As discussed in Chapter Three, until recently the head of the household was generally regarded as the sole determinant of how and why households invested in housing. The broader housing literature and policies tend to be influenced heavily by the notion of the benevolent household head.
To examine the impact of the household head on housing improvement in Newtown, I examined three characteristics of the household head: age; education; and occupational status. I did not include sex of household head in this section because my classification of household structure took this into account.
Plastering, painting and floors were generally prioritised regardless of the head's age, education or occupational status. Extensions, on the other hand, were found in households where the heads were professional workers (the majority of which were men as shown in Chapter Six). The determinant factor here was income, because extensions were expensive and required a lump sum upfront. Outside rooms tended to be found where household heads were in the 51 to 60 years age group. This suggests that heads of households with outside rooms were economically relatively well established, and had older children and even perhaps grandchildren. However, this did not account for the preference for outside rooms as opposed to extensions. But outside rooms were mainly occupied by working sons. They paid for the improvement in most instances and directly benefited from it. Thus I argue that gender and generation of the son presented a more compelling explanation than age of the household head.
The few households that fenced off their sites, tended to coincide with two occupational status categories of the household head, that is, domestic workers and informal sector workers. As mentioned in Chapter Six, most workers in these two categories were women. Therefore safety was a priority for them, and therefore the gender argument was again relevant.
I based my analysis on a snapshot of these households as opposed to a systematic longitudinal study that would give me details of what improvements were done exactly during the period that the household head was employed. But the fact that improvements were also done in households where the head was unemployed indicated the significance of factors other than the occupational status or individual income of the household head.
4.6 Household Structure
Comparing frequencies of the ownership of furniture, extended female-headed households ranked quite high relative to their low incomes. In respect of most items they were second to nuclear households. However, they ranked highest in the ownership of electric stoves, whilst nuclear households ranked highest in the use of
paraffin stoves, and by far the highest in the ownership of television sets. Single female-headed households ranked low in all items except electric stoves. Extended male-headed households were comparable to other household structures in respect of all items except electric stoves, on which they ranked low. Single male-headed households ranked the lowest on everything except paraffin stoves, in respect of which they ranked the highest.
Intra-household structure analysis, as argued earlier, provided further insight. Many nuclear households had lounge suites and television sets. Video machines were just as prevalent as fridges in their homes. Most single female-headed households had lounge suites, fewer had television sets and fridges, and only a quarter had video machines. Extended female-headed households presented trends more or less similar to those of single female-headed households, and extended male-headed households presented trends more or less similar to those of nuclear households. An interesting case that presented a strong gender explanation was the single male-headed households. They had video machines, television sets and lounge suites, but featured very low on other improvements.
From the furniture analysis it could be concluded that male-headed households prioritised entertainment, convenience and income generation. Looking at the low ownership level of cooking facilities, the fridge was probably more important for selling than for cooking in these households. Entertainment was a high priority because both husbands and children regarded it as a priority. Income generation (fridge) was prioritised by wives to increase their incomes and / or allocations from their husbands.
Female-headed households, on the other hand, prioritised hospitality for both visitors and household members. They prioritised hospitality for visitors as women and for household members as wives and as mothers. Convenience in the performance of domestic labour (stoves) was also a priority because there were fewer adult females in single extended households to share domestic labour. Because of the low ownership of video machines, I postulate that television sets in these households were more than just entertainment. They were tools of hospitality, especially for children. Also, because of high investment in cooking facilities, the fridge was probably used for both selling and internal household needs.
A high proportion of nuclear households prioritised electricity. They used electricity for entertainment, convenience and income generation. They also prioritised plastering
and the stoep, both of which were investment-enhancing improvements. Although nuclear households prioritised water to a greater extent than other households, the ownership level itself was fairly low. Single female-headed households also prioritised electricity, plastering and painting, although they tended to focus on the inside. This confirmed the importance they attached to hospitality. They prioritised outside rooms more than other households. They had a high proportion of grown-up sons. Given the importance attached to hospitality, I postulate that stoeps were both for enhancing the physical structure and making the house "look nice". Trends in extended female headed households were very similar to those in single female-headed households, except that they did not prioritise outside rooms, but extensions. I related this to household size. Extended male-headed households generally presented trends similar to those of nuclear households, but more of them had fences, extensions and floors. These related to investment and space needs. Finally, single male-headed households mainly focused on physical improvements.
Therefore, household structure was a critical determinant of housing improvements in Newtown. The reason for this was that household structure informed the priorities of household members as defined by their socially defined position. Furthermore, household structure provided a platform for analysing gender and generation relations. These were played out differently in different household structures because of the organisation of power relations. For example, the fact that there was no husband or male partner in a female-headed household impacted on the nature of relations and negotiations about priorities, as did the sex of the children. There was also a significant difference in the priorities and scope of improvements between single and extended female-headed households.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has shown what housing improvements were undertaken by households in Newtown. The improvements provided an opportunity for an examination and understanding of dynamics within households. Therefore, the conclusions in this section will focus on household dynamics.
First, who earned the income was a greater determinant of the nature and scope of improvements than level of income. This conclusion is drawn from a comparison of female and male-headed households. The latter had higher total incomes and the male incomes in these households accounted for a significant proportion of the total income.
