The provision of low-cost housing in developing countries: a post- or a pre-fordist process of production?

HABITAT

Pergamon

INTL.

Vol. 18, No. 3. pp. 95-103, 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Primed in Great Britain. 0197-3975/94 $7.00 + 0.00

0197-3975(94)00032-t?

The Provision of Low-cost Housing in Developing Countries: a Post- or a Pre-fordist Process of Production? * EDMUND0 WERNA London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,

UK

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the role of different units of production in the provision of low-cost housing in developing countries. It points out the failure of mass production fordist units, and asserts the importance of artisanal pre-fordist ones. It also suggests that pre-fordist units should be supported to develop along new trends which have been taking place after the advent and dissemination of fordism.

INTRODUCTION

One of the worst adversities encountered throughout the developing world relates to lack of adequate provision of housing in general and low-cost housing in particular. In the past decades several housing construction schemes have been implemented by large-scale private or public units of production. These units have used a fordist-type process of standardized mass production, in order to deliver a large volume of housing output. Such a process has been regarded throughout the world as the most advanced form of production in all branches of industry. Yet, the outcome of the above mentioned housing building units has been dismal. Research carried out in different parts of the developing world has pointed out that the majority of the poor have actually housed themselves through self-help. However, there is growing evidence that the so-called self-help housing includes a large amount of contracted services from small-scale private units of production, rather than just domestic production. Such units are here called pre-fordist, for they still use a handicraft-based process of production, which is prior to the advent of fordism. On the other side of the development spectrum, research carried out in industrialized countries has shown that fordist-type housing production has been in decline. The thriving new, post-fordist, units of production have been moving away from the paradigm of large-scale production of standardized outputs.

‘-A previous version of this paper was prescntcd at the XIX World Congress of the International Association for Housing Science. Ales. 2.1-17 Septcmbcr IYYI. The author thank\ C. Pozzi dc Castro. C.L. Choguill and two anonymous rcferccs for their comments on the paper. The usual dixlaimcrs. howcvcr, apply.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of the different types of units of production in the provision of low-cost housing in developing countries. It argues that the pre-fordist units have a set of advantages vis-a-vis the ford&t ones to attend to the peculiarities of the demand for low-cost housing. It argues also that the pre-ford&t units have problems, and, in order to remove them. they should bc encouraged to set up a post-fordist process of production. Such an action is suggested because there arc similarities between pre- and post-fordism, and for the potential advantages of the latter to the units of production and to the provision of low-cost housing. Post-fordism is frequently equated with informational technology, heavy mechanization, robotics and the like issues which would be inadequate for t!le current situation of most developing countries. However. as the paper \vill show. post-fordism may also be based in changes in the labour process and managcmcnt - which are more feasible to achieve. Finally. the paper also stresses the limitations of its main proposition. regarding the dangers of over-simplifications and the extent of policies of support for the pre-fordist units. The implementation of such a proposition throughout the developing world is likely to be uneven due to the stage and capacity of the construction industry and other factors. In addition to this. the transition from artisan may not succeed pr-eto post-fordism is not open to aII. A traditional in becoming ;I post-fordist type of entrepreneur. However. the point is not to support post-fordism indiscriminately. but to show that. even with its limitations. the aforementioned transition may still be more appropriate than encouraging prc-fordist units to move towards fordist production. The paper begins by reviewing the evolution of technolog!,, from handicrafts to fordism. pointing out the pccularities of each process. Then. recent trends are cxanlincd. and it is shown that they resemble ;I process prior to fordism. Having set the technological sccnc, the paper narrows the focus to the production of Iowof small-scale cost housing in developing countries, analysing the charnctcristics units of production. which arc the agent of the construction industry rcsponsiblc for the largest share of the output. Finally. the paper reviews the main points of the analysis and puts forward suggestions for the future, making the connection bctwccn the prc- and the post-fordist processes in housing production. literally, cncompasscs everything prior tr, fordism: The term prc-fordism, which, in terms of processes of production. include handicrafts. m~mul’acturc. and the first stages of machinofacturc. Howe\,cr, this paper uses it hpecilically in reference to the small-scale handicraft-type units. The term post-fordism. on the other side. has been used by a number of authors to dcsignatc rcccnt trends hut ix not rcstrictcd to. in the advancement of capitalism. which c~~co~~~p;~ssc’s. this paper uses such ;I developments in the process of production. Houevcr. term specifically in rcfcrcncc to the process of production.

