build their houses as duplex apartments-one for themselves, the other for rent or for occupation by the second generation who will then be on hand to assist the parents in their old age” (Turner, 1968:357- 358). For Turner, rents benefit landlords as well as tenants. To Gilbert, rents are essential during the consolidation of houses.