![]() ![]() They are normally built as a result of a collective process which involves the future occupants ownership is collective and indivisible. Mutual Aid Cooperatives promoted by the Uruguayan Federation of Mutual Aid Housing Cooperatives (FUCVAM), deserve special attention. Financial risk for members is limited to their daughter cooperative only (NATCCO National 2004, HSB 2012, HSB 2012). ![]() The model is also noteworthy in that it combines housing and saving schemes within one organisation. ![]() Tenants are members of both the mother and daughter cooperatives simultaneously. Although there is no obligation to do so, this process helps preserve the organisational relationship. The daughter cooperatives often purchase management and administrative services from mother cooperatives. In this model, the ‘mother’ (also known as ‘parent’ or ‘secondary’) cooperative associations are responsible for building housing developments, which are then sold to ‘daughter’ (also known as ‘subsidiary’ or ‘primary’) cooperatives. The seminal Scandinavian Cooperative model, also known as the Mother-Daughter Cooperative model, was developed by HSB Riksföbund in Sweden. We have selected two of the most influential ones, still in expansion, as illustrations: Overall, these solutions have proved their effectiveness and are a perfect illustration of what Erik Olin Wright calls real utopias 2, meaning that “Real utopias capture the spirit of utopia but remain attentive to what it takes to bring those aspirations to life”.Īn attempt to organise various non individual forms of land tenureĬooperative Housing and Cooperative forms of tenure are by far the most commonly known systems, existing under a wide range of modalities. The series of different solutions gathered under the global term CCFT - Collective, Communal and Co-operative forms of Tenure is not a set typology but rather a structured inventory of non individual forms of land tenure and use which are currently enacted to access housing within and on the outskirts of cities. Nonetheless, we believe that an alternative route for positioning social and spatial justice and achieving a social function of land tenure is to document, to highlight and to strengthen the many non-individual forms of land tenure and use, which are sometimes based on customary law, or are the result of 19th century philosophies and social struggles, or even of recent or ongoing experiments.Ĭommunal forms of ownership are not homogenous their diversity is linked to the multiple uses, legal practices and cultures, as well as the social struggles which have impelled their creation or their continued existence. This is definitely positive and deserves to be pursued and developed. Indeed, most legal and institutional studies, practices and mechanisms focus on the social function of private property in Brazil or Colombia 1 and stress the regulatory function of land tenure, mostly based on individual and private ownership. Furthermore, we are positing here that these non-individual forms of land tenure, of housing, and more generally of the city guarantee its social function as a right. These forms are the cornerstones of the utopian right to the city, defined by Henri Lefebvre as the superior right. However, their existence is crucial if the right to decent housing, as defined by the United Nations, is to exist. Most people are unaware of them, as there is little information about them. Cooperative, Communal and Collective Forms of Land Tenure: Why are they relevant?Ĭooperative, communal and collective forms of land tenure - CCCFTs - cover a broad range of types of land tenure and use. This article is part of the book Take Back the Land ! The Social Function of Land and Housing, Resistance and Alternatives, Passerelle, Ritimo/Aitec/Citego, March 2014. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |