Algeria's Socialist Villages - A Reassessment

Algeria's Socialist Villages - A ReassessmentAuthor(s): Keith SuttonSource: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jun., 1984), pp. 223-248Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/160550 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 18:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheJournal of Modern African Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.156 on Fri, 9 May 2014 18:23:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/160550?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Journal of Modern African Studies, 22, 2 (I984), pp. 223-248

Algeria's Socialist Villages - a Reassessment

by KEITH SUTTON*

I T is generally acknowledged that a policy of agrarian reform involves much more than the mere redistribution of land to obtain an equitable system of production. A parallel and essential supporting range of

complementary institutions usually need to be reorganised at the same

time, concerned with credit, marketing, extension, and settlement, so that they can further rather than constrain and negate the reform. The old skewed land-holding structure, especially if involving latifundia estates, has probably contributed to a particular pattern of rural settlement that is quite inappropriate to cope with the more equitable distribution of land, unless large private estates are directly converted into state or multi-member farms. The beneficiaries of reform frequently need resettling on or near their newly-acquired land, and associated

co-operative agencies for equipment, inputs, and marketing, together with programmes to provide basic social and commercial services, may well call for a nucleated form of settlement to be created.

While advocating the need for such a policy as part of agrarian reform, E. H. Jacoby is aware that 'the history of settlement reflects an endless waste of human and material resources'.1 Recognising that such

planning is fraught with difficulties, this author asserts the need for

flexibility to meet varying and changing demographic, economic, and

technological conditions. In different but related contexts, others have warned against the dangers of dependency and rejection if the planned resettlement involves the drastic redrawing of spatial structures and

living environments.2 While Algeria's post-I97I programme of land redistribution reflected awareness of the need to create new settlements, the resulting 'socialist villages' have paralleled the wider agrarian reform in meeting with problems and shortfalls.

* Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of Manchester. 1 Russell King, Land Reform: the Italian experience (London, I973), ch. i; and E. H. Jacoby, Man

and Land: thefundamental issue in development (London, 197I), p. 278. 2 Thayer Scudder, 'The Human Ecology of Big Projects: river-basin development and

resettlement', in Annual Review of Anthropology (Palo Alto), 2, I973, pp. 45-6I; and Keith Sutton, 'Population Resettlement - Traumatic Upheavals and the Algerian Experience', in The Journal of Modern African Studies (Cambridge), 15, 2, June 1977, pp. 279-300.



In April I972, President Houari Boumedienne laid the first stone at Ain Nehala to inaugurate an ambitious programme of 'socialist

villages', the most significant modification of the Algerian rural settlement system to be embarked upon since independence in I962. With over a decade of results, experience, and research studies, there is now scope for a reassessment of the whole project, not least by Algeria's planners and others actively concerned with the settlement

consequences of agrarian reforms and other rural development initiatives in the Third World. To what extent have these new and superficially quite impressive 'socialist villages' succeeded in meeting the complex of objectives demanded of them? Alternatively, have they proved to be another example of well-intentioned but ill-informed and misguided rural planning, employing large-scale generalised solutions to solve

diverse, variegated, and intricate problems?

ORIGINS AND AIMS OF THE PROGRAMME TO BUILD

I000 SOCIALIST VILLAGES1

The origins of the ' Iooo villages' programme lay in an integrated

agrarian reform promulgated in late 1971, whereby an improved

pattern of settlement was seen as an essential part of a wider restructuring of Algeria's rural economy and society.2 The main aim was to provide technical bases for agricultural production, as well as centres for both

the collective activities of the community and the social life of individuals and their families. More generally the need for socialist villages stemmed from two urgent problems brought to light by the agrarian reform. Firstly, surveys showed the poor standards of housing and

services endured by many recipients of reform land. Secondly, the excessive distance between their newly allocated land and their original homes severely restricted many beneficiaries from participating fully in

cultivation.3 Sometimes the lack of suitable local candidates for the

reform land, as in the Mitidja and Annaba plains, necessitated the

transfer of landless peasants from other distant regions, like the

Ouarsenis, and they obviously required new villages urgently. 1 Nadir Boumaza, 'Politique de l'habitat rural et amenagement du territoire en Algerie', in

Societe Languedocienne de geographie. Bulletin (Montpellier), IO, I, 1976, pp. 33-52; Gerard Maurer, 'Les Villages socialistes en Algerie', in Equipe de recherche associee No. 706, Urbanisation et nouvelle

organisation des campagnes au Maghreb (Poitiers, 1979), Centre interuniversitaire d'etudes

mediterraneennes, Fascicule de recherche No. 5, pp. I05-16; Georges Lepoul, 'ooo1000 Villages socialistes en Algerie', in Maghreb-Machrek (Paris), 77, I977, pp. 40-8; Abdellatif Benachenou, L'Exode rural en Algerie (Algiers, 1979), pp. I08-26; and Keith Sutton, 'The Socialist Villages of

Algeria', in Third World Planning Review (Liverpool), 4, 3, 1982, pp. 247-64. 2 Commision national de la revolution agraire, Instruction relative a l'ilaboration dunprojet de carte

dimplantation des villages de la revolution agraire (Algiers, 1972), pp. 2-3. 3 Sutton, 'The Socialist Villages of Algeria', pp. 249-50.

224 KEITH SUTTON



ALGERIA S SOCIALIST VILLAGES

In the early I970s, official statements on this new rural settlement

policy stressed three objectives. Firstly, demographic growth had resulted in a serious shortage of houses in rural areas, which the socialist

villages would help to lessen both numerically and in terms of coast- interior imbalances. The I ,297,314 rural buildings recorded in the 1977 census amounted to 58-7 per cent of the national total, and they housed a population of o00o7 million at an average density of 7-8 per dwelling. Secondly, the socialist villages would form poles of modernisation in rural areas with their infrastructure, including piped water and elec-

tricity, and new rural services, such as schools, mosques, and clinics. In

I977, only 20'7 per cent of rural houses in Algeria were connected to

piped water, only 13-15 per cent were linked to a sewerage system, and

only 25* I per cent were attached to the electricity network, all

comparing unfavourably with figures of above go per cent for dwellings in the metropolitan centres. As well as modernising previously poorly equipped rural areas, the policy would open up rural markets for consumer durables, such as furniture and television sets. Thirdly, it was

expected that the improved articulation of the rural economy and its

society would transform the attitudes of peasants, and make them more

favourably disposed towards communal-group activities related to

production and social organisation.1 In view of these wide-ranging aims and the ambitiously large scale

of the programme, the socialist villages met with some early doubts and criticisms. One early source of these was the expression of peasant individualism revealed by a survey of reform beneficiaries published in

1975.2 When asked about their ideal form of settlement, 71 per cent of a sample wanted to live in a small centre of less than 20 houses, and 29 per cent of those preferred an isolated dwelling. Such individualistic attitudes threatened to be at variance with the collectivism of a nucleated village. Moreover, the socialist villages represented a rather urban view of rural settlement in terms of their size and compactness. Doubts were also felt about the imposition of a national approach that failed to allow for the expression of regional variations in form and pattern.

