3.1 Summary
The study addressed factors that facilitated or impeded men's and women's engagement in urban housing development. The study was conceived within the socio-institutional theoretical framework that is cognizant of the crucial role of the social identity of an economic agent in determining resource exchange in the (housing) markets (Granovetter 1985; Van Arkadie 1989). Gender being a socially constructed identity that determines not only the relations between men and women but also their entitlements within and beyond the household, the theoretical framework was applicable to engagement in the urban housing development as an aspect of economic behaviour. A multiplicity of socio-cultural, economic and political factors was found to be of significant influence in facilitating and impeding men and women's engagement in the development of urban housing. Moreover, the influence of these factors was not similar for men and women.
Although outwardly a physical shelter in which land, finance, building materials, construction technologies and labour resources are injected before its realisation, reflecting the significance of economic resources in facilitating engagement in its development, housing is also an expression of ways of life (Sengendo 1992). A house is therefore more than a physical structure; it is also a cultural phenomenon. Hence, engagement in housing development is both an economic and a social process. As one of the key social processes that make distinction between men's and women's obligations, responsibilities and capacities, gender ideology permeates the housing sector, setting parameters for men and women's engagement in its development, especially in urban areas. This is evident in male dominance in owner occupation and ownership of rental houses in Jinja Municipality. It is also evident in the reference to female owner occupiers or landladies as Nakyeyombekedde, which is a derogatory connotation of unattached urban women who have their own sources of income, raise children without a resident male partner, and are free of male control and surveillance, hence can engage in unsanctioned, illicit and casual sexual liaisons! In other words, women's engagement in urban housing development is resisted by society. However, ethnicity and level of education attained interacted in varying degrees of intensity with gender ideology in both facilitating and impeding men's and women's engagement in urban housing development. Thus, economic, cultural and social factors influence the ability and inability to engage in urban housing development especially the women's.
Ability to acquire urban land via inheritance (cultural), purchasing or renting (economic) was a key factor that facilitated both men and women to engage in urban housing development in Jinja Municipality. However, gender ideology and economic capabilities were paramount in influencing ability. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of male and female house owners who had inherited land, the men inherited more as a birthright than the women did. On the other hand, more women inherited through participation in social institutions - marriage for those who inherited land from spouses and for others rendering unpaid labour to female relatives who later rewarded the women with land on which they built houses. Nonetheless, the Soga culture which is less resistant to women's inheritance of land played an important role in enabling women's inheritance regardless of the differences in the modes through which men and women inherited (urban) land.
Similarly, although the proportions of female and male house owners who purchased the land on which they built were almost equal, and the modes of payments were not significantly different, some women encountered resistance from spouses, kin and friends. Some women were accused by spouses of having obtained the funds they used to purchase land from lovers while other women were forced by their spouses to have the land registered in their (spouses') names. These cases were indicative of the threat posed to male masculine identity by women's engagement in urban housing development in particular and women's acquisition of property in general, which might signal their independence. It is therefore not surprising that whereas 89.8% of the male house owners were married, only half of the female house owners were married; sixteen per cent of the female house owners were single, 20.0% were separated or divorced while 14.0% were widowed. Implicitly, marriage is in less consonance with property acquisition by women, although married men are expected, even pressurised to acquire property as an indicator of a successful provider for their "dependant" wives and children. Friends and kin also discouraged some women from purchasing urban land and instead advised them to acquire rural land. When the women insisted on buying urban land, they were labelled "prostitutes" who had alienated themselves from their rural roots, both of which carried some stigma. Thus, resistance to women's engagement in urban housing development is rooted beyond the marital spheres. It extends into the wider realms of society.
With regard to those who did not own houses, 54.0% of the men and 27.5% of the women owned land. However, of those who owned land, only 11.1% of the men and 35.7% of the women owned land in urban areas. Overall, 23.8% of the non-owners had inherited land compared to only 14.9% who had purchased. Lack of finances to purchase land was the major reason cited by the landless non-owners. However, only 36.4% of the male and 20.9% of the female non-owners said that if they were to build a house, urban areas would be their first locality of choice. Land ownership in rural areas, low costs of acquiring land and building houses in rural areas, fear of political insecurity that puts urban investments at risk and traditional expectations of having a house built first in the rural areas were the major reasons cited for preference to building in rural areas. A large number of house owners and non-owners reported that people who first built in rural areas were more respected than those who first built in urban areas were. Thus, culture and tradition encourage rural housing development more than urban housing development even for men. Nonetheless, preference to building in rural areas was inversely correlated with level of education. The more educated significantly preferred to building in urban areas first more than the less educated. Among the reasons cited included income generation from rentals and better physical and social infrastructure in urban areas. Besides, the more educated were bound to be more interested in pursuing professional careers whose prospects were more brighter in the urban than in the rural areas.