THE DEVELOPMENT

OF PRODUCTION:

FROM HANDICRAFTS

TO FORDISM

The following analysis is based on a number of authors who have examined the historical evolution of the production process, following Marx’s categories of handicrafts. manufacture and machinofacture.‘. 2 Handicrafts are characterized by small-scale production and lack of division of Iabour. The producer - the artisan - although sometimes helped by apprentices and/or journeymen, is directly involved in all stages of the production process. Manufacture. in its turn, originates by assembling labourcrs - former artisans -together in a workshop under the control of a capitalist. It is defined as a form but which involves division of cooperation still based on handicraft production. of labour. The objective in manufacture is to put together labourcrs who were

The Provision of Low-cost Housing in Developing Countries

97

working apart, and, as this process of production develops, division of labour is enhanced. Manufacture entails standardisation of output, an increase in the scale of production, in productivity, and in the volume of the output vis-a-vis handicrafts. Machinofacture is characterized by the central part played by machinery, which substitutes the manual work in manufacture. In this process, production is not interrupted by the intervention of the labourer, who becomes a mere adjunct to the machines. Machinofacture entails a further increase in the production of standardized outputs on a large-scale. Such fact was enhanced subsequently with the coming of fordism. Fordism is a term used to define production based on the innovations proposed by Henry Ford in the U.S.A. in the beginning of the 20th century, e.g. the introduction of moving production lines with conveyor belts, which tightened the connection between different machines and phases of production. As Liberaki-i suggests, fordism is basically concerned with cost-reduction. which demands the continuous standardisation of products, the use of special-purpose machinery, and the increase in economies of scale. The principles of production set up by Ford have spread throughout different branches of industry, and fordism has become a synonym for machinofacture itself. The above scheme depicts a general evolution in the process of production, but in reality, this basic model varies according to the branch of the industry and also to the social formation in which it is inserted. In the specific case of the construction industry, different production processes still co-exist in many places throughout the world, ranging from mechanized large-scale units to handicraft-type small-scale ones: including even mixed processes - in Brazil, for instance, the case of units whose process of production is partly mechanized and partly manufactured abound.4 Construction has more difficulty in implementing a fordist-type process in relation to other branches of industry.” However, fordism is, at any rate, present in this branch as well.6 Although the existence of a full mechanized process is less frequent, many units have managed to implement a fordist process at least in some stages of production, which, together with the use of a manufacturing process in other stages, have allowed them to produce in quantity and benefit f:om economies of scale. At the other extreme of the continuum of production processes, there are the small-scale, handicraft-type units, using a technology reminiscent of the preford&t, non-mechanized period. Such units cannot compete with the large-scale fordist ones producing the same type of output, for the latter have a much lower cost due to their larger scale of production. Howel:cr. the small-scale units have their own advantages, especially regarding flexibility of production and lower overhead costs. In order to deliver a large volume of a given standardized output, the large-scale units have to establish a system of production which affects their flexibility. They have to set up a whole apparatus to produce such output, including specific tools, labourers with specific skills and specific materials. With such structure it is much more difficult to shift from the production of one output to another. On the other hand, the aforementioned small-scale units, which by-and-large produce to order, have a flexible process of production which allow them to deliver different outputs. Another advantage of the small-scale units relates to the fact that they use simpler (and cheaper) equipment, do not pay taxes, do not have extra-production expenses such as office apparatus, among others. Such issues constitute the overhead costs of a unit, and a basic advantage of the fordist units is the possibility of spreading them over a large volume of output. Once these expenses are fixed, the more a unit produces, the cheaper the single product will be - assuming that output rises faster or at least at the

