Housing Policy and the Post-apartheid City: A Tale of Urban Exclusion Through Housing Delivery

Economic vulnerability and poor service delivery made it more difficult for shack-dwellers to comply with COVID-19 restrictions: The impracticability and inequitable burden of universal/unstratified public health policies

“…2,60 To these we are tempted to add a third, namely that 'flattening the curve' to protect finite health services makes little sense (and may even be inequitable) in contexts (or to communities) where these services were already inaccessible or had little to offer before the pandemic struck. 20,69,70 Yet evidence for this proposition (based on data from two further items within the AB-R8 survey) is somewhat equivocal. The first of these required the fieldworker to answer the question "Are the following facilities present in the primary sampling unit/enumeration area or in easy walking distance?"…”

“…7,13 Such research has had an important role to play in documenting the scale of the problems facing rapidly urbanising populations, and where internal and international migration, population growth, social change, weak governance and limited resources all conspire to create demand for housing that far outstrips supply. 6,20 In South Africa these challenges also reflect the enduring legacy of apartheid policies that allocated residential rights on the basis of racialised 'Population Group' classifications, 21 and tightly controlled access to formal housing that was close to viable and sustained sources of employment (particularly where these were also close to areas reserved for those classified as 'White/European'). 20 The abolition of these 'influx control' statutes in 1986 22 (and the subsequent repeal of the last of the 'Group Areas Acts' [No.…”

“…6,20 In South Africa these challenges also reflect the enduring legacy of apartheid policies that allocated residential rights on the basis of racialised 'Population Group' classifications, 21 and tightly controlled access to formal housing that was close to viable and sustained sources of employment (particularly where these were also close to areas reserved for those classified as 'White/European'). 20 The abolition of these 'influx control' statutes in 1986 22 (and the subsequent repeal of the last of the 'Group Areas Acts' [No. 36 of 1966] in 1990) has both accentuated and accelerated the ongoing depopulation of South Africa's more rural provinces as people have sought work and better livelihoods in the country's urban and industrial centres.…”

“…24 Despite these seemingly inexorable trends, and the importance afforded the right to housing in South Africa's 1996 constitution, [25][26][27] a raft of successive government policies and commitments to address the need for additional, affordable housing have demonstrably failed to deliver the quantity and quality required to accommodate the shortfall in housing generated by the rapid rate of urbanisation. 8,12,20,23,[27][28][29][30] As a result, the proportion of South Africa's population living in temporary structures/shacks remains high (at ~15%) and shows no sign of abating; while any short-term benefits of relocating close(r) to sources of employment 23 (and any associated benefits in terms of the 'health selection' of those involved) [31][32] are likely to dissipate whenever the economy falters or competition for employment makes wages stagnate, or work opportunities dry up. Indeed, the inherent vulnerability of impoverished households living in temporary structures/shacks places them at greater risk of being trapped in a worsening cycle of poverty, leading to a steady decline in the social and material fabric of communities containing large numbers of such dwellings (and particularly those 'informal settlements' where temporary structures/shacks predominate).…”

“…35,36 Although these challenges and realities have been well-documented and are widely recognised, 23 they are often framed in ways that ensure they are simply accepted as an inevitable (or at least an intractable) consequence of external forces over which local authorities, governments and nation states have limited influence (such as 'market forces' and 'globalisation'). 10,12,20,27,37 When overlooked or dismissed in this way it is not surprising that policy makers fail to acknowledge or accommodate the very particular needs of these communities, and resort to imposing policies with which they are ill-equipped or simply unable to comply. 38 In the process, it is commonplace for policy makers (and commentators) to mistake the inability of shack-dwellers to comply as an unwillingness to conform -whether that be to land ownership statutes, building regulations, health and safety guidance, or the emergency lockdown restrictions imposed following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.…”