Accountability Relations in Social Housing Programs : : A Comparative Legal Analysis of Brazilian and Chilean Case Studies / / Mariana Vilmondes.

• Superior document: UA Ruhr studies on development and global governance
• VerfasserIn: Vilmondes, Mariana,
• Place / Publishing House: Berlin, Germany : : Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH,, 2022.
• Year of Publication: 2022
• Language: English
• Series: UA Ruhr studies on development and global governance.
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (529 pages) :; illustrations.

Institutional crises have been continuously imbedded in weak accountability. In Latin America, human rights' violations catalyze the outcomes of such crises. In the aim of understanding the housing crisis, this research evidenced a vicious cycle in Brazil and Chile: despite the creation of massive social housing programs, the lack of adequate housing particularly affects the most-poor due to weak accountability. The comparison of legal accountability relations in the urban social housing ownership models Minha Casa, Minha Vida, from Brazil, and D.S. 49, D.S. 1, and D.S. 19, from Chile, revealed several of those inconsistencies, but also advised on concrete solutions to their accountability relations inspired by the rights-based approach. Policies fall short on the organization of responsibilities to duty-bearers, whose weak obligations to inform, justify or respond neutralize concrete chances of enforcing redress or grievance. In such a scenario, this research showed that the most-vulnerable remain hindered from accessing the minimum existential and, particularly, adequate housing. The solution is obvious: the respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights must be used as means and goals of those or any other policies and institutional structures.

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations and Translation . xi -- List of Annexes viii -- List of Tables . ix -- List of Figures x -- 1. Introduction . xvi -- 1.1 The State of the Research3 -- 1.2 The Analytical Framework 11 -- 1.3 The Aims, Methods and Justification 14 -- 1.4 The Research Questions . 17 -- 1.5 Limitations to this Research . 19 -- 1.6 Overview of the Structure 21 -- 2 Theoretical Framework 27 -- 2.1 Accountability as a Concept 27 -- 2.1.1 Understanding accountability 28 -- 2.1.2 Subjects of the relation 31 -- 2.1.3 Issues with translation 35 -- 2.2 The Rights-Based Approach 37 -- 2.2.1 Understanding this rights-based perspective . 37 -- 2.2.2 Goals and operations 38 -- 2.3 The Right to Adequate Housing 40 -- 2.3.1 Understanding the right to adequate housing 41 -- 2.3.2 Legal guarantees to the most marginalized groups . 46 -- 2.3.3 Social housing programs as a mechanism to combat human rights violations 49 -- 2.3.4 Economic growth and costs . 50 -- 2.4 Accountability Relations in Social Housing Programs . 52 -- 2.4.1 Responsibility 52 -- 2.4.2 Answerability . 53 -- 2.4.3 Enforcement . 54 -- 2.5 Summary 62 -- 3 A Review: historical, political, socio-economic, legal and policy backgrounds 63 -- 3.1 Historical, Political and Socio-economic Background 63 -- 3.1.1 A historical look. 63 -- 3.1.2 Latest political developments 64 -- 3.1.3 Socio-economic trends . 67 -- 3.2 Administrative Law Review 70 -- 3.2.1 Administrative and public procurement procedures 70 -- 3.2.2 Principles of Administrative Law in Brazil and Chile 72 -- 3.2.3 Rights-based principles 75 -- 3.2.4 Theories of responsibility of the State . 77 -- 3.3 Housing Policy Review 80 -- 3.3.1 Chilean Housing Policy Review 82 -- 3.3.2 Brazilian Housing Policy Review 88 -- 3.4 Summary 95 -- 4 Dimension 1: Responsibility in social housing programs 97 -- 4.1 Beneficiaries . 97 -- 4.1.1 Legal definitions 98 -- 4.1.2 Vulnerable categories: FAR, FDS, D.S. 19 and D.S. 49 . 101 -- 4.1.3 Emergent categories: FGTS (1.5, 2 and 3), D.S. 1 and D.S. 19104 -- 4.2 Service Providers . 109 -- 4.2.1 Financial institutions 109 -- 4.2.2 Firms and business enterprises of the private construction sector 114 -- 4.2.3 Supporting entities . 116 -- 4.2.4 Other supporting agents . 122 -- 4.2.5 Frontline professionals . 124 -- 4.3 Government 125 -- 4.3.1 Ministries . 126 -- 4.3.2 Funds 127 -- 4.3.3 Coordination bodies . 130 -- 4.3.4 Local public entities . 133 -- 4.3.5 Decentralization and coordination . 134 -- 4.4 Others . 137 -- 4.4.1 Courts . 137 -- 4.4.2 Internal control organs . 137 -- 4.4.3 Internal participatory mechanisms . 138 -- 4.4.4 External control 139 -- 4.4.5 Quasi-judicial agencies 139 -- 4.4.6 Financial Councils . 140 -- 4.4.7 Ombudspersons 140 -- 4.4.8 Superintendencies 141 -- 4.4.9 National participatory councils 142 -- 4.4.10 Local consultative bodies 144 -- 4.4.11 Grass-root movements . 145 -- 4.4.12 Academy and research institutes . 147 -- 4.4.13 Media . 148 -- 4.5 Summary 148 -- 5 Dimension 2: Answerability in social housing programs 151 -- 5.1 Beneficiaries . 153 -- 5.1.1 Eligibility . 153 -- 5.1.2 Application . 166 -- 5.1.3 Selection . 174 -- 5.1.4 Rights-based critics 183 -- 5.2 Service Providers . 214 -- 5.2.1 Eligibility, Application and Selection . 214 -- 5.2.2 Rights-based critics 229 -- 5.3 Government 255 -- 5.3.1 Informing, responding and justifying 256v 5.4 Summary 259 -- 6 Dimension 3: Enforcement in social housing programs 265 -- 6.1 Beneficiaries . 266 -- 6.1.1 Exit and Sanctions . 266 -- 6.1.2 Access to grievance and redress by vulnerable groups . 277 -- 6.1.3 Control and Remediation . 286 -- 6.2 Service Providers . 303 -- 6.2.1 Exit and Sanctions . 304 -- 6.2.2 Control and Remediation . 309 -- 6.3 Government 316 -- 6.3.1 Exit and Sanctions . 316 -- 6.3.2 Control and Remediation . 320 -- 6.4 Summary 337 -- 7 Synthesis and Discussion . 341 -- 7.1 Responsibility in focus . 343 -- 7.2 Answerability in focus . 352 -- 7.3 Enforcement in focus . 372 -- 8 Conclusion 381 -- References . 387 -- Annexes 429 -- 7 Guiding Rights-based Principles . 518.