same pace as the marginal variable costs. Thus, if a fordist unit cannot produce in large-scale, its overhead costs per unit of output will be greater. Once the small-scale units have lower costs, the smaller the output produced by a fordist unit. the larger its handicap vis-u-ljis its predecessors. In summary, if there is demand for a small-scale volume of diversified outputs, the pre-fordist units of production are able to outstrip even those which, with the arrival of fordism, became the epitome of advanced industrial production. As will be shown in a subsequent section, this has been happening in low-cost housing provision in developing countries. However, before focusing on housing specifically, attention will be given to recent trends in the development of production.

RECENT TRENDS:

POST-FORDISM

OR NEO-HANDICRAFTS?

The development of the production process did not stop at the fordist stage. The past few decades have witnessed the proliferation of units of production different from the mass-producing/conveyor-belt type. They are based on a process which has broadly been termed post-fordist. which is associated with a new form of economic organization. 7 Other terms have also been used to analyse the changes which have been occurring, such as systemofacture,* flexible specialization,” flexible accumulation. lo However, post-fordism is the term most widely applied and, for the sake of simplification, it will be used in this paper to refer to the recent trends in production, although such trends have internal differences. The basic characteristics of post-fordism include a reorganization and reskilling of the workforce within each unit of production, a large level of cooperation between units and/or subcontracting; the substitution of machines which can deliver only one product for flexible machinery - usually equipped with electronic systems - which can deliver different products. Post-fordism has been propagated, albeit with variations in intensity and form, throughout different branches of industry, and construction is no exception. Recent research carried out in Europe and the U.S.A. has shown that building units have moved away from the “large-scale concrete systems devised for the mega-housing projects of the 196Os”tr when the goal was to reduce housing production as much as possible to “‘Fordist’ style mass-production virtually identical to that of motor cars”. l2 The post-fordist tendencies in housing construction include greater fragmentation of the construction process, detailed management accounting control, a greater use of subcontracted labour and equipment. l3 In summary, as Ball puts it, “the pendulum has swung in favour of smaller concerns with lower overheads and great management flexibility”,14 which shows that the post-fordist trends contain characteristics similar to the pre-fordist previously emphasized. However, there are also differences between pre- and post-fordist processes, for instance. regarding the degree of technological sophistication and the structure of the units of production. The post-fordist tendencies include a shift from site to factory activities, as site operations are reduced as much as possible to simple assembly of industrialized components whereas the pre-fordist activities are still heavily based on site. Moreover, one of the basic characteristics of pre-fordist units is their small-scale. As shown in the last section, one of the features of the transition from handicrafts to manufacture is the aggregation of producers who were previously working independently. Post-fordism, on the other hand, although encompassing small-scale units, has also scope for large-scale ones. The latter have moved away from operating

