Archive for June, 2013

This Government does Maslow – apart from housing.

Monday, June 24th, 2013

 

Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs is a useful tool to help think about people’s needs from the most basic  to progressively higher levels of civilised life.  The model talks of the most basic needs as being physiological (having food, air, water, sleep etc), then the need for safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem and confidence and finally (for some lucky people) self-actualisation.

 

Maslow suggests that people can only work towards meeting their high-level needs when all the low-level needs are satisfied.  It is difficult to work on self-confidence, for example, if we are dying of thirst.

 

It is often observed that the first responsibility of any government is to protect its people – an observation often heard from those lobbying on behalf of the Ministry Of Defence.  I would like to think that the first responsibility of the government is to ensure that the physiological and safety needs (at the very least) of all its citizens are met.  And indeed, this is largely the case.  For centuries, governments have (generally) pulled their levers of power to help ensure that the population collectively has enough food, we have developed infrastructure to ensure that we have clean water, and we have a health service and public health systems to protect us against diseases.  We have a framework of criminal and civil law, policed and implemented by professionals to provide (in most cases) the safety and security that we need.  We even have a huge educational infrastructure to help us with our self-esteem, confidence and self-actualisation.

 

It is recognised that these needs are universal, and they therefore needs to be met (if only at a basic level) for everyone who cannot meet those needs themselves.  The difficult area is deciding what level of needs should be provided by government (i.e. funded by taxation).  This debate is often expressed in terms of how much “subsidy” people are receiving from the state, to have their needs met.

 

Steve Hilditch has drawn attention to the inconsistent way in which the “subsidy” debate is held.  These days, government supporters who are keen on reducing public expenditure will talk about the thousands of pounds that some people receive each year in state subsidy.  This is usually to do with the cost of providing everybody with a very basic subsistence-level of income (welfare benefits) and the cost of ensuring people have shelter from the elements that is warm, dry and safe to live in (housing benefits).  The amount of “subsidy” provided is then calculated by reference to market rates – how much money the state is paying, because the household is unable to meet their needs themselves.  So, the housing “subsidy” the household receives per annum is the difference between the social/affordable rent charged and what the market rate would be.  For welfare benefits, it is simply how much money is paid by the state (as the state wouldn’t have to pay anything if the household was earning a living wage in the marketplace).

 

The inconsistency is that the debate about the National Health Service, the educational system, the police, the Armed Forces etc is never held in these terms.  We don’t hear Ministers talking about subsidising the family of each schoolchild by reference to local private school fees, or the amount of subsidy provided to household using the NHS as being the cost of using private GPs or hospitals.  And we certainly don’t have this same logic applied to Armed Forces expenditure – it becomes quite bizarre.  Is the alternative privately-resourced way of meeting our security needs to club together and hire G4S?  And where would we collectively want them to fight and for how long?  The mind boggles.

 

So why the difference approaches to the debate about “subsidy”?  Is it because we think that it is realistic that individuals and households can sort out some of their needs themselves, whilst recognising that other needs really do need collective endeavour?  We should all be able to find a job, but we can’t all have a rifle and helicopter gunship?  We should all be able to pay for a home, but we can’t all be expected to be educated by family and friends?

 

There is something in this, of course.  It is a reasonable way to decide a suitable boundary between public and private provision – if used sensitively.

 

So what about housing?  It spans 4 out of 5 levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy.  Rooflessness compromises someone’s physiological needs.  Damp, dangerous and/or overcrowded accommodation compromises safety and security needs.  Being forced by public agencies to live away from friends and family (moving from London to Wolverhampton?) compromises our love/belonging needs.

 

Why is something so fundamental to everyone’s needs apparently so contentious?  Why isn’t the provision of reasonable-quality housing at a price affordable by households a nailed-on, taken-as-read duty of government in the same way as is the provision of a reasonable quality healthcare system, civil and criminal justice system, food and water etc?

 

It baffles me.  And to add insult to injury, the current terms of the housing “subsidy” debate is designed to imply a distinction between the deserving and undeserving.  Just in case failing to address the bottom three levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy wasn’t enough, this lobs in an attack on the fourth level: self-esteem.

Flagship get new Design Brief

Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

We are delighted to have been commissioned by Flagship Group to help them update their Design Brief.

We have a strong track record in this area, having authored the National Housing Federation’s Standards & Quality in Development, Achieving Building for Life for the HCA, and many design guides for housing associations.

An effective Design Brief is a key tool in ensuring that housing associations get the quality that they require, balancing flexibility and kerb appeal with long-term maintenance responsibilities.

As well as setting requirements for the design team, it can act as a training and support tool for Development and Regeneration staff who are less experienced in design issues.

We look forward to helping Flagship Group strike the balance that is right for them.

Next Introductory Certificate in Project Managemet course – details here.

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

Our next Introductory Certificate course is October 22/23rd  2014.  For more details and to BOOK YOUR PLACE click here.

For more details on the Nov / Dec 2014 edition of the  Project Management for Affordable Housing Development: Theory & Practice course that provides the professional qualification APMP, click here.

If you are looking for property development courses……

Course Details

We are in the process of publishing all course details on our website. In the mean time please contact us for further information.

×
Conditions Of Application

All prospective students must read the following conditions before submitting the application form.

  1. Once a student is accepted onto the course, fees are not refundable in part or in total unless the course is cancelled by HATC in which case a full refund will be provided.
  2. HATC reserves the right to make minor change lecture times, venue or other arrangements but will advise students in advance of the course date.
  3. The course fee includes the examination fee for one attempt at the APM IC exam. If the student wishes to re-take the exam there will be an additional charge. Such charges will be reasonable, and will be set on the basis of HATC’s cost-recovery only.
  4. The above conditions will be subject to interpretation in English law courts.

 

×