The male non-owners who knew of plots for sale in Jinja Municipality and where to obtain architectural plans and building permits were more than double the female non-owners. This implied that women were less conversant with the processes and institutions that facilitated urban housing development. That 81.4% of the house owners and 81.0% of the non-owners said that men had more knowledge about plots for sale confirms that women are either less inquisitive or less informed about the processes of urban housing development, most likely because the culture does not consider engagement in housing development as an area where they should participate.
The high reliance on personal savings for the acquisition of building materials and labour by house owners, and the equally anticipated high reliance on personal savings for acquisition of building materials and labour by the non-owners posed a major obstacle to both men's and women's engagement in urban housing development. However, housing finance from formal financial institutions in its present form is no panacea for the financial needs of small and medium income housing developers. For less than one-third of the house owners had land titles and a lesser proportion had built along approved architectural plans. Yet, a land title and a plan are prerequisites for seeking housing finance from formal financial institutions. Further, the 16%-22% interest rates charged, the long and tedious application procedures that baffle many a low income, semi-literate developer and fear of defaulting on loan repayment discouraged several from seeking formal sector housing finance. The above mentioned institutional level impediments to securing formal housing finance notwithstanding, women's lower self-confidence levels to seek the financing were also obstacles in their own right. Female applicants for housing finance from the Housing Finance Co. (U) Ltd. were less than a quarter of their male counterparts; yet, there were no statistically significant differences between men's and women's applications that were approved, rejected, were pending or that had been withdrawn.
Women's lower confidence in their capacity to engage in urban housing development was further exhibited in the quality of housing they hoped to construct. Female non-owners overwhelmingly anticipated utilising locally available materials in the neighbourhood that were cheaper but of inferior quality. Female non-owners further anticipated having significantly fewer amenities - piped water, internal plumbing, etc., than their male counterparts did. Yet, among the house owners, there were no differences between the amenities in the men and women's houses. Actually female house owners had slightly more amenities than the male house owners had.
Nonetheless, several socio-institutional phenomena influenced the women's capacity to engage in urban housing development. Ethnic Soga and Ganda cultures are less resistant to women's ownership of real property hence the majority of the female house owners were Soga and Ganda. Soga and Ganda cultures also do not discourage urban housing development in preference to rural housing development hence about 90% of the male urban house owners were Soga and Ganda. Married women encountered more resistance because of the social relations of the husband's superiority and the wife's subordination entailed in marital relationships. Hence, the unmarried were less impeded.
The majority of the house owners were over thirty years old while the majority of the non-owners were under thirty years old. It is possible that generation of personal savings requisite for engagement in urban housing development will occur when one has socially and economically stabilised (usually over 30 years old). Besides, there often is little incentive for men to become house owners until they marry. In addition, for people in general, there equally is little incentive until they have children. However, in the case of women, being older also reduces conservative beliefs in socio-cultural perceptions of feminine obligations, responsibilities and capacities. Older women are bound to have realised that socio-cultural perceptions of femininity may be drawbacks on realisation of their individual potentials, capacities and capabilities, hence may easily seek to move out of those socio-cultural binds. Besides, older women are more likely to have stabilized in their relationships with men to an extent that they would do what is mostly in their (women's) best interests rather than constantly seeking men's approval or withholding their plans in anticipation of male disapproval. For both men and women, higher levels of education enabled them to overcome cultural pressures to develop houses in rural instead of urban areas.
Although sacrifice and self denial were key adaptive strategies employed by men and women to facilitate their participation in urban housing development, women had to surmount more barriers arising from the gendered social structures, processes and relations embedded in urban housing development. Women had to gain confidence and believe that it would not reduce their femininity to develop their own houses. Women had to further withstand labels and stigma associated with female house developers. Putting aside overcoming the gender stereotyping, income from rentals and building in phases were the other key strategies adopted by both men and women to facilitate their participation in urban housing development.
3.2 Recommendations
Evident in the foregoing discussion is that urban housing development is both an economic and social process. The social component of the housing development process inhibits women's engagement therein more than it does the men's. Even the economic process in urban housing development is shrouded with social components largely in the form of gender ideological undertones although ethnic related customs, traditions and beliefs are also manifested. Women's under-representation among urban housing developers is an extension of women's inferior property rights, lesser entitlements and inequality in access to and participation in the socio-economic structures of society. Hence, approaches that could facilitate women's engagement in urban housing development ought to target the social process therein as much as the economic process. This means targeting the societal and community systems, the family and women as a category through broad and specific policies and initiatives within and outside the urban housing sector.
At the most general level, it is imperative to raise critical consciousness to the gender inequities and inequalities in urban housing development through promoting programmes that generate public awareness of the nature and manifestation of the gendered social structures, processes and relations in the society in general, and in housing development in particular. The programmes could promote public debate on women's right to inherit land including urban land, and women's right to acquire and develop real property besides women's right to shelter. Jointly organised through the Ministries of Gender, Labour and Social Development, and of Lands, Water and Environment, the National Housing Corporation, NGOs that seek to empower women, and institutions that facilitate urban housing development, the programmes could be launched through the print and electronic media and at community levels.
Raising public consciousness about the gender inequalities and inequities in urban housing development has the advantage of developing thought and action in a transformational rather than mechanical manner, thus enabling people to explore issues, to understand the gender dynamics in their societies and to apply the concept of gender sensitivity to their everyday activities. Thus, by beginning to question the status quo that is usually considered "natural", a foundation would be laid for freeing women and psychologically liberating men from the socio-cultural and traditional practices, norms and beliefs that inhibit women's engagement in urban housing development.
Community and family level initiatives aimed at addressing the gendered social structures, processes and relations embedded in housing development ought to be multi-faceted, as the communities and the families are heterogeneous. Individuals open to changes in gender relations especially those whose wives, daughters or female relatives have acquired real property should be identified and brought into the change process as leading actors. These individuals would be instrumental in countering the negative images associated with female urban housing developers. These individuals would further be instrumental in launching consciousness-raising campaigns addressing the gender ideology that impedes women's engagement in urban housing development. Women urban housing developers should also be involved for their experiences while developing their houses and the benefits derived therefrom would be key references in the consciousness raising processes.
Having raised public consciousness of the social structures, processes and relations that impede women's engagement in urban housing development, legal advice and support services to women in urban communities who seek to engage in housing development could be provided. The women would now be psychologically prepared to utilise them. The support services would include advice on where to obtain building permits and architectural plans, on plots available for sale, on which building materials to use and where to purchase them, etc. These policies and initiatives ought to be augmented by government policy. In reality, Uganda has no urbanisation policy, except for the occasional pronouncements calling upon the young to go back to the land (Republic of Uganda 1992a). Recently, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni paradoxically called on the rural people to migrate to urban areas thus contradicting the usually heard public pronouncements! The president argued that no development could occur without a large urban population and that by calling for the return to the rural areas, Uganda would be the first country to develop with a large rural population. The contradictory public pronouncements by leaders in Uganda show the extent of the absence of a policy on urbanisation. With respect to housing policy, the Republic of Uganda (1992a) states that the government recognizes the magnitude of the country's requirements for housing and has adopted the Enabling Approach as its major policy to encourage the participation of the private sector in housing development. However, this policy appears largely on paper and no concrete enabling actions have been implemented save for specific housing projects; e.g., the Masese project in Jinja of which part of it was usurped by the well to do and several poor were pushed further into swamps which they reclaimed and set up shanties like those they had had before.
As an enabling approach, the government should purchase and avail land to the poor since land is the single most expensive component for the poor in their urban housing development process. The government could also provide lower interest rate housing finance through Community Based Organisations and NGOs, which would monitor its utilisation. This should not be difficult to achieve considering it was attempted in the Masese Housing Project in Jinja with some success. However, for larger outreach purposes, the approach should be more housing-focussed and less project-oriented. Women should be considered a priority group in having access to these resources since experience has proved that a larger chunk of development resources is usually taken up by men because of beliefs in male headship of households yet female-headed households constitute 30% of the households in Uganda (World Bank 1993). The government should also commit substantive resources to public consciousness raising campaigns on the gender inequalities and inequities in urban housing development as part of its enabling approach policy in the housing sector, for this would further facilitate women's to engagement in the development.
To sum up,
a) Initiate and promote programmes aimed at raising critical consciousness among the public of the gender inequity entailed in the social structures, processes and relations embedded in urban housing development.
b) Initiate and promote community and family initiatives aimed at legitimising women's inheritance, acquisition and development of real property including urban houses.
c) Provide legal advice and housing development support services to women who seek to engage in urban housing development.
d) As part of its enabling approach policy, the government should commit substantive resources to consciousness raising campaigns addressing the socio-cultural norms, beliefs, practices and traditions that inhibit women's engagement in urban housing development.
e) The government should provide urban land for sale at reasonable prices to the poor and avail them subsidized interest rate housing finance as part of its enabling approach policy in the housing sector.
f) Women should be regarded as a special group that needs to have access to land and subsidized interest rates since most development resources are disproportionately taken up by men.
Certainly, the recommended broad and specific policies and initiatives are bound to meet some resistance at least in the initial stages of their implementation for they would be questioning long-held beliefs, traditions, customs and norms which are so integrated in the cultural psyche that they appear "natural". Hence, persistence and patience are required on the part of the implementers. Ultimately, however, the seeds for addressing the gender inequities and inequalities in urban housing development will be sowed and will require continuous nurturing until women's right to acquire and develop real property including urban housing will become as acceptable and expected as the men's.