In conformity with this 'centre-down' strategy, it was suggested by Georges Lepoul that the local socio-economic planning report at the

1 Philippe Adair, 'Economie politique de l'habitat rural: les "villages socialistes" algeriens', in Espaces et societes (Paris), 4I, 1982, pp. 39-49. Also Commissariat national aux recensements et enquetes statistiques, Recensement general de la population et de l'habitat, i977. Tableaux et premieres analyses globales (Algiers, 1978), Serie B, Vol. i, pp. Ix6-17.

2 Association Algerienne pour la recherche demographique economique et sociale, Etude socio-Iconomique sur les attributaires de la premiere phase de la revolution agraire (Algiers, 1975), pp. 259 and 364-

225



KEITH SUTTON

200- / / / 20,000

100- / / / -10,000 l e/ /Villages

under - / / ^^ '^^_^construction

/ Villages completed

0 -- , , , , O0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981

FIGURE I. Construction Plans and Progress, 1973-82

commune level was little more than a formality. Consequently the likelihood existed of poor sites being chosen by external authorities and

remaining uncorrected by local officials, who ought to have been in a better position to relate the proposed new village to the reform land and to other established rural settlements.1 One early complaint focused on the way that the styles of the new houses and the forms of the nucleated

villages separated families from their livestock, as this deprived them of self-produced meat, especially sheep, for various religious and family events. Urban values and hygiene standards, together with an emphasis on co-operative rather than individual farming, brought hardships by tying people unnecessarily to the general inflationary prices for meat and other purchases.2

1 Lepoul, loc.cit. pp. 42-3. 2 Francois Burgat, 'Villages socialistes algeriens a l'6preuve des realites', in Maghreb-Machrek,

86, 1979, p. 57.

226



ALGERIA'S SOCIALIST VILLAGES

There were early criticisms particularly about the slow progress made in construction. An initial stage of 300 villages was foreseen in the Second Four-Year Plan, I974-7, and by late 1976 the target seemed attainable when 222 villages were registered - see Figure I. However, only 60 had been completed by November 1976, with building taking between 18 to 30 months. So, the programme soon fell behind target as administrative slownesses, as well as the lack of building materials and skilled workers, all contributed to slow down the rate of construction.

Consequently the overall impact on the living standards of Algeria's rural population could be deemed as insignificant. Only o-6 per cent of them had benefited from houses in the socialist villages by I977, and this figure would rise to only 5 per cent if all 300 were completed, or to around I 5 per cent if the hypothetical I ooo in the programme's initial title ever became a reality.1

It was soon evident that the costs of construction for each house were

greater than forecast. The initial estimate of 20,000 dinars per unit had risen to as high as 50,000 dinars by I977.2 Further criticisms centred on the poor standards of workmanship, while dampness and the

frequency of cracked plastering were exacerbated by the difficulties met when seeking repairs from the commune authorities.3 Other doubts were

expressed about the possibility that house types and nucleated peri-urban settlement forms would conflict with traditional rural value-systems. In

particular, not all extended families living in dispersed douars welcomed the prospect of being accommodated in two or three-roomed houses in a

compact new settlement.4 In addition, apart from a combination of negative reactions and lack of remedial adjustments, the changing values and experiences created new wants that were incapable of being satis- fied from the inadequate wage levels of co-operative agriculturalists.5

While admitting to some of these problems, the improvement in living conditions for the co-operators now housed in the villages was undeniable, and FranCois Burgat found few expressions of regret for their old ways of life.6 In a similar study of socialist villagers in 1974, Cherif Benguergoura recorded fair levels of satisfaction on the part of formerly landless agricultural labourers and share-croppers, but reactions were less favourable from reform beneficiaries who previously had been small-holders or tenant farmers.7

1 Lepoul, loc.cit. pp. 43-6. 2 Ibid. p- 44- 3 Burgat, loc.cit. p. 58. 4 Lepoul, loc.cit. p. 44. 5 Keith Sutton and R. I. Lawless, 'Population Regrouping in Algeria: traumatic change and

the rural settlement system', in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (London), 3, 3, 1978, P- 348. 6 Burgat, loc.cit. p. 60.

7 Cherif Benguergoura, 'Villages socialistes et perception des paysans', in Libyca (Algiers), 24, 1976, pp. 241-9.

227



KEITH SUTTON

TABLE I

The Socialist Villages Programme, I973-8I1

Villages Dwellings

Under

Completed Construction Planned Completed Planned

I973 November o ? 43 ? ?

I975 4I 77 170 4,800 ?

1976 November 60 ? 222 I4,239 37,287

1978 December 90 56 342 15,871 57,742

1979 July 120 70 + ? ? ?

1980 December 127 204 402 26,862 68,432 1981 June 132 224 420 30.641 70,435

1981 December I7Ia 202 430 32,46I" 71,866

a The original data contained no figures for the wilaya of El Asnam, now re-named Ech-Ch6liff. The official explanation was that the socialist villages here had been destroyed in the October 1980 earthquake, but since it is likely that not all houses had totally collapsed and that some damaged villages may have benefited, along with other settlements there, from the rapid building of temporary housing, the data for December i 981 have been supplemented by El Asnam figures from the June 1981 source of information.

An official at the Service de 1'habitat rural of the M.P.A.T. in Algiers informed the author in April 1983 that, in fact, two villages near El Asnam had been destroyed in the earthquake. But elsewhere people had continued to inhabit their dwellings if these had not been too badly damaged, and prefabricated buildings had rehoused the inhabitants of the two villages which had suffered most destruction.

THE PROGRAMME S ACHIEVEMENTS BY I98I

From the inauguration of the first socialist village in April 1972 only the modest total of 171 had been completed by the end of I981. With another 202 recorded as under construction, and 57 more registered or inscrits, but not commenced, that amounted to a planned programme of 430 socialist villages underway out of the initial target of I000ooo.

As the list of sources for Table I indicates, the above statistics come from a variety of ministries and their sub-divisions, and this creates a

degree of divergence in national and regional totals. However, the

general trend of steady progress in house-building and village comple- tions is evident. Assuming an average family of 6-7 people, the 32,461

completed dwellings in 1981 housed between I95,000 and 227,000.

