GUD Magazine Home
-------------------
ASHOKA
SPECIAL ISSUE
Introduction
Transforming Urban Markets for the Poor through Collective
Entrepreneurship
Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future
of Capitalism
Size of Low
Income Housing Markets
The Next 4 Billion – The Housing Market
A Value Chain Framework for Affordable Housing in Emerging
Countries
Empower
Communities to Transform Markets
WWB Gender Study: The Capacity of Poor Women to Grow Their
Businesses in the Dominican Republic
Social Market Development and Social Mobilization in the Value
Chain of the Construction Industry
Understanding Asian Cities: A Synthesis of the Findings from
Eight City Case Studies
Unlock
Markets
Market-Based Models for Land
Development for the Low/Moderate-Income Majority
Putting the “Housing” Back into Housing Finance for the Poor:
The Case of Guatemala
Mobilize
Financing
Housing Microfinance: Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?
Capital-Market Funding of Affordable Housing Finance in Emerging
Countries: The Business Case
Finance for Low-Income Housing and Community Development
Innovate
Business Models
Housing the Poor by Engaging the Private and Citizen Sectors:
Social Innovations and “Hybrid Value Chains”
Bringing Low-Income Consumers into the Market in Colombia: Home
Improvements that Make a Difference
Enable
Private Initiatives
Private Sector Involvement in Slum Upgrading
The Millennium Cities Initiative: A Comprehensive
Approach to Reducing Urban Poverty and Generating Sustainable
Prosperity
-------------------
About the Authors
Editorial Guidelines
Previous Issues
May 2005
March 2006
November 2007
August 2008
GUD Home
Published by
Global Urban Development
Executive Editor:
Dr. Marc A. Weiss
Managing Editor:
Nancy Sedmak-Weiss
ISSN 1941-9783
|
Volume
4
Issue 2
November 2008 |
Print
Version
Finance for Low-Income Housing and Community Development
Diana Mitlin
I. INTRODUCTION
In
most urban areas in high-income nations and many middle-income
nations, good quality, legal housing is expensive. Most of it
would not have been built without mortgage finance;
middle-income households, and even most upper-income groups,
need mortgages in order to buy it, or long-term finance in order
to build it. In most cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America,
low-income households cannot afford legal housing or good
quality housing. They either rent (usually in poor quality
overcrowded dwellings) or buy, or build in illegal settlements.
They cannot get conventional housing finance because their homes
are in illegal settlements and they lack the income or formal
documentation that housing finance agencies require.
However, there has been much innovation in finance to support
housing, infrastructure and community development for low-income
groups over the last 15 years.[1]
Much of this works in informal settlements, supporting
negotiations for land tenure security, house construction and
improvements, and often improved provision for water and
sanitation. Most schemes combine savings, loans and subsidies.
During these 15 years:
-
State programmes have become less concerned with direct provision of
housing and more interested in working with finance to
enable greater choice for beneficiaries.
-
Microfinance for housing became a significant part of the
microfinance portfolio of lending opportunities, although
mostly for house improvements and extension.
-
Financial deregulation has increased the number of agencies
interested in providing mortgage finance in a number of
countries, and these are available to a larger section of
income groups.
-
Innovative approaches using savings and loans to transform
low-income neighbourhoods have demonstrated impact at scale.
II. THE THREE
KEY SOURCES OF HOUSING FINANCE
The role of savings
It
is often assumed that low-income households cannot save for
housing, as all their income is needed for consumption – or if
they can save, it is only sufficient for community-managed
emergency funds or small loans for livelihoods. But many case
studies show the importance of savings for shelter investment by
low-income groups. Low-income individuals often start savings to
provide a fund they can draw on to help cope with emergencies or
illness – and this develops into savings for housing too. This
is especially so if they have a local savings scheme to which
they can contribute, as in the community-managed savings groups
that are the foundation of so many federations of slum and shack
dwellers.[2]
Savings may support housing improvements outside of any housing
programme, as shown by a study in two low-income settlements in
Tanzania.[3]
Renters and would-be owner-occupiers also helped to finance
construction with advance rent payments to their landlords (who
owned the structures), once settlements became more established.
In
Pakistan, household savings have financed the development of
infrastructure in over 300 predominantly low-income settlements.