The Provision

of Low-cost

Housing

in Developing

99

Countries

as single and monolithic units towards operating as a sum of several smallscale units. Ball suggests that there is also a difference between what he calls “traditional building” and the new trends, regarding the use of labour - the former is heavily based on handicraft activities, whereas the latter entails a de-skilling of the workers.15 Such a contention may be true if one compares only handicrafts, on the one side, and post-fordism, on the other, for the former may need a much larger degree of artisanal work in comparison with the latter. However, as shown in the last section, there has been a process of de-skilling of the labour-force accompanying the shifts from handicrafts to manufacture, and then to machinofacture and fordism, whilst on the contrary, as Ball himself recognizes, one of the main reasons for the new trends in production is a shift in demand away from standardised products. Under these new circumstances, the labourer who is engaged in the construction of tailor-made buildings and manages different instruments and/or multi-purpose instruments in order to meet the flexibility in demand, clearly needs more skills than his counterparts operating in the ‘mega-housing projects of the 196Os’, consisting of standardised construction activities and products. Moreover, the trend in architectural design has been and repetitive modernist buildings, shifting away from plain, undecorated towards an emphasis on details, ornament, and lack of standardisation facts which show a growing need for tailor-made work. In short, taking into consideration the danger of over-simplification, a broader look at the different phases of the development of production reveal that the new trends entail a re-skilling of the workers, in comparison to fordism. At any rate, there are similarities between the pre- and post-fordist units examined above.16 These authors point out the existence of two paths of technological development throughout the different branches of industry: crafts and mass production. The latter path has prevailed over the former until the 197Os, but the post-fordist tendencies, which they call flexible specialization, originate from the former path. In short, the post-fordist tendencies do not represent something totally new, but rather the resumption and development of an already existent path of technological development which has been overshadowed by fordism. An illustration of such an issue within the realm of the construction industry is the role of subcontracting. As shown above, such practice is considered as part of the new tendencies in construction. yet it has always existed in parallel to fordism. The term post-fordism by itself only suggests that the recent developments in production distance themselves from their predecessor. However, it seems that, so far, the path being followed is less open than the word “post” alone suggests. Such a path looks less like a straight line and more like a loop towards neo-handicrafts. Having discussed the development of production throughout industry and in construction, the focus is now narrowed to the specific case of low-cost housing in the developing world.

LOW-COST

HOUSING

PRODUCTION

IN DEVELOPING

COUNTRIES

The demand for such housing is understood as being diversified and the houses are being built by stages because the dwellers cannot afford to pay for the whole construction all at once. The financial constraints of the low-income dwellers have been emphasised, for instance, by authors who have argued in favour of self-help policies as opposed to the policy of re-housing slums and squatter dwellers in modern, mass-produced residential estates. The argument is that in self-help schemes

the low-income dwellers can build according to the pace that they can afford, a fact which suggests the existence of variations and discontinuities in the construction process since a large proportion of the poor face fluctuations in their means of income generation. Diversity of demand has been emphasized in the context of Latin American countries,” although not referring specifically to the low-income market. They stress the dominance of, and/or preference for what Burgess has called the individualized housing object. lx Therefore, in order to build low-cost housing, a unit of production needs flexibility to provide small-scale services, to shift from the construction of one stage of a given house to the construction of another stage of another house, and also needs to provide the cheapest construction services available at the present standards of construction in low-income settlements. Research throughout the developing world has shown that large-scale schemes of housing provision have not reached the poor. lo Such schemes have been carried out by large-scale units which do not have the aforementioned characteristics. Small-scale units. on the other hand, have the above attributes, and have played an important role in low-cost housing provision in different developing countries.“) Such units arc still at a pre-fordist stage, consisting of artisans using primary technology. with a working alone or with a few apprentices. large volume of on-site activities vis-ir-vis pre-fabricated ones. Considering such a situation. what should be done to ameliorate the plight of low-cost housing provision in developing countries’. ) This question will be discussed next.

CONCLUSION

-

THE NEXT STAGE IN THE SAGA OF LOW-COST PRODUCTION: PRE- OR POST-FORDISM?

HOUSING

This paper has shown that, despite the evolution of processex of production. the agent in the construction industry which has made the largest contribution to the provision of low-cost housing in developing countries is the handicrafts prefordist unit of production. Such a unit has attributes that meet the characteristics of demand. However, it also faces many constraints which limit its actions. c.g. lack of adequate managerial and labour-force training and lack of credit and equipment among others.21 These constraints make it difficult for such units to increase efficiency, cheapen their products and provide better quality services. Therefore, strategies aimed at supporting the prc-fordist units are necessary. The fundamental point in this respect is to devise strategies which abolish the constraints of the units, without changing the characteristics which are essential for the production of low-cost housing. The support for the pre-fordist units might, for instance, open up the path for their growth, thus transforming them into large-scale units which would not able to meet the demand for low-cost housing.12 This paper suggests that efforts should be geared towards setting up a postfordist process of production. a strategy which would benefit both the units and the provision of low-cost housing. Pre-fordist units have similarities with postfordist ones. a fact which may facilitate the transition from the former process to the latter. It seems more reasonable to support the handicraft units to utilize more refined assembly techniques of pre-fabricated materials - an action which they can still carry out with a small-scale structure of production - rather than to induce a move towards fordism, which entails a much more complex change. The move towards post-fordism, as opposed to fordism. can be beneficial for low-cost housing production because post-fordist units have characteristics such as flexibility and lower overheads which are essential to attend to the demands