1 Sources: 1973-Adair, loc.cit. pp. 42-3; 1975-data supplied by Comedor, Algiers, in

September 1976, also Adair, loc.cit. p. 42; 1976 - Benachenou, op.cit. p. I I0; 1978 - Commission

nationale de la r6volution agraire, Situation physique des villages socialistes agricoles (Algiers, 1978);

1979 - Maurer, op.cit. p. 107; 1980 - Direction generale des statistiques, L'Annuaire statistique de

l'Algerie, I98o (Algiers, 1982?), p. 67; I98I - Ministere de l'Agriculture et de la Reforme Agraire, Etat de realisation des villages socialistes. Situation au 30-6-ig98 (Algiers, 1981), and Ministere de

l'Habitat et de l'Urbanisme, Habitat rural. Bilan physique arret! au 31.12.i98i (Algiers, 1982).

228




The 430 villages planned so far could perhaps eventually accommodate about half a million people, a not inconsiderable rural total. On the other hand, Philippe Adair stresses that this programme has never formed anything more than a minor section of the national policy for rural settlement, with auto-construction or private building accounting for

64 per cent of the rural houses built by the end of 1979, compared with half that figure in the socialist villages.1

In 1972 the first phase of 100 new villages was added to the 1970-3 national development plan then underway, while a further 300 were scheduled to follow during the period 1974-7. Although this implies an annual target of 65-80 villages, Adair suggests the higher figure of

8o-Ioo.2 In the event, less than 20 villages a year have been completed on average during the nine years, 1972-81. This average might be deemed higher in view of the fact that the programme was launched

part way through 1972, and that by the end of I 98 I another 200 villages were in various stages of construction. If all the latter were completed by the end of 1983 that would increase the yearly average to 34 villages, still well below the earlier target. Up until 1978-9 the number at the

planning stage increased at a steady rate, but thereafter the Ioo1000

programme appears to have faltered at around a total of 400. A similar comment could be made about the major shortfall in the number of

dwellings. In terms of geographical distribution, Figure 2 and Table 2 demon-

strate that while completed villages are present in all wilayate except Tamanrasset in the Sahara, several regional concentrations and dispar- ities have emerged. Higher numbers are to be found, or are under construction, in those wilayate with extensive agricultural areas, notably in the High Plateaux and Steppes, but also in the Tell, including Annaba and Tizi Ouzou. These also tended to be the regions wherein most of the redistributed agrarian reform land is to be found.3 In relation to population density, Adair considered that the High Plateaux and Steppes have been favoured so far in the allocation of socialist

villages.4 A further regional disparity appears to favour Western Algeria, with

the wilayate of Tiaret, Saida, Sidi Bel Abbes, Tlemcen, and Bechar

together accounting for 30 per cent of 'registered' villages and 36 per cent of those completed. Elsewhere in Central and Eastern Algeria, concentrations of new settlements are found in Medea, Bouira, Biskra,

1 Adair, loc.cit. p. 43. 2 Ibid. p. 42. 3 Keith Sutton, 'Agrarian Reform in Algeria. Progress in the Face of Disappointment, Dilution

and Diversion', in Steve Jones, P. C. Joshi, and Miguel Murmis (eds.), Rural Poverty and Agrarian Reform (New Delhi, I982), ch. I5. 4 Adair, loc.cit. p. 44.

229



Socialist Villages [IE Completed ID Under construction

[E 'Registered'

FIGURE 2. Distribution of Socialist Villages, 1981

(-O 0

'-I PH H 0-

z cn C-1 0-j 0-3 0

Saida



Number of dwellings --- 7,000

- 5,000 -- 3,000

-- 1,000 -- 300

f Completed by late 1981

= Under construction

<) Registered-yet to be started

N tI4

tTi

CA

m?

t'l

*.4

W

t'l

tII4

3?

tZl cn

FIGURE 3. Construction of Dwellings, 1981



KEITH SUTTON

TABLE 2

Regional Distribution of Socialist Villages and Dwellings, 31 December i9811

Villages Dwellings

Under Code-wilaya Completed Construction Planned Completed Planned

01 i Adrar 02 El Asnam/Ech-Chelifh 03 Laghouat 04 Oum el Bouaghi 05 Batna o6 Bejaia 07 Biskra o8 Bechar 09 Blida

0o Bouira 11 Tamanrasset 12 Tebessa I3 Tlemcen 14 Tiaret 15 Tizi Ouzou I6 Alger 17 Djelfa i8 Jijel 19 S6tif 20 Saida 21 Skikda 22 Sidi Bel Abbes

23 Annaba

24 Guelma 25 Constantine 26 Medea 27 Mostagamem 28 M'Sila 29 Mascara

30 Ouargla 31 Oran

2

6 1

2

4 2

8 9 5

10

0

2

I5

I I

10

3 I

4 7

I4

I

12

13 3 2

8 4 3 3 2

4

I 7 9 9 6

9 I

8

7 3 5

10

i6 2

I

6 5

I 2

8 I0

I I

I4 I

10

4 5 6 3 2

2 250

25 I,7I4

Io0 306

14 I,04I

13 905 4 324

I7 1,249

II I I,9I

13 883

i9 1,483

3 o 8 256

27 2,365 36 2,438 13 1,263

5 367 2 4 I I

10 1,085 1 2 979

31 1,603 10 353

23 1,786

29 3,285

17 525

5 730

25 1,48I

9 88o 9 834

I 0 604

I2 545 6 456

Total 171 202 430 32,46 7 ,866

a El Asnam suffered serious earthquake disasters in I954 and I980, and it is hoped that the new name

of Ech-Cheliff will bring a change of luck for the wilaya and its inhabitants.

Guelma, and Annaba wilayate, with Tizi Ouzou also outstanding in terms of completed construction. Rather low numbers of villages are evident in the wilayate of Constantine, Bejaia, and Djelfa. According to

Adair, within each wilaya there has been a more rapid rate of village 1 Source: Habitat rural. Bilan physique arrete au 31.12.1981.

300

4,310

1,794

3,800

I,974 674

2,558

2,010

2,403

2,624

440 1,293

4,083

6,700

1,831 864 450

i,6io 1,832

2,807

1,640 3,402

6,134

3,864 760

3,73 I,785

I,750

1,604 2,059

780

232




building away from the major regional centres. Small interior towns and more isolated regions appear from Figure 3 to have benefited particularly, not apparently from any deliberate decentralisation policy, but rather as a result of high land prices and lack of spare construction

capacity near the main cities.3 The I 98 I data unfortunately do not give the precise location of each

village, merely grouping them into wilayate. An earlier I979 map and detailed analysis of location by Georges Maurer found concentrations of socialist villages in the rich alluvial plains, such as the middle and

upper Cheliff, the Soummam, Isser and Sebaou, and the hills of the

Trara, Tlemcen, Sidi Bel Abbes, and Dahra regions.2 Another concentration of five villages in the irrigated development of the Abadla plain in the northern part of Bechar should be noted.3 Also, the 1981 data

suggest a lot more villages than did Maurer's 1979 study for the wilayate of Annaba, Guelma, Biskra, Saida, Sidi Bel Abbes, and Tlemcen.

THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SOCIALIST VILLAGES PROGRAMME

As the 1981 interim results indicate, Algeria has embarked on a major exercise in social engineering to rehouse and resettle large numbers of rural families essentially existing at a peasant level of agriculture, albeit with more modern co-operative forms of organisation after the agrarian reform's redistribution of land. Such an example of rural settlement

planning has inevitably attracted much interest and study from social scientists both within and outside the country. One Algerian research body in particular has monitored both the wider agrarian reform programme and the creation of the socialist villages by means of a series of detailed surveys of those participating in the new production co-operatives and villages. This organisation became well known under the name L'Association Algerienne pour la recherche demographique, economique et social (A.A.R.D.E.S.) prior to changing its title in the late I970S to L'Institut national d etudes et sdanalyses pour la planiJication (IJ.N.E.A.P.). Its status as a research department within the Ministere de la planijication et de l'amenagement du territoire (M.P.A.T.), and its location at 15 Rue Hamani in the heart of Algiers, have remained the same, though a considerable turnover in staff has occurred.

Some early insights into the housing situation and expectations of recipients of reform land were afforded by the 1975 analysis of

1 Adair, loc.cit. p. 44. 2 Maurer, loc.cit. p. I I. 3 M-C. Martin, 'Perspectives de developpement en Saoura', in Maghreb-Machrek, 69, 1975,

Pp. 5I-60.

233



beneficiaries from the first phase of the agrarian reform.' This was followed by questionnaires given to samples of 50 inhabitants in each of I 2 socialist villages in 1977, and by studies of another seven locations.2

Abridged versions of some of these monographs have been published, often by the researchers involved.3 At least one of the A.A.R.D.E.S./ I.N.E.A.P. projects formed part of a wider piece of research for which

Djaffar Lesbet obtained his doctorate.4 Other scholars have written about their findings, notably Burgat, Maurer, Adair, and Fadela Haider.5

From the outset the programme fell behind its ambitious target. Although there were as many as 370 'registered' or planned villages by I979, the number completed had only reached I7I by the end of

19.8I . Both the costs of construction and the length of time to complete each were proving higher than initially estimated. For the I 4 'primary' or smaller villages in the I.N.E.A.P. sample, the average length of construction was 21 months, ranging from 8 to as much as 40 months.6

Building costs increased 250 per cent between 1973 and I976.7 Conse-

quently Lepoul's forecast that I,ooo villages would be completed by 1981, as a result of quicker progress during the anticipated Third Four-Year Plan, proved wildly over-optimistic, as did his estimate of

-5 million people living in these new settlements, about 15 per cent of the rural population.8

Although statistics for I982-3 are not yet available, it is to be hoped that many villages under construction fared better than Bou Halouane, near Bou-Medfa in the wilaya of El Asnam. This was being built by a

private firm which experienced such a shortage of cash that the project was halted although nearly completed. A handful of caretakers and

1 Etude socio-economique sur les attributaires de la premiere phase de la re'volution agraire. 2 A.A.R.D.E.S., Les Premiers villages socialistes - situation actuelle etperspectives (Algiers, 1978), and

Etudes sur les villages socialistes. Donnees socio-economiques et conditions de logement (Algiers, I978-9?). See also I.N.E.A.P., Villages socialistes et re'volution agraire. Les Problemes de l'emploi et des revenus

(Algiers, I98I), and Villages socialistes et systeme cooperatif. L'Avenir e'conomique des villages (Algiers, I982).

3 E.g. Ammar Touat, 'Villages socialistes et systeme coop6ratif. Reorganisation du proces de travail agricole et revalorisation du statut des paysans: le point de la situation actuelle', in I.N.E.A.P., Debats et critiques (Algiers), 3-4, I980, pp. I30-52.

4 See Djaffar Lesbet, 'La Politique des milles villages socialistes en Algerie', These de troisieme cycle, Instit d'Urbanisme de l'Acad6mie de Paris, I979, Vols. I and 2, and Les iooo villages socialistes en Algerie (Paris and Algiers, I983). The author gratefully acknowledges the loan by this scholar of his thesis, and the chance to discuss the A.A.R.D.E.S./I.N.E.A.P. research projects while in

Algiers in April 1983. 5 Burgat, loc.cit. and 'Des Villages pas comme les autres?', in Autrement (Paris), 38, I982,

pp. I87-94; Maurer, loc.cit. and Adair, loc.cit.; and Fadela Haider, 'Effets et limites de la

politique d'habitat en milieu rural', in I.N.E.A.P., Developpement rural et categories intellectuelles - le cas de la revolution agraire en Algerie (Algiers, c. I98I-2), pp. 77-92.

B Lesbet, op.cit. p. 208. 7 Adair, loc.cit. p. 42. 8 Lepoul, loc.cit. pp. 45-6.

234 KEITH SUTTON




inhabitants of adjacent private traditional houses watched over this

ghost village while the authorities sorted out the problem of organising a few more weeks of work to finish the job.1

There is no doubt that some villages were constrained by a poor choice of location, and although in theory each was the subject of a prior socio-economic study, Lesbet has doubts as to whether the authors ever visited the potential sites. The study for Zberboura village did not mention the presence of a chemicals factory a mere 500 metres away, a most unfortunate omission since the availability of paid employment, especially with wages several times greater than the income of land- reform beneficiaries, inevitably attracted some peasants away from their

production co-operatives. Generally, Lesbet is very critical of the way that studies neglected to examine local water supplies, or to consider the socio-economic characteristics and needs of the potential recipients of houses. In short, they amounted to little more than a posteriori justifications of decisions made in distant offices on limited information. As a result, nine out of 19 villages in the I.N.E.A.P. sample had been built wastefully on useful agricultural land, another five on ground which was too sloping or too exposed to the sun, three on unstable foundations, and two in swampy locations. Sometimes two or more of these defects applied to the same village.2 Thus, about half of those

questioned thought that their sites were unsuitable.