Here, financing takes place within a technical support programme
from the Pakistan NGO, the Orangi Pilot Project–Research and
Training Institute. This is an example of a financial model that
uses domestic savings and has a capacity to go to scale once
residents are convinced of its value.[4]
One key to its success is keeping down unit costs, so what is
provided matches what low-income households can afford. Case
studies from South Africa and Namibia also show the benefits of
savings programmes – some residents choose to finance
improvements through savings rather than taking up loans that
they may be entitled to. In South Africa, the Kuyasa Fund offers
small loans (often placed within the rubric of microfinance) for
shelter improvements. Savings is required prior to loan release
and 65 per cent of members only use their programme for savings.[5]
In Namibia, many households within the Shack Dwellers Federation
of Namibia prefer to use savings rather than loans to finance
the extension of infrastructure from communal to on-plot
facilities (for instance, from community to individual taps and
toilets). This avoids the risk of not being able to meet loan
repayments, for those with low and irregular incomes.[6]
In this instance, and also in Malawi, savings is more than
simply a means of financing shelter improvements; as in the case
of the affiliates of Shack/Slum Dwellers International,
community-based savings groups are the core organizing “glue”,
which help individuals save and which hold local organizations
together, enabling them to build the trust and confidence needed
to identify collective priorities and implement development
projects together.[7]
Savings is widely acknowledged to offer benefits in other cases,
as in the examples of the Kuyasa Fund[8]
and IVDP,[9]
although the orientation tends to be on the financial rather
than the development process, and hence the benefits are less
comprehensive.
In
some countries, it is difficult for low-income individuals and
groups to get a bank account. They have to form their own
savings institutions because no local bank or other institution
will support them. In many low-income areas, there are no banks;
and where there are, they often only provide accounts to those
with formal employment or proof of income, and relatively high
incomes – and they often have high charges. Not having a bank
account implies not only [10]
Microfinance for
house improvements
A
growing number of microfinance agencies offer small loans for
housing improvements. They usually offer finance only to
individual households living on land sites with reasonably
secure tenure, and they enable dwelling investment that usually
entails adding a room, or an improved roof and/or floor, toilets
and/or bathrooms. Shelter microfinance emulates many aspects of
enterprise-orientated microfinance and is often embedded within
the same agencies. In KixiCrédito in Angola, housing
finance is offered to those households that have been successful
in enterprise borrowing; a second stage is the extension of
shelter lending to other specific groups under alternative terms
and conditions.[11]
The Kuyasa Fund in South Africa offers small loans for housing
improvements and expansion; these help low-income households
that have already benefited from state intervention through a
housing capital subsidy programme that provides a plot with
legal tenure, services and an initial dwelling. In both cases,
the rapid development of loan programmes illustrates the scale
of demand for borrowing for housing within low-income
settlements. In the Philippines, there is also this combination
of state housing programme and loans for housing improvements.
The government programme, Development of Poor Urban Community
Sector Project, supports local authorities for site development
and improvement with housing loan provision along with
microenterprise finance.[12]
A comparable model has been implemented in various Central
American countries. Here, local authorities coordinate the
upgrading of low-income neighbourhoods and a range of local
institutions offer loans to households to improve their homes.
In some cases these can be combined with state subsidies. In
every case these loans blend with family savings and self-help
efforts, and this blending has demonstrated its effectiveness in
many places, as long as the unit costs of housing and
infrastructure construction or improvement are not too high.[13]
Group lending for
housing
A
third source of finance for housing is the collective process of
group lending. This is generally for more than just housing and
includes loans that fund investments in land and infrastructure.
In Namibia, the Shack Dwellers Federation and its support NGO,
the Namibia Housing Action Group, have developed a model that
includes regulatory reform, land purchase from local
authorities, the extension of infrastructure provision and
dwelling construction. This model is affordable to some of the
lowest-income citizens as the housing component of the loan does
not have to take place immediately, and land and service costs
can be paid off first.[14]
For the Malawi Federation, a sister to the Namibian Federation,
group loans were taken to finance the construction of identical
dwelling units for the development of housing on 222 plots in
Lilongwe. The political impact of these units has been
considerable; the national government was sufficiently impressed
by the speed and competence of federation members in their
construction that it provided the federation with more than
3,000 housing plots. In most of Lilongwe, where there is no
provision for sewers, the loan amounts have also been sufficient
to pay for the cost of skyloos (elevated pit latrines).
