Su delimitación respecto al derecho a la propia imagen

The first Habitat conference in 1976 marked a gradual but significant shift from ‘supply’ towards an ‘enabling and participatory’ approach to housing provision. This new thinking fostered the need to integrate housing policy strategies into national economic planning framework while emphasizing a decentralized, broad-based, community focused orientation in housing delivery efforts. It was based on the “realization that inappropriate government controls and regulation discourage the scale and vitality of individual, family and community investments in housing, which forms the backbone of housing provision in cities” (UNCHS, 1997b cited in Ndubueze, 2009). The influential view of Turner (1976) was that satisfactory goods and services including good housing could only be sustainably provided within such a framework that guarantees its local production through network structures and decentralizing technologies. However, the enabling approach was elaborated and formalized in the ‘Global Shelter Strategy for the year 2000' organized by U.N. Centre for Human Settlements in 1988.

With the backdrop of the limitations in the quality, appropriateness, and acceptability of direct public housing provision by governments, two complimentary views underlie the Global Shelter Strategy realizations are increasingly being accepted. One of them is the notion that implementing national policies, which influence housing delivery, requires a centrally coordinated action at the highest levels of government based on a broad range of issues other than just direct housing provision by governments. The other is the need for government to include and indeed rely on a multiplicity of actors (private sector, non-governmental organizations, and individuals) in the housing delivery and improvement process. It is pertinent to note that the shift in thinking coincides with the end of 20th century shift towards ascendancy of the market-led economic growth; and sub-ordination of social welfare to market ideas and the shift towards the idea of rolling back the state, increasing decentralisation and pluralism in local governance, the shift towards public sector reforms and new public management (Wolman, 1995; Atkinson, 1999; Awortwi, 2003). Consequently; the enablement approach advocates that governments should withdraw from direct housing provision and rather “enable” other actors in a supportive legal, financial and regulatory framework to facilitate housing development.

82 By so doing, it is expected that the full resources and potentials of all stakeholders in the housing delivery system would be mobilized while “the final decision on how to house themselves is left for the people concerned” (UNCHS, 1990 cited in Ndubueze, 2009). Underlying this enablement concept, therefore, is the radical redefinition of the role of government to that of a facilitator in the housing delivery process and the centrality of stimulating people's collective and individual capacity to satisfying their housing needs and priorities as defined by them. This is largely based on the belief that not only can ordinary people adequately determine their housing needs and priorities but that a lot more could be achieved when the government, through the right incentives and controls, actively encourages the release of the immense creative capacities and resources of ordinary people in delivering their housing.

This perception implies active stimulation of the supply-side of the housing market through measures that expand housing supply inputs through the rationalization of subsidies, price controls, and building regulations, etc. It is important to emphasize that this does not mean any "diminution of governmental responsibility for the housing production and distribution process. What it means is a redistribution of production components, i.e., that the public and private sectors share roles in the most efficient possible way” (Ndubueze, 2009). The enablement approach also advocated moving towards the private sector and market-driven housing delivery, but with an important caveat that it must be pursued within a framework that addressed those areas where the private and unregulated markets do not work” (Ndubueze, 2009). Thus, it is crucial to articulate and determine those areas where the private and unregulated markets do not work in the country. Understanding the limits of the market is, therefore, a critical factor in the successful implementation of the enablement approach. Currently, there is no consensus on who and what should be enabled; and who benefits. Should enablement be conceived as liberalization (with government roles cut back to the bare minimum) or be conceived as a more active and interventionist strategy dedicated to specific policy goal? Is the goal to ‘enable' markets to work, to ‘enable' poor people to participate more effectively in the markets, or to ‘enable' government and civil society to reshape market processes and balance economic considerations with social justice? These are some of the major issues that must be confronted in the application of the approach (UNCHS, 1997b cited in Ndubueze, 2009). In contrast, and contrary to the enablement approach that advocates withdrawal of direct government involvement in housing provision, the previous housing policy provided for the continuation of direct public housing by the government at all levels. Two types of direct public housing were advocated by the policy, namely; profit

83 oriented public housing for the middle and high-income groups and subsidised housing especially for low-income households. This could be seen as a direct contradiction of the enablement approach depending on how one argues it. Those that favour this type of direct government intervention in housing delivery would argue that through these provisions, the housing policy was merely attempting to mitigate the problems of market failure in housing provision. Responsible policy intervention demands the factoring in of social considerations of the local realities where the poor could not be left to the notions of the market. During the duration of the 1990 housing policy, as has been discussed above, there were halfhearted attempts by the government to continue with the provision of direct housing with dismal results.

The continuation of direct public housing provision seemed to support the contention that little or no lessons have been learned from past mistakes; Nigerian government is indeed "insisting on doing what it does badly. In fact, the majority of the housing programmes and projects that were initiated under the housing policy such as Gwarimpa and Lugbe Housing projects (located in Abuja) witnessed contractual agreement problems that are reminiscent of the public housing efforts of the 70s and 80s. These problems have led many FHA contractors to abandon construction of many housing units at various levels of completion (Ndubueze, 2009). Obviously, the government has not been able to deliver on direct public housing policy provision despite recent efforts to restructure some aspects of its housing delivery mechanisms. There is no doubt that these weaknesses and poor performances fit into the notion that the government cannot provide direct public housing efficiently, a key argument of those institutions exacting pressure on the government from outside to embrace wholesale pro-market reforms. The current Nigerian National Housing Policy 2012, similar to the previous housing policy, can be described as an "enablement" housing policy. It recognises the need to encourage a multiplicity of other actors (private corporate sector, civil society organisations, and individuals) in housing delivery and improvement process. It has attempted to create a favourable investment climate for the private sector through reforming the housing finance structure, tax incentives, financial grants, redefinition of institutional roles, advocating vital legislative instruments and reforms, and encouragement of site and service schemes. With the adoption of the 2012 Nigerian National Housing policy that emphasised private sector-led housing provision, the Nigerian government seems to have fully embraced the market option. The government seemed to have agreed to the idea that it can neither deliver direct public housing effectively nor efficiently. However, there

84 are indications that the present pro-market housing policy provisions as presently constituted cannot guarantee or ensure adequate housing delivery for all households in the country.

There is, therefore, the overwhelming need to start considering other more effective means of moderating the negative impact of housing market failures especially for low-income households in the South-South region. It is also not clear to what extent the government is living up to its responsibilities to grant various credits and tax incentives to corporate housing investors or the impact of any such incentive as rent decontrol on property development. However, it must be conceded that the current corporate private sector housing investment climate is improving per say, but there is no direct impact yet seen in the housing situation of the low-income groups especially in the South-South region. The pre-occupation with high-end exclusive housing for the wealthy is an indication that the current housing markets are still very far from working efficiently for the overwhelming majority of Nigerians especially the low-income groups.