{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016722408026755852, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.507246376811594, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Collateral Damage? Transforming Subprime Slum Dwellers into Homeowners

Homeownership has been elevated to the position of a superior form of tenure, offering seemingly limitless benefits from capital gain to more abstract notions of security, empowerment and good citizenship. The international discourse on housing policy has mirrored this privilege, particularly evident with the celebration of Hernando de Soto and his promotion of formal property rights as the solution to global poverty. Formalisation schemes are said to provide a route to economic prosperity by transforming ‘slum dwellers’ into ‘homeowners’, offering a route to access formal credit and ending the undercapitalisation of the poor. Drawing on the example of de Soto-inspired MKURABITA titling scheme in Tanzania, this paper questions the favour of ownership policies in the Global South in the wake of the subprime crisis.