In
the Philippines, the Community Mortgage Programme is an example
of state support for collective loans. Here, credit for
purchasing land is available to groups of low-income households
facing eviction from land on which they are illegally settled.[15]
In Thailand, an innovative state-financed programme (the
Community Organization Development Institute) has put in place
community networks able to manage many aspects of the
development process at a local and city level, as well as
providing loans available to communities for supporting
upgrading or new house construction. Here, the move in the level
of intervention from neighbourhood to city level has been
important in enabling finance to be used to transform options
for some of the lowest-income and most disadvantaged citizens,
and for supporting community organizations and local governments
to work collectively to address diverse needs and interests
across the city.[16]
Citywide networks of community organizations work with local
authorities in participatory planning and allocate both subsidy
and loan finance. This enables the planning process both to
prioritize the settlements most in need of upgrading and to
consider how finance can help support local environmental
improvements for the benefit of all.[17]
III. THE RANGE
OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES DRIVING CHANGE
These three different financing strategies for housing –
savings, microfinance and group lending – reflect the
differences in local circumstances and in the agencies that are
engaged with this process. In some cases, the key agent is the
people, managing as best they can – as in the case from
Tanzania.[18]
In Pakistan, for the investments in sanitation and drainage made
by communities, the key agent is also the people, but in this
case supported by an NGO, the Orangi Pilot Project–Research and
Training Institute. This NGO provides technical assistance,
catalyzing sanitation investments by showing how the unit cost
of good quality provision can be brought down to one low-income
communities can afford.[19]
In the case studies from South Africa and Angola, the key
agencies are microfinance providers, which in both cases emerged
from the work of conventional urban development NGOs,
Development Action Group[20]
and Development Workshop.[21]
This highlights a tension for NGOs seeking to provide new
shelter options for low-income households, because the
organizational demands for providing financial services are very
different from those for advocacy. In these cases, in Angola and
South Africa, two distinct organizations have developed. These
experiences suggest that it is difficult to manage a
microfinance agency and an advocacy-oriented NGO within the same
organization. Over time, both organizations have divided into
two although, in both cases, the newly created microfinance
agencies collaborate closely with their “parent”.
The success of collective loans requires strong local
organizations. In the cases noted above, in Malawi, Namibia and
the Philippines (Community Mortgage Programme), professional
support agencies provide advice on the technical aspects of
development and offer other kinds of assistance. In part, this
is required because these housing development programmes have to
work with local authorities, which means working with all their
building, land use and infrastructure regulations. In Malawi and
Namibia, the local grassroots organizations are networked
through federations that enable them to visit and learn from
each other. The formation of federations also helps pressure the
government to agree to regulatory reforms that reduce
development costs (for instance, smaller plot sizes and less
expensive infrastructure requirements). Politicians are
reluctant to be seen to ignore the demands of mass movements;
and may believe that regulatory reforms are a relatively
low-cost route to respond to citizen demands There is little
evidence of the commercial sector in these case studies,
although in the broader field of microfinance, there is
considerable interest shown by formal financial institutions in
some Asian and Latin American nations.[22]
The growth in experience in microfinance for housing has shown
the commercial sector that there is a viable market at least in
some nations and cities, which can be served by financial
institutions or through their collaboration with microfinance
agencies. This is important in supporting many lower-income
households with relatively secure tenure of their housing plot
to improve their homes, but it does not address the needs of the
lowest-income groups who are landless.
IV. THE ROLE OF
THE STATE
The state is rarely the driving force behind shelter finance
initiatives, but it still has a powerful influence on whether
low-income groups can get good quality housing. First, it
influences land markets and the possibilities for land tenure
regularization in informal settlements. Land regularization and
the extension of infrastructure and services to what were
previously illegal settlements may provide a very good context
for providing loans for upgrading.[23]
So too may the allocation of land sites to community
organizations formed by the urban poor, as highlighted in the
case in Malawi mentioned above. Obviously, this process (and any
state-managed resettlement), influences the location of
low-income settlements and the degree of spatial and/or social
inclusion for such settlements. Second, the state’s many rules
and regulations regarding land use, infrastructure and
buildings, and the ways these are applied, influence housing and
land prices and availability, and thus whether lower-income
groups can get or build legal housing. The extent and
application of regulatory systems influences the scale of
illegality associated with shelter provision in informal
settlements. In Namibia, far more low-income households were
able to take part in official legal housing developments when
the Slum Dwellers Federation negotiated lower and more flexible
building and infrastructure standards, In Malawi, the low-cost
housing required the Malawi Federation to negotiate to get
approval for the use of traditional materials.