Regrettably the opinions and collaboration of the future inhabitants of the socialist villages were rarely sought by the authorities, so that

continuing criticisms have centred on the general lack of involvement

by the occupants in making decisions about their settlements. Lesbet records that participation in construction occurred in only six of the 19 villages in the I.N.E.A.P. sample, and then never for more than 25 per cent of their dwellings or other buildings.3 Similarly, Burgat found that those living in five socialist villages in the Constantine region had been

given a very limited opportunity to run their own settlements.4 The lack of consultation over types of houses has usually meant that

dwellings have been designed by technicians with limited knowledge of rural society. They have inevitably imparted their own cultural and urban values in the layout of the houses, the positioning of windows and doors, and the whole ordered morphology of each settlement which, as a result, has more in common with a suburban housing estate than with a functioning agricultural village. Indeed, Haider suggests that this lack of participation in design and construction has resulted in some

1 Field visit in April I983 by the author. 3 Ibid. p. 199.

2 Lesbet, op.cit. pp. I36-71. 4 Burgat, loc.cit. I979, p. 57.

235



desertion of both villages and reform land by beneficiaries.1 Other inhabitants have reacted with apathy, with a general disinterest in

everything outside their own homes, and this is only part of a wider absence of involvement in the activities of the agrarian reform movement.2 An I.N.E.A.P. survey of 67 production co-operatives showed that a large majority of the members were unaware of their

group's income, budget, or equipment purchases: 57 per cent declared that they had not been consulted in decisions over the choice of crops, reflecting a situation more akin to wage labourers than to co-operators.3

In view of this absence of participation it is not surprising that much criticism has focused on the unsuitability of both the types of houses and forms of settlement. This fault largely stemmed from the way the construction of each village became a uniform and standardised

operation, geared more to meeting the exigencies of a bureaucratic national programme than to accommodating the local needs and

regional idiosyncracies of a host of diverse settlement situations. Was it always necessary to concentrate reform co-operators in a centralised

village when all that was often needed was a more limited project to

improve housing, to erect service buildin-gs, and to bring in piped drinking water? At Aures-el-Meida, for example, the full norms of the construction programme were pursued, including a local government annexe, despite the village's location a mere three kilometres from the town of Ain Temouchent.

While the details of layout and of house type vary from village to

village, the highly concentrated form of each settlement, with straight, often quite wide roads, serried lines of identical houses, street lighting, a public square, and other service outlets, follows a standardised

package which makes each socialist village a very distinct and easily identified component of the Algerian rural-settlement system. The houses are always of only one or two, occasionally more, standardised

types, regardless of the varied size of families, some nuclear, others extended. For example, at Chebikia, 59 dwellings consist of two rooms, a 'bathroom', and a W.C., while another 6i have three rooms and a ' garage' - an inappropriate appendage that affords occupants an extra room. As Figure 4 shows, at Aures-el-Meida, two standard houses are available: 'Type A' has three rooms and an outbuilding across the

1 Haider, loc.cit. p. 87. 2 Keith Sutton, 'Agricultural Co-operatives in Algeria', in Yearbook of Agricultural Cooperation,

i98I (Oxford, I982), pp. I69-9o. 3 Ammar Touat, 'Le Cadre organisationnel du developpement agricole. Le Cas de la

revolution agraire en Algerie', in I.N.E.A.P., Developpement rural et categories intellectuelles, pp. I8-50.

236 KEITH SUTTON



ALGERIA'S SOCIALIST VILLAGES

4.0, 123 m

Type A ) Aures el-Meida

Type B

12-5 m

Inner courtyard 0 E 26 m2 g

w.c. 6 ?

? y i Kitchen 1

o _N--. _

Quter courtyard 80 m2

Outbuildingl

Maamora typi

Courtyard 88 m2

)> Bedroom J .

Kitchen /Room ,

Living room Bedroom l /Room I,I

10-7 m

Courtyard

e^ > Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom L /Room /Room /Room

FIGURE 4. Layout for Three Types of Houses

courtyard, while the slightly larger 'Type B' rearranges the same elements to provide for a second interior courtyard. At Maamora, the

simpler three-roomed house does not include a kitchen. For many beneficiaries the socialist villages represented a sharp break

with their indigenous style of settlement. The move to a mono-functional house, especially from a traditional dwelling adapted to local climatic constraints and to peasant agricultural activities, had a major impact on their way of life. They were confronted by a 'discontinuity of

modernity' that they could scarcely have envisaged. Lesbet is not the first to suggest that living conditions have not improved as much as

superficially would appear. Often the new houses have represented a

' .<t

5 rq

I

237



regression of standards of comfort as perceived by peasant families.1 Grievances have included the new building materials, especially unfamiliar concrete walls and floors, as well as the more concentrated and hence more public settlement form, lacking privacy for womenfolk. The

courtyards, if they existed, were usually less than half the size of those in traditional rural houses, yet they had to cope with the additional functions of stables and kitchen-garden plots, both of which had

generally been omitted by the authorities.2

Uniformity has been a keynote of the socialist villages, whether to achieve economies of scale or through a lack of imagination on the part of the planners. Little study appears to have been made into local construction materials or settlement types. Instead, uniform schemes were applied with little variety in the size of houses in each village. Hence an A.A.R.D.E.S. survey found that 57 per cent of families were

larger than the 'ideal' of six or less, for which the houses were designed.3 A couple of rare examples of villages containing dwellings with a variable number of rooms were Chebikia and El-Kennar, the latter

offering 54 with two rooms, 23 with three, and 25 with four. Elsewhere,

uniformity prevailed with only a few larger houses for officials, including teachers.4

The opportunity to use local and varied building materials was

usually ignored, again in favour of uniformity. In the A.A.R.D.E.S.

study, local materials had been used in only six of the 19 villages; for the rest, standardised blocks of concrete had been preferred, whatever the climatic conditions, local possibilities, or traditions.5 Lesbet deplored this 'frenzy for breeze-blocks' when local stone offered many advantages: a reduction in the transport costs of bringing in cement, a better

adaptability to prevailing climatic conditions, the local employment of

quarrymen and other workers, and familiarity with local materials so that people could easily correct faults in their houses. In addition, maintenance and extensions would be within the knowledge and the

budgets of beneficiaries.6 The concentrated form and peri-urban morphology of the socialist

villages represent a marked change from the spatial organisation of traditional settlements, especially the loose douars, or hamlet clusters, and dispersed dwellings. Houses were aligned and orientated according to a regular road layout, often in a manner quite alien to those used

1 Lesbet, op.cit. pp. 3I4-15; and Kamel Noui-Mehidi, 'The Peasants Point of View: an

experiment in Algeria', in African Environment (Dakar), 2, I-2, 1976, pp. I59-66. 2 Adair, loc.cit. p. 45. 3 A.A.R.D.E.S., op.cit. c. 1978-9, p. 38. 4 Ibid. 1978, p. 6. 5 Ibid. 1975, pp. 12-13. 6 Lesbet, op.cit. p. 317.

238 KEITH SUTTON




to traditional villages with their less formal morphologies and kinship groupings of houses. It has been argued that the urban builders and

designers projected their own value judgements on the peasants. This new form of economic and cultural domination is perhaps most

graphically demonstrated by the inclusion of external windows looking out on to the street, destined to remain closed and shuttered because of their total inappropriateness with respect to the privacy and culture of most rural Algerians.1 Also, the way in which rural houses were quite detached from the agricultural area, both in distance and in functional terms, lacking barns, sheds, or stables, further reflected the urban settlement model. The absence of old-style chimneys for traditional fires meant that new heating methods were necessary. Rural income levels, however, could not always pay for expensive electricity or bottle gas, and extra problems emerged of dealing with the winter cold in unfamiliar concrete houses.