The Provision

of Low-cost

Housing

in Developing

101

Countries

of the low-income people. As mentioned in the introduction, post-fordism is often equated with informational technology, heavy mechanization, robotics, for the present circumstances of and the like - which would be inappropriate most developing countries. However, as also noted in this paper, post-fordist tendencies in housing construction include issues such as greater fragmentation of the construction process, detailed management accounting control, greater use of subcontracted labour and equipment. Such issues are more feasible to take into account. Having made the above suggestions, it is now important to show their limitations. First, the transition from pre- to post-fordism is not necessarily open to all. It is not easy to devise a supporting scheme through which an artisan can change into a successful small-scale entrepreneur and some of them indeed might fail in the process. However, a scheme to transform them into the heads of fordist units of production is even more complex for the differences between the two conditions are greater. The suggestion here is to support a move along a continuum of stages between pre- to post-fordism even if a full transition to the latter pole turns out to be difficult. Finally, as the argument of this paper relates to developing countries in general, it carries the danger of over-simplification, because this set of countries is not homogeneous. The connection between post-fordism and industrialized countries, on the one hand, and pre-fordism and developing countries, on the other, does not mean that each process is exclusive to each respective set of countries. The idea here is just to consider the enhancement of this process of production in developing countries and not to emphasize clear-cut divisions. Moreover, it is important to note that post-fordist tendencies are already taking place in newly-industrialized developing countries such as Brazil; which have been revealed by a number of recent studies of the construction industry.23 Thus, policies to enhance such a tendency will not mean the introduction of something alien to the country. The Brazilian example may be valid to other developing countries. As Ofor? in his recent analysis of construction and development notes, there is a strong move in the construction industry towards greater globalization. Therefore, under these circumstances, less developed countries are bound to be more and more exposed to the practices of industrialized and new industrializing countries. However, the advancement of post-fordism in construction in any given country is linked to issues such as labour and managerial skills and the capacity to deliver pre-fabricated components. Therefore, even with state or international support, such an advancement is bound to be uneven throughout the developing world. Small-scale units which develop along the route towards post-fordism can make a greater contribution to the provision of low-cost housing, under the conditions of demand which have been described in the paper. However, such conditions are likely to vary according to place and circumstances, a fact which implies changes in the role of the aforementioned units. Yet by the same token, the feasibility of the support for a move from pre- to post-fordism in any given country or region is also due to vary according to the particular circumstances of each case. The development of the process of production is an element of the development of the economic organization as well as of the social formation of each country; thus it is connected to, and affected by, their other elements.

NOTES 1.

Machinofacturc among others.

HAB 18:3-H

is a synonym

for

industrial

production.

used hy wmc

author>

cited in this

paper.

102 2.

3. 3.

s. 6.

7.

N. 0. 10. 11.

12. 13.

l-1. 15. 16.

17.

18. 19.

70.