Third, state programmes for services or for social protection
may reduce costs or increase incomes,[24]
and so increase the amount that low-income households can spend
on or save for housing. Any shelter finance project that
addresses tenure and service needs has to come to an
accommodation with the state, even if microfinance programmes
providing individual housing loans for dwelling improvements can
avoid this.
The state is involved in housing provision in most nations,
although the scale and nature of this involvement varies
greatly. Even in a very low-income country such as Malawi, there
have been a range of government housing policies, although few
programmes at scale. The involvement of the state in shelter
initiatives reflects the importance of housing to citizen
well-being; but the nature of their involvement also reflects
the politicization of housing provision as politicians seek to
control and gain from the allocation of housing and land tenure.
Political elites often manipulate the allocation of housing
finance programmes to address their political interests; for
instance, housing finance in Brazil under the Collor
administration was used to secure political support in Congress.[25]
In the Philippines, the inadequacies in conventional state
housing programmes have encouraged a shift to more
market-oriented strategies following the failure of credit
subsidies and high rates of default on government loans. What is
evident in many contexts is the lack of state support for
programmes oriented towards the lowest-income residents.
One key role of the state is to provide the supervisory and
regulatory framework for the financial sector. In large part, it
was the failure of the state and self-regulatory frameworks that
explains the sub-prime crisis in the USA. Loans were given out
and sold on in a complex set of financial markets designed to
increase the availability of mortgage finance. However, the
risks related to such loans were inadequately assessed and/or
not fully taken into account. The subsequent problems have been
both loan defaults by individual families and related
repossession, and the international credit crunch as banks
refuse to lend to each other due to fears of bad debt. However,
as shown in the papers in these two volumes of Environment &
Urbanization, there are many positive experiences where
loans have been manageable at the household level and the
loan-giving bodies continue to be viable organizations. Given
the body of knowledge about successful lending to low-income
households, why haven’t governments and international agencies
sought to create an appropriate framework of support and
regulation?
In
most urban contexts, shelter finance alone can never address the
problems faced by the lowest-income groups because the gap
between what they can afford and the cost of the cheapest “good
quality” unit with infrastructure and services is too high. The
case studies noted above emphasize the need for an approach that
includes opportunities for tenure security, the upgrading of
services and the improvement of dwellings. This is clearly seen
in the case study from Angola and the dual roles played by
KixiCrédito and by Development Workshop, the first providing
finance and the second developing new models for land
development and lobbying for pro-poor land policies. Another
important aspect is a real dialogue between the state and
low-income households, so that the limited resources and
capacities of each can be combined to maximum effect. For
instance, in urban areas in Pakistan, the official bodies
responsible for providing water and sanitation were not able to
meet needs in informal settlements – but with the introduction
of a new model by OPP–RTI, which provided for a realignment of
citizen and state contributions, they have been able to provide
the “external” water pipes, sewers and drains into which
community-managed and financed “internal” pipes, sewers and
drains can integrate.[26]
V. INTERNATIONAL
FINANCE FOR LOCAL INITIATIVES
Very few official aid agencies support housing finance
initiatives. In part, this is because they do not support urban
initiatives. But, in part, it is also because of the challenges
these agencies face in finding ways to enable flexible locally
managed finance to respond to neighbourhood and city-level
initiatives while maintaining the required accountability to the
governments that provide their funds. Some international NGOs
have long supported housing finance initiatives. For instance,
housing finance has been central to the work of the UK-based
charity, Homeless International and it came under pressure to
find alternatives to grant finance to allow its funds to
increase the scale of their impact. Homeless International has
developed guarantee finance to enable organizations in Africa
and Asia to obtain loan finance from local banks. It has also
developed another financial mechanism to support housing, the
Community Led Infrastructure Financing Facility (CLIFF). This is
a capital fund provided through Cities Alliance, on which their
partner organizations can draw to allow them to increase the
scale and scope of their housing initiatives – for instance, by