Such difficulties have prompted reflections on alternative approaches to the concentrated villages. The settlement programme could have focused more on improving the pre-existing houses of reform co-

operators, especially when these were solidly constructed. Various primitive dwellings made of earth could have been replaced by stone, brick, or tile buildings, but at the same, familiar location, instead of always relocating and concentrating the rural beneficiaries,2 a fair number of whom, perhaps not surprisingly, were found not to have abandoned their former residences.

Some assessments of the socialist villages have been less critical. According to Burgat, the modern buildings did not have a traumatic effect on their new inhabitants and, despite some complaints about the lack of privacy and the inadequte number of rooms, he considers that most beneficiaries appreciated both the houses and the services available in the new settlements. His sample of villagers in the Constantine region expressed few regrets for their old ways of life.3

Burgat found no evidence that occupants had added extensions to the new houses, and only a few appeared to have been abandoned. According to the A.A.R.D.E.S. study, however, considerable improve- ments had been made, despite a reluctance to admit to modifications, as technically they were forbidden. Although it is hard to evaluate whether such changes are made as a positive form of adaptation or as a negative expression of rejection, many alterations suggested that the original buildings had been inappropriately constructed. Thus, the

1 A.A.R.D.E.S., op.cit. 1978, p. 28. 2 Haider, loc.cit. p. 82.

3 Burgat, op.cit. 1979, pp. 56-62.

239

9 MOA 22



KEITH SUTTON

kitchen was designed for an urban housewife to stand in front of a butane stove, whereas traditionally rural Algerian women often cooked in a seated position. So out of about 600 households in the sample, I44 had

rejected the purpose-built kitchen and set up a traditional oven in the

courtyard. Shortages of gas bottles have also encouraged an alternative mode of cooking.1 The interdiction on livestock, especially chickens, rabbits, etcetera, was ignored by upwards of 30 per cent of households who kept them in the restricted courtyard space. Many samples of

blocked-up external windows were found; indeed, the A.A.R.D.E.S.

report reckoned that 90 per cent were permanently closed, usually by shutters and curtains, and so might just as well not have been constructed. Some families had built walls within the interior courtyard and had destroyed their kitchen equipment, so as to create an extra room, and they then cooked in the courtyard. In addition, a disturbing number of repairs were noted despite the fact that most houses were less than two years old at the time of this survey.

Of course, the absence of modifications may not indicate that the houses were felt to be appropriate. Their alien nature may have been a deterrent, while changes might not only have been too expensive, but the villagers could have been worried about the reaction of the authorities. Certainly, some beneficiaries preferred to leave their new locations.2 Nearly 40 per cent deserted the socialist village of '8 Mai

I945', and their dwellings were allowed to deteriorate while those abandoned at Oum-Teboul were reoccupied without permission by local factory workers. At Guelta Zerga, 20 houses remained empty for three years after its inauguration, while others were occupied illegally by technicians.3

In another respect though, beneficiaries were becoming more closely tied to their villages as in time they acquired various urban consumer tastes and values. The initial embargo on animals and kitchen-gardens in and around the new houses helped to reduce the self-sufficiency of the peasants by linking them more closely with the exchange economy.4 They now worked to acquire modern furniture, such as mattresses, tables, chairs, and according to Lesbet, a curious status symbol, a wardrobe with mirrors, often purchased with money acquired from the sale of livestock, now banned from the village. The ownership levels of radios and television sets increased, the latter from 4 to 24 per cent.5 New domestic equipment inevitably generated recurrent expenses,

I A.A.R.D.E.S., op.cit. 1978, pp. 70-5- 2 Ibid. c. 1978-9, p. 130-

3 Ibid. 1978, PP. I8-20. 4 Adair, loc.cit. p. 46. 5 Lesbet, op.cit. pp. 40I-I2.

240




including maintenance and repairs. Incomes all too often, however, remained low, frequently just I70 dinars a month from the settling-in subsidy paid while the production co-operative started to get underway. A regrettable side-effect of more urban consumer values can be to devalue agricultural work, especially in the eyes of younger people.

A number of defects in the design of the new villages were of

particular concern to the women who came to live there. The unsuit-

ability of urban-style kitchens, as well as the lack of facilities for making small gardens and keeping chickens and other useful animals, have

already been mentioned. The A.A.R.D.E.S. survey found that often women had to expose themselves to the view of passers-by and

neighbours, unless their courtyard wall was raised with reeds or concrete. Indeed, the outside door often opened straight into the

courtyard, thereby enabling outsiders to look directly into the kitchen. So screens had to be erected because of this total neglect and misunder-

standing of what constitutes a private space in a traditional rural

Algerian house.1 Also some of the public services in a number of socialist villages were

thoughtlessly sited. At Maamora the hammam, or baths, were built next to the cafe, thereby restricting its use by women and girls who would be exposed inevitably to the view and comments of the male-only clientele there. Elsewhere shops have similarly been located without reference to traditional norms. More generally the services of the new villages benefit the men and the children. The lives of rural women have become much more restricted as they no longer have the social contacts involved in fetching water or fuel which now arrive at the house in pipes or bottles.2 The local availability of a mosque is often a major requirement for rural folk. Again no provision was made for women to attend, so they are excluded from religious as well as from economic life. As one women respondent asked rhetorically: 'Have we come here to live like prisoners? '3

The inhabitants of many socialist villages from the first days of their resettlement may well have had certain doubts. This followed from the frequently cosmetic inaugurations by national dignitaries, ranging right up to the President. Only the best equipped houses and facilities were displayed to visitors, and the beneficiaries, especially those with grievances, were kept well away. Local officials often hid the fact that the construction remained incomplete, and indeed, after the publicised ceremony, they sometimes failed to complete the programme. Alterna-

1 A.A.R.D.E.S., op.cit. 1978, p. 25. 2 Lesbet, op.cit. pp. 630-I. 3 Ibid. p. 534.

9-2

241I



tively, the last remaining houses were finished hastily before the opening and so were often full of faults, seldom corrected afterwards. On the

inauguration day the shops were well-stocked - even with bananas on one recorded occasion - but not thereafter; as for the telephones, they had been specially installed for the national visitors. The serious point is that the beneficiaries who witnessed this cosmetic facade were under no illusion for very long about the inadequacies of their accommodation.'

