A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Development Studies in the Department of Anthropology and Development Studies at the University of Zululand, South Africa, 2014. / The question of basic housing for the poor majority of the world’s population remains a festering global development challenge given the plethora of housing delivery models which abound. In South Africa, the capital subsidy scheme and the comprehensive plan for the development of sustainable human settlements are the dominant policy models that the post-apartheid government has used to deliver low-cost housing for poor South Africans. While it has recorded some successes, records show between 1994 and 2013, the housing backlog actually doubled and housing targets have never been met. The rapid proliferations of slums and informal settlements as well as widespread protests over housing are indicators of the failures of housing delivery in South Africa. This study therefore sought to critically assess the effectiveness of the existing housing delivery models/mechanisms in KwaZulu-Natal with a view to develop an alternative approach for low-cost housing delivery in the province. Using a triangulation of research approaches, data collection methods and analysis, the study did an extensive review of secondary and primary literature, surveyed 173 respondents and conducted 27 key-person interviews in two District Municipalities (Uthungulu and eThekwini) in the province. The study found that the capital subsidy scheme which is largely market-centered has not only failed to house the poor in the study areas, but has also perpetuated poverty as ownership of houses has not contributed to enhancing and sustaining livelihoods. The comprehensive model which was an improvement over the capital subsidy scheme has also failed in this regard. At the core of this challenge is the top-down nature of these models which exclude the vital contributions of the beneficiaries. The consequence of this exclusion is a misplaced conceptualization of what housing means to the poor in terms of sustainable livelihoods. Generally, the study revealed that non- integration of all capital assets such as individual economy, financial capital, social capital and natural capital in housing delivery projects, will not translate into the growth of the poor. The study therefore highlighted the need for and proposed an alternative housing delivery model that is inclusive, transparent, area-focused and evidence-based. This comprehensive participatory model integrates all capitals necessary to develop and capacitate the poor as it appropriates their economic/financial capital, social capital and natural capitals. It aims to build and enhance poor people’s livelihoods, and therefore address challenges such as poverty and unemployment. The model focuses on enhancing the current delivery systems. Apart from the proposed participatory model, the study makes a number of specific policy recommendations to facilitate the proposed model which include the following; first, participatory processes such as the IDPs at local municipal levels should be used to facilitate people’s participation in the whole process, from conception, planning, implementation and evaluation. Second, participation from site demarcation and in land use allocation and allocation of housing units by the poor themselves is recommended to help curb corrupt practices around allocation. Third, employment creation should be factored into the location of housing. This should be treated as part of the planning process not an after-thought or ‘add-on’ type of activity. Fourth, housing planning and implementation should be evidenced-based to be meaningful. The KwaZulu-Natal Research Forum in collaboration with the Department of Human Settlements and Statistics South Africa conduct regular research into housing needs, requirements and their relationship to sustainable livelihoods before embarking on building and delivering houses. Lastly, the Department of Human Settlements in collaboration with Provincial and Municipal governments should conduct regular post-occupancy evaluation as it