Empowerment through Residence

Abstract

What does it mean to empower people through the housing in which they live, and how is this empowerment to be achieved? These are the questions which are examined in this paper. Typologies of empowerment processes are devised in an attempt to make sense of the conceptual and empirical variety involved. The distinction between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' empowerment The Meaning of EmpowermentThe concept of power has been strongly contested since Lukes (1974). As an abstract general concept, it has suffered from a high degree of vagueness and ambiguity, which has severely limited its theoretical utility (Barnes, 1988;Clegg, 1989). As a practical concept, however, it remains extremely popular, because of its emotive content, and consequently plays a major role in political debate and policy making. The concept of empowerment is generally intended in the more practical sense, as involving a process by which people who are disadvantaged or excluded acquire something of the character of citizens (Harrison, 1995, p. 22). At the same time, however, the concept of empowerment retains a necessary element of vagueness, associated with the abstract general meaning of power, from which it is derived. It is possible, therefore, that the concept of empowerment is not amenable to a precise general definition. Provisionally, however, it is suggested that empowerment could be described as any process by which people's control over their lives is increased. The exact meaning of increasing control can then be spelled out only in specific contexts such as employment, housing or education, although the general theme in each of these contexts will be one of increasing choice and freedom of action for the people affected. Empowerment in a Housing ContextThis paper is concerned speci® cally with housing-related empowerment, and this can be defined as any process by which people gain increased control over their housing situation. Such control can be individual or collective, over production or consumption, over investment or management. The paper is concerned mainly with collective control over housing consumption and management, but this should not be taken to imply any collectivist, consumptionist or managerial bias in the treatment of housing empowerment. It should also be noted from the outset that it may not be possible to draw any precise distinction between a process which gives people more control over their housing and one which gives them more control over their residential environment (encompassing roads, schools, shops, parks, leisure centres, and so on, and including the regulation of behaviour within that environment). The paper starts by distinguishing empowerment from participation, and makes a number of comments relating to the recent literature on tenant participation in particular. It is argued that there is a need for a more rigorous examination of empowerment processes, and in the following section an attempt is made to devise a typology of such processes which is completely different from any typology of...

The ‘Responsible’ Tenant and the Problem of Apathy

“…In order to interrogate this top-down political desire to 'responsibilise' social housing tenants through their active involvement in decisions relating to their housing, it is important to go beyond normative agendas, which simply reverberate the benefits of tenant participation and governance (Somerville, 1998(Somerville, , 2005, or individuals' motivations to get involved (Milnward, 2005). The aim here is not to neglect nor undermine the undoubted benefits the participation process can offer (Paddison et al, 2008).…”

Une nouvelle légitimité pour l’État social : par-delà le bien-être, le plaisir d’agir

“…Comme le soulignent certains auteurs, l'amélioration de la qualité de vie par le biais du logement passe forcément aussi par l'éducation (information, sensibilisation, etc.) et par l'amélioration des conditions de vie socioéconomiques des destinataires de l'intervention (Somerville, 1998;Somerville et Steele, 1999).…”

Development of Kampung Improvement Program in Surabaya, Indonesia

“…While the bottom-up approach is understood as providing assistance from strong parties to the powerless to build their own base of power [19]. According to [11], [21] and [18], the role of community has a very large contribution of both provision or improvement of housing. This is closely related to the participation of the community, where each individual or group has different levels or participation form.…”

“…It can also be seen at the stage where the position of empowerment is located. According to [18], there are four ways to apply empowerment, among others (1) empowerment through knowledge, (2) empowerment through statue, (3) empowerment through resourcing and (4) empowerment through agreement and power transfer either through grouping, participation, contribution, coordination or interaction [19], [20]. Meanwhile, according to Arai (1997) [21] there are four stages in the process of empowerment, among others are (1) awareness, (2) interaction and learning, (3) mobilization or action and (4) contribution.…”

“…Meanwhile, according to Arai (1997) [21] there are four stages in the process of empowerment, among others are (1) awareness, (2) interaction and learning, (3) mobilization or action and (4) contribution. In the opinion of [21] and [18], the approach in the empowerment process consists of a conventional / top-down approach and a community-based / bottom-up approach. A top-down approach can lead to an attachment because it is understood as giving power by people who has "power" to the powerless.…”