By Nimish Sany*
Problems with the Indian rental housing market are manifold. While private rental markets have never been free from government intervention, public rental housing projects have never been coherent with market realities. Consequently, the demand–supply mismatch in the rental housing market in India is enormous with policy inconsistency widening the gap.
As per the findings of the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage set up by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), there exists an unmet demand of 7 million rental housing units across Indian cities, but recent reports put it at 19 million. If these figures are indeed true, such a huge demand can never be met with public resources alone. The Public Rental Housing Estates (PRHE) of Kolkata stands a stark reminder of this. Around 20,000 rental housing units were built across the city during the 1970s to provide affordable housing to the large influx of migrant labour, using central and state resources. However, a rental structure disengaged from the market led to the infeasibility of the project. This, coupled with the lack of transparency in allowing these units to low-income groups kept the units from circulating to those in need, ultimately forcing the state government to discontinue the misadventure.
The inclusion of private sectors is necessary to meet the market demand for rental housing. However, the Public–Private Partnership (PPP) model should pose minimum risks for all parties involved. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority–Rental Housing Scheme (MMRDA-RHS) of 2008 is an example of a flawed PPP model that caused crores of taxpayers’ money to go down the drain. Private developers were to buy the land under this model, and incentives were given to the developers to balance this risk. But the shortage of housing stock and demand for luxury housing led to private developers misusing an incentive structure that was already unsound, resulting in poorly constructed structures that were uninhabitable. The most appalling of all was the oversight in leaving rental housing with MMRDA, which had no executive powers to implement several aspects of the PPP model. The Direct Relation Rental Housing (DRRH) model put forward by the MoHUPA in its Draft PPP for Affordable Housing in India, too, puts the risk of construction and rent collection on the private developer. Such a high-risk model would never attract private developers and governments should think twice before incentivising such models.
The requirements of affordable public rental housing do not stop at a stable PPP model. The regulatory environment should facilitate market dynamics in the rental market by revisiting the Rent Control Act. There exist vast differences in municipal tax structures and fees for civic services between owned and rented housing. Such regulations have an adverse bearing on the rental market and keep the pressure on public housing stocks. The immediate strategy should be to enable the market to utilise the existing housing stock completely to meet the rising demand.
The long-term strategy should be to approach public rental housing as a temporary housing solution under universal social security coverage. The principle should be to enable households to settle down and grow by utilising the social security assistance towards private rental markets. The HartzIV model for unemployment benefits devised in Germany was a hugely unpopular one, but had merit in reducing unemployment, owing to the assistance granted for a limited period and its allocation following a gradient along the individual’s efforts to secure employment. A similar model could be implemented with the public housing stock to keep the pressure off the market and circulate affordable rental housing units to the maximum number. As Milton Friedman points out in one of his lectures on public housing, the repeated failures of (public) housing projects show it is not the particular programme but the system that needs to be changed.
*Nimish Sany is Research Assistant at Centre for Public Policy Research. Views expressed by the author is personal and does not represent that of CPPR
Popular posts from this blog
By Dr D Dhanuraj & Sambhavi Ganesh Latin Catholics (LC) in Kerala number about 20 lakhs with 2 Archdioceses (Verapoly and Trivandrum), and 9 Dioceses. They have a significant presence in Ernakulam, Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Alleppey, and Thrissur districts. This community is politically influential, which, through its socio-political wing Kerala Latin Catholic Association (KLCA) and Christian Service Society (CSS), protects its interests. Traditionally, