PROVINCIA DE LA SIERRA DE TOPIA
2.2.2 DESARROLLO DE LA VIDA MISIONAL JESUITA
This principle is based on the idea that the level of conventional housing standards, set by the governments concerned, must be reduced to match the level of available resources to the target group. However, the WB had apparently committed itself to a specific section of population as the community of beneficiaries, prior to assessment of their income level. This commitment, as acknowledged by Mcnamara in his speech of September 1972, was to work towards improvement of the housing provision for the communities of low-income people as a whole.
According to Macnamara the target group would be "those beyond the reach of traditional market forces" and those who were not included in the current government policies. By means of such definition of the target group, the WB's attention was primarily directed towards those living in squatter settlements.
The main function of concept of affordability is to provide measures by which the amount of household's resources, available to cover the "monthly cost" of the housing provision, might be assessed (Keare, D. & Jimenez, E., 1983).
In practice, the main indicator by which suitable target groups were selected was to monitor their monthly income level. Application of affordability, however, was not a rudimentary act to select the target group but to distinguish a particular class of participants among the potential applicants, who were able to meet the financial requirements of the WB's low- income housing projects.
5.1.2. Application of affordability in selection of the U D P l’s participants
Based on the WB's own earlier investigations, a number of squatter settlements in Jordan were proposed as the potential sites for site & services and up-grading projects. During later
consultations with the government, however, some of these site were eliminated from the list and replaced by others. The reason for these alterations, as previously mentioned, was the fact that for the Jordanian government selection of sites was not a simple act of categorising financially able people form the rest of low-income groups. D.S. Watson stated that several constraints were placed on the WB consultants selection of sites, particularly with those sites that had a large number of Gaza refugees, (see Chapter Three).
Selection was a political and economic instrument through which the stability of state could be maintained, and its financial shortcomings might be resolved. Hence, the government utilised all of its bureaucratic capabilities to ensure that the selection of sites progressed in conjunction with its preferred strategy, and its intended beneficiaries were targeted for the proposed scheme. It was only then the concept of affordability was put into practice and the issue of assessing the income level was brought to under scrutiny.
As far as the formalities were concerned, the UDD, the "local unit", established by the WB, made necessary decisions about establishment of the acceptable level of household's income, affordability, and the minimum amount of fixed percentage of that income which could be allocated to housing.
A careful study of the finally selected sites reveals the significance of political considerations involved. The majority of these sites were the already well-established squatter settlements around Amman which had continuously been a source of embarrassment for the government (see map 1).
For example, Jofeh, was a highly visible symbol of poverty in the busy centre of the capital; and East Wahdat was famous for its high concentration of Palestinian refugees, living in very poor conditions, and a vivid example of discriminating policies of the jordanien government against this community.
MAP i S I I L L U L A I I U N H A P Z A R Q A Y A J O U Z E R U S E I F A M A R K A • u p g r a d i n g s i t e s 1 WAOl r i m a m ? J O F E H 3 E A S T WA HC AT 4 N U Z H A A M M A ■ N E W S I T E S 5 O l T v V E I S M E H 6 M A R K A 7 N O R T H R U S E I F A Q U W E I S M Ç H ^ U Ç A B L E N A B U A L A N D ItlAMDs / ^ .StllAM *t»l K I R B E T E S S U Q \ JOIOiN
v u : ; - ' ' ' " ' ' - ' ' - c ' ^ V ’r V , //y \ m \ - ü • j - yy
/':''/'.S
i
[ € y \ r ' r - A" W
# " '
\ \r''ii’>A\VÀA^.Æ,V-v \
', :' v a / /''■ V‘ '; ', l \ 'A ; 7/1 7 X / !, . ' v ! \ \ , / , % , '" " ) ' / / \ ' t ' / / ., : , ; 7 ' ' \ i — \\ IV II t « . -:/ L !-i- ;; V, L /" " - -' ^ A "/' J-- lABAI. AZ ZUI I Ün / \ \. '< * V VzVa A .ï a ' A ' \ ' . , c 7F
7%«v Al y-
M a p 2 Au r a Co n i e x t Ma p S o u r c e ; ' l ' o n r i s l M a p o f A m m a n , I t n y a l J o r d a n i a n G e o g r a p h i c C e n t r e , 1989The UDPl also included a number of empty sites which were mainly selected to provide housing for those whose properties were demolished during the improvement of the squatters areas in Amman. These site were chiefly located near to government’s conventional housing projects, and its participants benefited from the services and infrastructure already provided for those areas. It is not difficult to imagine that the government's low-income employees were readily attracted to these type of sites and, given the chance, moved to construct their dwellings there. This process was more evidently observable later, when the areas of U D P l’s site and services projects continued to expand. Selection of sites was therefore based on existing physical realities, political interests and socio-economic considerations at national level rather than preferences of the local communities. In this way the community of beneficiaries, except those who were already settled in a chosen site, did not participate in on-going debates leading to selection of the sites (see chart 1) (UDD (UDHC), 1993).
5.1.3. The impacts of application of affordability on beneficiaries
During the process of assessing the local affordability level, the UDD become more aware of the real procedures and mechanism through which the beneficiaries of the chosen sites utilised their own resources (e.g. patterns of their saving and spending). This understanding helped them to base the level of projects and their fmancial demands on realistic footings, and successfully attract the community’s response.
According to the WB’s report in 1980, nearly 50% of the project beneficiaries were hitherto considered to be below the poverty line (with their estimated income level about JD 69 per household per month in 1979), and hence their participation in the project might be considered a success (World Bank, 1980).
The reason for inclusion of such a high percentage of low-income groups in the U D Pl was the result of careful observation of the UDD officials in pinpointing the obstacles that previously had blocked their way. According to the UDD's findings, the main financial problem facing the low-income households was not their inability to pay a regular monthly sum for their housing costs but the initial amount or 'the down payment' required by the bank that put them off.
The UDD's solution to by-pass this bottleneck was to introduce a number of measures to reduce the burden of the beneficiaries in their early stages of participation in the project. These measures included, instructing the bank to accept the value of land as part of the down payment, and selection of beneficiaries on the basis of their level of income and dwelling areas, instead of their type of employment (Urban Development Department, June,
1988).
Compared to customary regulations, required for entering into conventional housing projects at the time, selection based on application of affordability appeared more flexible, and provided the community with some room for manoeuvre. The conventional housing projects were only open to the government employees and even they had to meet several other criteria to qualify. These, for example, included having a family size of 6 or less and the minimum income of JD 150-200.
The most visible shortcoming of the application of affordability, however, was in its inability to penetrate into the 20% lower strata of the low-income groups by insisting to ensure a rate of return of 10 to 15 per-cent for its loans (Linn, J., 1983).