Successive detailed investigations of particular settlements repeatedly cite another failing; namely, that despite their origins, not all of their inhabitants are agrarian reform co-operators. In the sample of villages studied by A.A.R.D.E.S. and Lesbet, only 69 per cent of heads of households were attributaires, or recipients of reform land. A further 17 per cent had no direct connection with agriculture. A few would have been administrators or teachers, but many of those preferred to live elsewhere. So at least one in ten beneficiaries should not have qualified for a house.2 Hence the significance of the subtle change in name from

village agricole de la revolution agraire to village agricole socialiste, and then to village socialiste.3 A number of residents had quit their agricultural co-operatives for other employment, but they continued to occupy their allocated accommodation, technically an illegal act. Elsewhere, tenancies were granted to former guerrilla fighters or their widows, and then to officials quite unconnected with agriculture. At El Oudja in the

wilaya of Setif, only 55 per cent of houses were occupied by agricultural workers, and there were suggestions of 'clientelism' and dubious selection procedures.4

The growing importance of non-agricultural activities to the village economy reflects the failure to achieve the agrarian revolution's

objective of using the local work-force rationally so as to act as a brake on the rural exodus. Generally there remains a lack of related agricultural processing and craft-working units in the socialist villages. Hence very few women have paid employment. A.A.R.D.E.S. researchers found

that, on average, I 74 male members of all households were of working age, of whom 74 per cent were actually employed, albeit many on a

part-time or irregular basis. Indeed, it was discovered that only 58 per cent of the days available were actually worked. So serious under-

employment was added to high unemployment.5 The income levels in the socialist villages are low as a result of

1 Ibid. pp. 347-8. 2 Ibid. p. 354- 3 Lepoul, loc.cit. p. 46. 4 Adair, loc.cit. p. 47, and Burgat, loc.cit. 1979, p. 6i. 5 A.A.R.D.E.S. loc.cit. c. 1978-9, pp. 78-83.

242 KEITH SUTTON



ALGERIA S SOCIALIST VILLAGES 243

shortage of work and poor basic pay for agricultural production. The

average household income for the families of reform co-operators was found by A.A.R.D.E.S. to be 5,445 dinars a year, higher where there was intensive cultivation, but lower in steppe areas and even in zones of modern cereal farming. Many households had decidedly lower-

than-average incomes, being no longer supplemented from non-

monetary subsistence activities in this system of commercial rather than traditional peasant agriculture. The same survey found that only 9-5 per cent were producing craft articles, since resettlement had reduced this useful addition to household incomes which had emanated from the women's activities. In the sample villages, autogestion-based households

ranged from an average of 7,577 dinars per year to 9,654 dinars, according to agricultural zone, and this led to serious inegalities of income within the same village.1 A similar discrepancy between the

earnings of co-operators and those of autogestion workers was found by Georges Mutin in the Mitidja socialist village of Beni Chougrane- Tamesguida, where it was a source of divisiveness and grievance.2

It might have been expected, none the less, that at least the increase in the 'social wage' through improved access to services would be some

compensation. There is increasing evidence, however, that many of the facilities scheduled for each standard 'primary' village were not

actually functioning - see Table 3. Although there was a school, a clinic, and a mosque in all but one or two villages, few had an administrative office, a post-office, and public baths. The basic grocery was only functioning in I o of the 19 villages, while shops for bakers and butchers were found even less frequently. The villagers often left private traders to set up business in the purpose-built commercial centre, since they were better able to acquire the necessary stocks, albeit at higher prices than the co-operatives who met with bureaucratic problems in obtaining goods and credit from the state wholesalers and banks..

The degree of failure of the new settlements to act as service centres is indicated by the A.A.R.D.E.S. questionnaire survey in 12 socialist villages. Whereas only I -6 per cent of the sample went outside for clinics and 7-5 per cent for schools, as many as 41P1 per cent did for doctors, 55-9 per cent for post-office services, and 81 per cent for bakers and butchers. Obviously in several places all the inhabitants had to seek elsewhere a service that was not yet, or no longer, functioning there.3 Not only had many villages failed to meet the needs of their own

1 Ibid. pp. 85-92 and 126. See also Adair, loc.cit. p. 46. 2 Georges Mutin, 'Un Nouveau village socialiste en Mitidja: Beni Chougrane-Tamesguida',

in Urbanisation et nouvelle organisation des campagnes au Maghreb, p. I 24. 3 A.A.R.D.E.S., op.cit. 1978, pp. I96-8.



TABLE 3 The Provision of Services in i9 Socialist Villages1

.0 Q)~~~r (1(s S - -d ~ c, ! I I 1,1 II Illllttil

?cJ Ed~~~~O b - c: 21~~~~~~~~~~Zc

Services 0 z-I zO T Q E ;4 N ;4

School * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *

Clinic * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * x

Admin Office C X * 0 F * * 0 * * X - * * 0 0 Post Office * * * - F F - * * - - - * - * * 0 0

Mosque * ** * * * * * - * * * * 0 Hammam X 0 * F 0 X * F 0 * * 0 0 0 * X 0 c0 Cafe * * - F 0 * * * -* X - * - -

Food Shop X * * F 0 * * * X * * * X 0 X * 0 0 Bakers/Bread Shop - * * F 0 * X F 0 * * 0 * 0 0 z Butchers - * - F 0 * * - * -

Livestock Stables - F F- F - *- --* -

Equipment Sheds - * - F F- F - F?- -- * - * *

Public Hall X - * F 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 * 0 0

* Functioning. X No longer functioning. 0 Never functioned. C Used for another purpose. - Does not exist. F Forecast.

1 Source: A.A.R.D.E.S., Les Premiers villages socialistes - situation actuelle et perspectives, p. 138.




populations adequately, they had also fallen short of their wider

objective of acting as centres of exchange and service for the surrounding region. The lack of related agricultural industries and processing centres contributed to this shortcoming. Such activities seem to have been left to nearby pre-existing towns.1

Several of these criticisms illustrate the general point that the

programme of socialist villages has promoted urban practices and values in people who occupationally are agricultural and rural. Villagers have been placed in an unfamiliar housing situation which requires certain new consumer items, such as cupboards, chairs, and tables, without

having been provided with the financial means to acquire them.

Although their children now have the opportunity to attend school, the

application of a uniform syllabus, altogether too urban-oriented, can be questioned. By promoting urban values and, if only by neglect, by attributing negative images to rural occupations, the settlement and educational systems are in danger of devaluing agricultural work, especially amongst younger elements of village society. Too urban a solution to the housing and service problems of the land-reform beneficiaries could threaten the basic objective of the agrarian revolu-

tion, which was to improve levels of production and of social well-being in Algeria's rural sector.

CONCLUSIONS

Not all judgements on the socialist villages have been critical. Notably, Burgat has claimed that despite complaints, inadequacies, and problems, the primary objective of improving conditions of life has been achieved, and as evidence he invokes the rare abandonment of houses by recipients, and the few expressions of regret for their old way of life, except for the lack of livestock. Yet Burgat admits that new needs and wants have been created by the modern houses, and that without increased incomes these can lead to new frustrations and grievances.2 Amongst his villagers in the Constantine region, he found some demanding paid holidays like urban workers, surely suggesting markedly changed values and related problems for agricultural production in their co-operatives.