providing bridge financing for large redevelopment programmes,
or allowing larger, more ambitious upgrading programmes. This
was tried first in India, working with the Alliance of the
National Slum Dwellers Federation, Mahila Milan and SPARC and
this received financial support from the UK Department for
International Development and the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). A similar facility is
being developed to support low-income housing initiatives in
Kenya and the Philippines.[27]
Another example of an international fund supporting housing for
low-income groups is the International Urban Poor Fund, managed
by Shack/Slum Dwellers International/SDI and IIED. This provides
small grants throughout the SDI network of slum/shack dwellers
federations to catalyze local initiatives in secure land tenure
and basic services. It finances urban poor funds that have been
set up by national slum/shack dweller federations and supports
community-led advocacy to advance grassroots solutions. Its
contribution lies as much in the flexibility of the funds and
the locally determined allocations as in the scale of its
support. Many of the initiatives it funds receive only US$
20,000–40,000, but the federations make this go much further
than conventional development agencies can as it is combined
with the resources and capacities of the federation, the locally
negotiated support (often from local government) and the care
with which the federation uses the funding.[28]
VI.
CONCLUSIONS
It
might seem inappropriate to highlight the importance of shelter
finance in low- and middle-income nations, given the crisis in
the USA and other nations where large numbers of low-income
households cannot repay loans. But this crisis does not suggest
that financial markets cannot serve low-income groups or that
low-income households cannot manage credit. Rather, it
highlights the fact that financial services must take account of
the vulnerabilities and limited repayment capacities of
low-income households. Financial services for low-income groups
need to be developed with these groups as they are best able to
assess their repayment capacities and develop effective systems.[29]
The design of such services needs to take into account the
difficult choices faced by low-income households in generating
savings, as they struggle to balance potential income gains (microenterprise
borrowing), expenditure savings, investments in capacities and
relationships (education, marriage) and investments in assets
(including housing). Financial services need to have the
flexibility to support this complexity.
The examples given above show how far external funding can go if
it can support local processes driven by local organizations
that make maximum use of such funding. International agencies
could do much more with their monies if they were willing to
relinquish more decision-making powers and more financial
control to local organizations formed by, and accountable to,
the urban poor. The many case studies of schemes that provided
low-income groups with access to finance also show impacts that
go far beyond what was financed – for instance, new community
capacities and new relationships between low-income groups and
government or financial institutions. Looked at from the other
way, external finance, if provided effectively, can multiply and
deepen the self-help activities of low-income neighbourhood
associations.
Diana Mitlin
is Senior Researcher, Human Settlements, at the International
Institute for Environment and Development in London, UK.
Copyright 2007 by the International Institute for Environment
and Development.
[Note:
This article is a summary of key issues arising from two special
issues of the journal Environment and Urbanization on
finance for low income housing and community development –
published in October 2007 and April 2008. It was also published
as an Environment and Urbanization Brief in June 2008.]
[1]
In addition to the 20 papers on this topic in the
October 2007 and April 2008 issues of Environment &
Urbanization, a further 19 papers on the topic have
been published in earlier issues of the journal – and
these can all be accessed on-line at no charge at
http://eau.sagepub.com/. These include
Ferguson, Bruce and Jesus Navarrete (2003), “A financial
framework for reducing slums: lessons from experience in
Latin America”, Environment & Urbanization Vol
15, No 2, October, pages 201–216; also Malhotra, Mohini
(2003), “Financing her home, one wall at a time”,
Environment & Urbanization Vol 15, No 2, October,
pages 217–228; Frank, Daphne (2004), “A market-based
housing improvement system for low-income families – the
Housing Incentive System (SIV) in Ecuador”,
Environment & Urbanization Vol 16, No 1, April,
pages 171–184; Stein, Alfredo with Luis Castillo (2005),
“Innovative financing for low-income housing
improvement: lessons from programmes in Central
America”, Environment & Urbanization Vol 17, No
1, April, pages 47–66; and Boonyabancha, Somsook (2005),
“Baan Mankong; going to scale with ‘slum’ and squatter
upgrading in Thailand”, Environment & Urbanization
Vol 17, No 1, April, pages 21–46.