Edmund0

Werna

See for example: A. Libcraki. Small Firms and Flexible Specialization in the Greek Industry. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sussex. May (1%X); Brighton Labour Process Group, The Capitalist Labour Process: in Capital and Class. I. spring. pp. 3-26 (1977): for industry in general; and S. Goth. Construction Management and Control over the Construction Labour Process: in The Production Proceeding& of the jr/t Barrlert Interuarional Summer School. Geneve. of The Built Environmerlt. (1983). pp. J-3/&7; S. Bonke and S. Goth. The Labour Process in the Construction Industry: in Thr Producriotl of The Built En\~ironment. Proceedings of r/w 1982 Barrletr Intemariot~al Summer School, London (lY83). pp. 1-211-Y; N. Vargaa. Organizacao do Trabalho e Capital Urn Estudo da Construcao Habitacional. M.Sc. thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio dc Janeiro. (May 1979); Fundqao Joao Pinheiro, Dirrgtw.\rico .Ytrciomrl dtr Ir~tlusrricr dtr Cotlarrrcc~tro - Volwne 3 ~ 0 Processo C‘omrrunw. Fundacao Joao Pinheiro, Belo Horizonte (19X4) among others. for the construction industry in particular. A. Liberaki. (IYXX): see note 2. N. Vargas, (lY7Y) and Fundaqo Joao Pinhciro (19x3): see note 2. S. Azevcdo. Politica de Hahitacao Popular c Suhdcscnvolvim~nto: Dilcmas. Dcsalios e Pcrspectivas: in E. DiniL (ed. ). Poliricrrs Puh/iu.\ par0 Arecr, Urhnncu LIrlcmtr~ c Al/crrltrriw.\. Zahar. Rio de Janeiro (IYXI). See for example: M. Ball. R rhrrildirq (‘or~.str~rc.tiori. Routledge. London ( IYXX): and N. Vargas (lY7Y) (note 2). See for cxamplc: J. Lowring. “Theorizing postfordiwl: why contingency mattcrk (a further response Journal of Urban and Regional Research. V. 15:2, pp. 29X/301 (1991); to Scott)“. in International B. Jcssop. Fort/i.url rrr~tl Po~~f~~rdi.~~r~: A C‘ri/ictr/ R[~fhn~llt/orio,f. paper prewnted at the Confcrcnce on Pathways to Industrialization and Regional Dcvelopmcnt. Lake Arrowhead CA (15-17 March IYYO): Krise und ihre Folgcn”. J. Hirsch. “Fordismus und Postfordismus: die gcgenwartigc gesellwhaftlichc in Po/r/ischc Vierrc,//rrhre\.schriti. 26 ( IYYO). pp. 16&1X2: N. Alhertscln. Poatmodernism. post-Fordism Soc~icvv turd .~plK”‘.Eu~~iro~fmolr nm/ Plurltrirrg 11. 63. ( IYX8) pp. 25-3 1: and critical social theor!. among others. “Electronw bawd automation technology and the onwt ot \y\tcmofacture”. World R. Kaplinsky. Dcw/opme~~c. (March IYXS). pp. 5-26X. M. Piore and C. Sahel. T/w Srcot~tl /~lt/~r.\/ritr/ Di~~/t/c: Po\.\ihilrricc /or Pro\perrr~~. B;tw Books. New York (IYXJ). D. Harvey. The C‘oudiriorr oj’ /‘o.\r-Mot/anli/~. Ba\~l Blackwcll. Oxford ( lW4). M. Ball. The International Restructuring of Housing Production; in M. Ball. M. Harloe and M. Marten\ (eds). Ho~rst,lg tr,lt/ So&r/ C‘htrrlgr in Europe rrrlrl r/w USA. Routlcdge. New York and London. (1YXX) p. 170. Ibid.. p. 191. M. Ball (IYXX) (note ‘1): M. Ilwrloc. “Towards a New Politic\ ot Housing Pro\i\ion”: in M. Ball. M. Harloe and M. Marten\ (cd\). Ilolrsiy trtlt/ Socrtr/ C‘hrru/y II! Europe ~rtrd r/w U.SA. Routledge. New York and London. (IYXX) pp. IYY-217; S. Bonkc and P. Jcnhen. Technical Dcvclopmcnt and Employment in The Danish Building Industry: in The Producrtrvr 01 7’/w Brri// Etz~‘iro~~menI, Proceedirr~.\ of lhc, 3rd Brrrtlcrl I~rtc~rrrrrrior~trl Slrtnt?rrr- .School. London. ( 1OS7)pp. I--4/4/~). M. Ball (IYXX) p. 1X5. See note h. M. Ball (IYXX). Set note II. See for example: R. Kaplimky. The Eumomirc of Smtrll- Appropritrrc fec~/rr~o/ogy !)I LI c~htrqmg war/d, lntermcdiate Tcchnologq Publications. London ( 1000). N. Khalid and H. Schmitz. It~drrstrial Cluster.\ it1 Le.\.\ ~kw~lop~d C‘ourlrrie.\ ReLicw of E.l-perierfw.! trrul Retmrch A,qwdrr. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 339. (January lYY1). M. Poire and C. Sahel (IYXJ) (note Y); J. Rasmussen. H. Schmitt and M. Pitter van Dijk (cd>). Flexible Specialization: A New View on Small Industry? Institute of Development Studlec Bulletin 23:3 (July lYY2); Sahel and Zeitlin. Historical Alternative\ to Mass Production: Politics, Markets and Technology in IYth Century Industrialization. f’crsr crrrtl Pre&erlt. no. I OX ( I YXS): H. Schmitz. E‘lcxihle Specialiscrrio~~ - .4 h’rrr, fcrr-trdigrri of .Smtr/l-Scale f,~t/rr.\fricr/~scrtion? Discussion Paper of the Inhtitutc of Development Studie\ 261. University of Sussex. (Ma) IYXY). C. Jimener and E. Pradilla. Architecture. Urbnnism and Neocolonial Dependence: in R. Bromlcy (ed.). Plantzing for Smtrll Etltrrprites 111 Third World C’iries. Pergamon Press. Oxford, (IYX5) pp, IYI-201: R. Burgess, Selt-Help Housing Advocacy: A Curious Form of Radicalism. A Critique of the Work of John F.C. Turner: in P. Ward. (cd.). Se/j-He/p Horoiflg ~ A C‘ririqfre, Manscl. London (lYX2); S. Azevedo (IYXI) (note 5.): among others. R Burgess (19x2). See note 17. See for example: D.W. Drakakis-Smith. UrhnrGrrriotr, Housrt~g. umi the Ikwlopmet~~ /‘row.\ 5, Croom Helm. London ( IYXI): A. Gilbert and J. Guglcr. C‘irirv. I'owrr), cord &w/o/~rmwr Urhtrttiztrrior~ irl he Thir.d World. Oxford University Press. Oxford (lYX2); A. Giihert and P. Ward, Housiq. The SIare crrld The Poor Polic~y co~tl Prtrcriw it1 Three Ltr~in Americrm (‘rtic,,. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge (lYX5): J.F. Linn. C‘itiev irr the f~c~~eloprr~,q World Policies /iv their Eqrritrrhle rmd Efliic,ierrr Gro1tvh. :I World Bank Publication. Oxford Ilniversity Press. Oxford (19X3). Set for example: Y. Mautner. The huilding industr! which works at the fringes of capitalism: the cast of Sao Paula: in T/rr~ Protluc~tiou oJ The Built Etr~~irorrmerrt I’roccedirlgc o/ fl7c HI/I Burt/c// It~terr~trriomrl .\~rmmcr SC~/~O/. Uni\er\ity College London. (IYX7) pp. 10X-175: M.A. Johnstonc. Unconventional Housing in U’e\t Malaysian Citicb: A Preliminary Inquiry: in P.J. Rimmer, D.W. Draknkis-Smith and T.G M&cc (cd\). ~;,ot/, Slrrlrw trurl Trtrrlcporrtrrrorl itt tllc ,Sortrlrcw\r Asio rrtrtl rhc Ptrci/jc,, Research School of Pacltic Studies. Department of Human Gcographk. Publication HGil2. The Australian National Uni\er\ity. Canhcrra. (197X) pp. I I I-12Y): I. Inyang. Non-Convention~li Housing in Nigeria The Case of C‘;~labar. M.Phil. Thesis. Dept. of Urban Dcs~gn and Rcgionnl Planning. F‘acult\ of Social Scicncc\. IJni\crhitv of Edinburgh (Octohcr lYX7): M PhillIp. Urban Low-lncomc