In some cases the male household head was the only earner (45,6% in nuclear and 30,2% in extended households). Male-headed households engaged in improvements to a much lesser extent than female-headed households. Also, the nature of the improvements, therefore priorities, seems to have differed significantly. From this, one can conclude that not all the income entered households, or the male earner had more say over what the priorities should be.
Second, female-headed households engaged more in improvements than male headed households. This was very significant given the low incomes of female-headed households. Larsson (1989) in Gaborone and Schlyter (1989) in Zimbabwe report similar trends. Schlyter argues that the reason for this trend is that male-headed households do not engage in income pooling, and male income retention is high.
Third, there is a distinction between single and extended female-headed households both in terms of level of improvement and nature of priorities. Schlyter undertook detailed studies of women’s housing strategies in Harare (1989) and Lusaka (1988) where, amongst other things, she examined how they improved their housing situation. However, by not making a distinction between single and extended female-headed households, she missed important differences. As such she associated a higher level of improvement mainly with well-established households, and ignored the importance of contributions of daughters, as mothers.
The presence of daughters with their own children in extended female-headed households influenced both the level of income the daughters contributed to the household and the nature of priorities they focused on. These daughters were mothers in their own right and as such their priorities shifted significantly from relating to themselves (generation) to relating to their children (gender). Hospitality for children, income generation and convenience were just as important for them as they were for their own mothers. On the other hand, for single female-headed households convenience was a major factor because women heading these households did not have anyone with whom to share domestic chores. Grown-up daughters with no children tended to provide "support" rather than "share" the work because they themselves did not have children. Extended female-headed households might also have had "other" members who, as I indicated in Chapter Six, tended to be the sisters of household heads (who might also have had their children with them). They shared domestic chores.
Fourth, improvement priorities differed for men, women, daughters and sons, as indicated in Table 32. Improvements also benefited different people differently, both directly and indirectly.
HOUSEHOLD MEMBER MAIN BENEFICIARIES
Men Themselves, Visitors
Women Children (if they had any). Visitors, Husbands
Daughters Children (if they had any). Themselves, Visitors
Sons Themselves
Table 32: Household Members’ Priorities by Main Beneficiaries
The beneficiaries outlined in Table 32 were drawn from my further analysis of Table 29. I argue that the identity of being husband, father, wife, mother, daughter and son played an important role in defining one’s priorities. These identities were ideologically defined. Based on these identities, respondents played different roles in the household, or at least were expected to. More importantly, identity further defined who was "allowed" to prioritise what, and justified and legitimised the beneficiaries of that prioritisation. As discussed in Chapter Two, these were the rules and parameters set by the ideological dimension. Therefore, beneficiaries were also closely tied to one's identity. Whilst these priorities might seem rigid, in reality expenditure on them could be quite fluid. The fluidity was particularly evident when beneficiaries shared a commodity, like visitors and children. This is where the shifting of responsibilities was likely to occur. Also, priorities associated with visitors, children and husbands (lounge, and furniture in houses) were fairly similar. Therefore, in the process of accommodating children as their main priority, women would to a large extent also benefit visitors and husbands. Who ended up taking the real responsibility for a particular improvement would be influenced by that person’s relative authority and power over others in the household. This might explain why women seemed more willing to take on the perceived responsibilities of men. This might further explain why daughters spent more of their incomes on the household than sons. The above discussion emphasizes the importance of the ideological dimension of the household both in relation to gender and generation.
The fluidity of expenditure on housing priorities, as discussed above, was also an indication of the material dimension of the household. Day-to-day survival was the fundamental need despite the ideological definition of the rules of living. In Newtown, women seemed to be quite critical in ensuring day-to-day survival. Despite housing not being their ideological responsibility, women (even in male-headed households) prioritised income-generating improvements like the fridge, in order to stretch domestic income. Bringing income into the household was the role of the male breadwinner and that is perhaps why men did not engage in informal income-generating activities. Women prioritised convenience improvements, particularly in single female-headed households. This, I argue, was a practical response to their reality of having to make time to engage in productive activities (both formal and informal). Women also prioritised cost-saving improvements like the fridge and electricity, again so that domestic income could be stretched.
But the analysis also pointed to the emotional dimensions of the household, particularly in the case of women. They prioritised the fridge as a result of their concern for the physical safety of their drinking husbands. If they kept the liquor in the fridge their husbands might not have to travel to and from the shebeens at night. Many women also provided the television set, amongst other things, to keep their children off the streets at night.
Indeed, this chapter has illustrated the subtle playing out of the ideological, material and emotional dimensions of the household in the prioritisation of housing improvements and who pays for what improvements.
Table 29 and 32 illustrate the reality of improvements in Newtown, who prioritised what, why and to whose benefit. The examination of the emerging priorities indicated clearly that there were contradictions and disagreements between household members on housing priorities, and these were manifestations of the interplay between the three dimensions of the household. These disagreements were mainly induced by gender and generation norms. It was thus important to investigate the source of these disagreements and how they were played out, negotiated and resolved in the process of day-to-day living in these households. Housing improvements presented the outcomes of the dynamics that I sought to explore. Therefore, in the next three chapters I will examine more closely how and why men, women, daughters and sons contributed their incomes towards housing improvement in these households. I will discuss how such contributions were perceived both by themselves and by other
household members, and why they were perceived as they were. The analysis will be based on case study, sub-sample and focus group data. The essence will be an exploration of the “why” and “how” questions on the issues raised in the last two chapters.