Rdp Housing Essay
In the following essay, I’ll be discussing the issue regarding as to whether the South African government should continue service delivery of Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) houses, and whether it should be made illegal for beneficiaries to sell the houses handed to them by the Department of Housing.
RDP can be defined as a socio-economic framework, aimed to assemble both citizens and resources of South Africa to eradicate the evident results of Apartheid. The objectives of this programme was to capacitate the community to achieve broad social and economic upliftment, therefore, it could broadly be said that the focus of RDP, was on human resources of the country and building and developing the people and the economy (van der Walt & Knipe, 2001).
Based on the above definition of RDP, beneficiaries of these houses were legally supposed to maintain ownership for no less than eight (8) years upon receipt. According to the statement posed in the question, with regards to recipients being able to sell the houses government provided, it has been said that both social grants and RDP housing do not alleviate poverty, as providing the “poor” person with shelter, they still do not have the necessary means to provide for themselves, they thus still remain poor, furthermore, government therefore is only supplying individuals with a safety net, and not a solution to their state of poverty (Tomlinson, 1999).
Recipients, prior to the RDP, have been receiving housing subsidies, as outlined by the Housing Subsidy Scheme of 1995. The housing subsidies received were according to specific income brackets of household, thus the more you earned, the smaller the amount that government would subsidise. Overtime, recipients became unhappy, as the costs of standard of living had been increased and recipients were thus unable to maintain the new lifestyle, as some cases unemployed individuals were involved.
The introduction of in-kind benefits were to alleviate poverty,
RDP can be defined as a socio-economic framework, aimed to assemble both citizens and resources of South Africa to eradicate the evident results of Apartheid. The objectives of this programme was to capacitate the community to achieve broad social and economic upliftment, therefore, it could broadly be said that the focus of RDP, was on human resources of the country and building and developing the people and the economy (van der Walt & Knipe, 2001).
Based on the above definition of RDP, beneficiaries of these houses were legally supposed to maintain ownership for no less than eight (8) years upon receipt. According to the statement posed in the question, with regards to recipients being able to sell the houses government provided, it has been said that both social grants and RDP housing do not alleviate poverty, as providing the “poor” person with shelter, they still do not have the necessary means to provide for themselves, they thus still remain poor, furthermore, government therefore is only supplying individuals with a safety net, and not a solution to their state of poverty (Tomlinson, 1999).
Recipients, prior to the RDP, have been receiving housing subsidies, as outlined by the Housing Subsidy Scheme of 1995. The housing subsidies received were according to specific income brackets of household, thus the more you earned, the smaller the amount that government would subsidise. Overtime, recipients became unhappy, as the costs of standard of living had been increased and recipients were thus unable to maintain the new lifestyle, as some cases unemployed individuals were involved.
The introduction of in-kind benefits were to alleviate poverty,