No description available.

No description available.

Regardless of housing backlog and rapid urbanization created by population growth, the promotion of Self-Help Housing by authorities in charge of housing and policy documents1, there is a limited used of Self-Help Housing in South Africa. In pursuing the Self-Help Housing debate, this research argues that the failure to implement a widespread use of Self-Help Housing is not directly linked to weaknesses of Self-Help Housing. Instead, the difficult access to land for urban poor households, the ignorance from households of their right of having access to adequate shelter, the attitude of dependency evident in households, the paternalistic attitude from the government, the failure to constitute an active community and the failure to establish real priorities of poor people are the main causes of the limited use of Self-Help Housing in South Africa. Tembisa, one of the South Africa’s Townships, is used in this research for the purpose of illustrating the unsuccessful implementation of Self-Help Housing, adopted in South as People Housing Process (PHP).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [143]-150).

Thesis advisor: David Rasmussen / When is political power legitimate? Public reasons liberals argue that political power is legitimate only when it is supported by reasons drawn from principles of justice that each citizen could endorse. The most well known model for identifying whether a principle satisfies this requirement is John Rawls’ idea of an overlapping consensus. Typical interpretations of the idea of overlapping consensus hold that it expresses a necessary conceptual condition of any reasonable conception of justice. Against this ahistorical view, my analysis shows that Rawls’ mature account of overlapping consensus rests on a particular historicist thesis that liberal institutions are necessary for social cooperation given the presumption of moral and religious pluralism. The authority of public reasoning ultimately rests on a widespread consensus about the necessity of liberal institutions, rather than on a consensus on any particular conception of justice. The limits of public reason, on my analysis, are fixed first and foremost by liberal institutions. Given the prominent historical role of classical liberalism in specifying and defending liberal institutions, one might suppose that classical liberal conceptions of justice would have a central place in any consensus that defines the boundaries of public reasoning. I argue that this appearance is misleading. The work of scholars in disability studies show that conceptions of justice must be sufficiently sensitive to the unique needs and interests of citizens with disabilities. I argue that applying these insights to the idea of public reason shows that classical liberalism can satisfy the requirements of public reason only by unjustly ignoring the perspective of disabled citizens I show that Rawls’ model of public reason rests on a nuanced and historically grounded view of the consensus circumscribing public reason. Further, it shows that a historically conditioned concept of public reason and political legitimacy need not imply a drastic retreat from central egalitarian commitments, despite initial appearances to the contrary. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Restorative justice emerged in the western world as an alternative to the existing retributive penal system. An alternative that no longer relied on lawyers and judges to resolve criminal matters and community disputes, but rather empowered victims, offenders, and community members to do justice themselves. Throughout the past thirty years restorative justice has distanced itself from the traditional criminal justice system by focusing on repairing the harm caused by an offence rather than charging an offender for committing a crime against the state. This study focuses on the institutionalization of restorative justice. Specifically, this thesis conducts a content analysis of five Canada institutionalized restorative justice programs with the purpose of answering one primary research question. This question asks: are institutionalized restorative justice programs within Canada structured to reflect the core values of restorative justice? In order to answer this question, this thesis analyzes all the available textual documents pertaining to the five selected restorative justice programs for evidence of core restorative justice values and values associated with the co-opting institution, the retributive criminal justice system. This thesis concludes that yes, the five analyzed restorative programs are structured to reflect the core values of restorative justice. Although, the programs are also structured to reflect the core values of the current political ideology of neo-liberalism.