The Provision of Low-cost Housing in Developing Countries

103

Housing in St. Lucia: An Analysis of the Formal and informal Sectors, M.Phil. Thesis, University College London (1987); R. Tuffs. The Dual-Sector Concept: An Examination of Low-Cost Housing and Building in Penang, West Malaysia, M.A. Thesis, University of Keele (August 1987); R. Wycliffe, (1987). Housing for the Low-Income Urban Population in Malawi: Towards an Alternative Approach, Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex (November 1987); IBAM - Knstituto Brasileiro de Administracao Municipal. Urbanizacao da Faveln Marcilio Dias, relatorio, convenio IBAM/BNH. Rio de Janeiro (I986); E. Werna, The Role of Small-scale Builders in Low-Income Settlements in Developing Countries - Policies, Problems and Contradictions: in R. Skinner (ed.), Shelter, Seftieme#ts, Policy and the Poor: Appropriate Technologies for Low-income Setflements (Proceedings of the 8th Inter-schools Conference on Appropriate Technologies and Policies for Low-income Settlements), IT Publications; London. (1991) pp. 54-59; E. Werna, Policies for the Participation of Small-Scale Builder.s in Housing Productiotl - A Strategy for Ckznge: for Who, and IO What?, paper presented at the International Housing Research Conference on “‘Housing Policy as a Strategy for Change”, Oslo (24-27 June. 1991). E. Werna. The Changing Role of Small-Scale Builders in Low-Cost Housing Production - Case-Studies from Belo Horizon& Brazil, Ph.D. thesis, University College London (1992); among others. 21. See for example: W. Strassman, Small-Scale Construction Methods, Building Materials, and HomeBased Enterprises in the Informal Sector. Discussion Paper for a Workshop on the Role of the Informal Sector in Providing Housing and Infrastructure in Developing Countries, sponsored by the AID Office of Housing and Urban Programs, (January 198X); A. Durand-Lass~rve. Land and Housing in Third World Cities: are public and private strategies contradictory‘?, in Cifi~~, 4:4, (November 1987) pp. 325-338; S. Ganesan. Housing and Construction: Major Constraints and Development Measures, Habitut l~~ier~ational. 7. (1983) pp. 173-194; R. Lintz. Support Strategies for Informal Production of Housing and Urban Services, Office of Housing and Urban Programs, U.S. Agency for International Development (n.d.); F. Moavenzadeh. The Construction Industry, in Rodwin. L. (ed.), Shelter, Seftlemenf and Development, Allen di Unwin. Boston. (1987) pp. 7_3-10Y; L. Rodwin and B. Sanyal, Sheller, settlement and development: An Overview: in L. Rodwin (ed.), Slzeitcr, Seti~ement and ~e~le~optnent. Allen & Unwin, Boston. (1987) pp. ?i31. 22. E. Werna (IYYI. 1991, 1992). See note 20. 23. A.K. Abiko. Technological Policy for Housing Construction in Brazil: Cooperative International Possibilities. Poster No. 553 presented at the CIB Congress. Montreal. (18-23 May, 1992); A.K. Abiko. M.A.C. Silva and R. Souza, 0 Desenvolvimcnto Tecnologico da Prodqao de EdificaCoes no Brasil - Evolu(;ao e Agoes da Iniciativa Privada. Paper presented at the Encuentro Ibero-Americano de Ingieneria Civil, Madrid (24-28 April lYY2); M.F.S. Farah, Tecnologia, Process0 de Trabalho e Constrqao Habitaciunal, Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de Sao Pa&t (1992); F.A. Picchi, Sistema da Qualidade em uma Empresa de Construfao de Ediffcios. Paper presented at the 13th. Bartletr International Summer School, Sao Paula (2-8 September 1991); E. Werna, The concomitant evolution and stagnation of the Brazilian building industry, Construction Management and Economics, 11, (1993) pp. 19ic202. 24. G. Ofori. Research on construction industry development at the crossroads, Construction Management and Economics. 11. (1993), pp. 3-13.