Writing three years later, Burgat admitted to some disenchantment with the settlement programme. Indeed, he went so far as to suggest that the totalitarian management approach and sudden change in living style resembled an earlier exercise in the disciplined allocation of space; namely, the centres de regroupement created by the French during

1 Ibid. pp. 65-70. 2 Burgat,; loc.cit. 1979, p. 60.

245



the I954-61 war of independence in Algeria. Certainly some parallels can be drawn between the two rural settlement schemes despite different origins and a 20-year time gap.'

The possibility of similar reactions to quite different resettlement

experiences, one part of a counter-insurgency strategy, the other of a wider agrarian reform, was earlier postulated by Sutton and Lawless.2 The analogy was also made by Adair, focusing on the evidence of deracinement and depaysannisation experienced by individuals caught up in an exercise of relocating and concentrating a previously largely dispersed rural settlement.3 A more precise link was suggested by Lesbet, who found evidence that, quite often, drawings of villages from the I959 Plan de Constantine had been literally 'dusted off' and re-used by local

planners when asked to suggest sites and layouts for the new settlements. Hence the socialist villages were often on similar sites to centres de

regroupement, and occasionally adjacent to surviving centres, as at El Emir Abdelkader south of Beni Saf.4 Redundant elements of maps made in the late 1950s reappeared on village plans during the I970s, suggesting copying and adaptation.5

With increased criticism of the socialist villages has come speculation that the whole scheme will be abandoned. As this is proving to be so

expensive and not that successful, it may well be dropped along with the wider revolution agraire policy.6 Lesbet considers that the programme was effectively terminated in 1982, and that only those villages under construction will be completed, not the many still merely at the

planning stage.7 An alternative opinion, expressed by an official of the Ministere de la planification et de l'amenagement du territoire, was that the

programme was not being dropped but changed: a less concentrated

approach to the construction of new houses would be taken, perhaps locating hamlet-size settlements closer to agrarian reform lands.8

Increasingly, the building of new villages is being integrated into -

and, indeed, replaced by - a wider rural settlement policy of assisted

private house construction. While the state provides building materials and other aid, non-remunerated work is contributed by the future

inhabitants, a degree of participation never used previously. Theoreti-

1 Ibid. 1982, p. I90; and Keith Sutton, 'The Influence of Military Policy on Algerian Rural Settlement', in Geographical Review (New York), 7I, 4, 1981, pp. 379-94.

2 Sutton and Lawless, loc.cit. 3 Adair, loc.cit. p. 44. 4 Sutton, 'The Socialist Villages of Algeria', pp. 254-5. 5 Lesbet, op.cit. p. 636. Also interview with Lesbet at Bordj el Kiffan, near Algiers, in April I983. 6 Interview with Ammar Touat at I.N.E.A.P., Algiers, in April 1983. 7 Interview with Lesbet at Bordj el Kiffan. 8 Interview with Ait Ouada at M.P.A.T., Algiers, in April I983.

246 KEITH SUTTON




cally to help the under-privileged, these auto-construction projects appear to have mainly favoured the middle and upper strata of rural society, rather than the poorer reform beneficiaries.1 Certainly in recent offical

publications the results of the socialist villages programme are presented in the wider context of a rural strategy, which includes auto-construction and autogestion estate houses, as well as the extension of existing settlements.2

Several wider lessons emerge from the mistakes and shortcomings of

Algeria's socialist villages. The major fault was probably the lack of local

participation and collaboration in both design and construction. Instead of consultation over type of house and degree of concentration, a fairly uniform plan was imposed from above, with standardised materials and highly urban forms and norms. Technocrats 'doling out' modernity overlooked the fact that a village is more than a shelter: it has to replace a culturally adjusted home in a place full of significance and meaning for the reform beneficiary and his family. In comparison, the unfamiliar, highly nucleated socialist village, with its alien buildings and uniformity, possesses 'placelessness'.3 Not surprisingly, without

participation to bring about significant modification in design and a

feeling of involvement, there was from the beginning a real danger of

negative reactions on the part of villagers. As earlier criticisms have demonstrated, the beneficiaries could easily

have been consulted on the form of their dwelling, its area, the number of rooms, the placing of the kitchen, and the siting of windows and doors. A diversity of needs and attitudes could have been partly accommodated, so avoiding the uniformity mistakenly considered as showing equality.4 Participation at the design stage should have been followed by active involvement during construction. However, the technocratic choice of modern urban designs, materials, and processes served to preclude a

self-help approach and furthered the 'centre-down' paternalism of the programme.

This lack of participation promoted the second major failing which provides the lesson that socially and culturally more appropriate house types and settlement forms should be employed. If a construction programme is to promote rural well-being and foster agricultural production, it must not create urban values and tastes. That way is likely to lead to further rural-urban drift rather than stabilising rural populations on the basis of more productive and even innovatory

1 Haider, loc.cit. pp. 77-8. 2 L'Annuaire statistique de I'Algerie, i980, pp. 67-72.

3 Edward Relph, Place and Placelessness (London, I 976). 4 A.A.R.D.E.S. op.cit. 1978, pp. 57 and 199-2I3.

247



agricultural systems, backed up by appropriate and supportive settlement systems. The socialist villages and their houses were neither

appropriate for the co-operative agricultural economy nor for the

peasant household economy and life-style. The rural womenfolk, especially, suffered from an inappropriate peri-urban house and village environment. Although Algeria is renowned as a society dominated by males, their wives, daughters, and mothers have an important impact on the formation of attitudes within each family. A more judicious use of familiar and traditional designs, layouts, and materials would have

greatly improved the human dimension of the programme. Instead, an

altogether too technocratic approach was taken, which amounted to an extension of the country's urban-industrial development strategy deep into rural areas.1

A third general conclusion is to ensure that a mechanism exists for lessons to be learned from mistakes. The A.A.R.D.E.S. study bemoaned the lack of an official follow-up to check whether or not the new settlements were actually working as planned. Certainly there ought to have been budget allocations for the maintenance and repair of the socialist villages once completed, and there was clearly a need for a mechanism whereby the householders could start to look after their own affairs. Instead, they awaited further assistance from outside which often never arrived. The outcome of a 'centre-down' strategy is likely to be the induction of dependency attitudes with an over-reliance on centralised institutions and 'managers', rather than an innovatory and

participatory self-reliance. Meanwhile the programme still forges slowly ahead in Algeria,

seeking the spurious goal of a thousand socialist villages. On the way, qualitative targets represented by improved living standards and a

productive agrarian-reform sector of agriculture, as well as more

dynamic and better served rural regions, remain unachieved or at best under-achieved.

1 Lepoul, loc.cit. p. 47.

248 KEITH SUTTON



Documents

Algeria's Socialist Villages - A Reassessment