[2]
See Manda, Mtafu A Zeleza (2007), "Mchenga - urban poor
housing fund in Malawi", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2, pages 337-359 and
Muller, Anna and Diana Mitlin (2007), "Securing
inclusion: strategies for community empowerment and
state redistribution ", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2, pages 425-439.
[3]
Sheuya, Shaaban A (2007), "Reconceptualizing housing
finance in informal settlements: The case of Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2, pages 441-456.
[4]
Hasan, Arif (2008), "Financing the sanitation programme
of the Orangi Pilot Project–Research and Training
Institute in Pakistan", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 20, No. 1, pages 109-120;
also
Hasan, Arif (2006), “Orangi Pilot Project; the expansion
of work beyond Orangi and the mapping of informal
settlements and infrastructure”, Environment &
Urbanization Vol 18, No 2, October, pages 451–480.
[5]
Mills, Sophie (2007), The Kuyasa Fund: housing
microcredit in South Africa, Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2, pages 457-469.
[6]
Muller and Mitlin 2007, op. cit.
[7]
Manda
2007, op. cit; also
D’Cruz, Celine and David Satterthwaite (2005), “Building
homes, changing official approaches: the work of urban
poor federations and their contributions to meeting the
Millennium Development Goals in urban areas”, Poverty
Reduction in Urban Areas Series, Working Paper 16, IIED,
London, 80 pages.
[9]
Stavrakakis, Sarah with Ruth McLeod and Kulandei Francis
(2008), "IVDP - credit to the women of Krishnagiri and
Dharmapuri", Environment and Urbanization,
Vol. 20, No. 1, pages 31-46.
[10]
See
Solo, Tova Maria (2008), "Financial exclusion in Latin
America or the social costs of not banking the urban
poor", Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 20, No.
1, pages 47-66.
[11]
Cain, Allan (2007), "Housing microfinance in
post-conflict Angola. Overcoming socioeconomic
exclusion: land tenure, credit and basic services",
Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pages 361-390.
[12]
Llanto, Gilberto M. (2007), "Shelter Finance Strategies
for the Poor: Philippines", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2, pages 409-423.
[13]
See
Stein, Alfredo and Irene Vance (2008), "The role of
housing finance in addressing the needs of the urban
poor: lessons from Central America",
Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 20, No. 1, pages
13-30.
[14]
Muller and Mitlin 2007, op. cit.
[15]
Llanto
2007, op. cit.
[16]
Boonyabancha, Somsook (2005), “Baan Mankong; going to
scale with ‘slum’ and squatter upgrading in Thailand”,
Environment & Urbanization Vol 17, No 1, April,
pages 21–46. See also the ACHR website, www.achr.net.
[17]
Boonyabancha 2005, op. cit.
[18]
Sheuya
2007, op. cit.
[19]
Hasan 2006, op. cit.
[20]
Mills 2007, op. cit.
[23]
Stein and Vance 2008, op. cit.;
Almansi, Florencia and Andrea Tammarazio (2008),
"Mobilizing projects in community organizations with a
long-term perspective: neighbourhood credit funds in
Buenos Aires, Argentina", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 20, No. 1, pages 121-148.
[24]
See
Jones, Nicola Rosana Vargas and Eliana Villar (2008),
"Cash transfers to tackle childhood poverty and
vulnerability: an analysis of Peru’s Juntos programme",
Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pages 255-274.
[25]
Valenca, Marcio M. (2007), "Poor politics, poor housing;
Policy under the Collor Government in Brazil (1990-92)",
Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pages 391-408.
[26]
Hasan 2008, op. cit.
[27]
Morris, Ian with Kim Mullard and Malcolm Jack (2007),
"The growth of ‘financial services’ provided by Homeless
International", Environment and Urbanization,
Vol. 19, No. 2, pages 471-481.
[28]
Mitlin, Diana and David Satterthwaite (2007),
"Strategies for grassroots control of international aid",
Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pages 483-500.
[29]
For a discussion of this, see Almansi and Tammarazio
2008, op. cit.
Return to top |
|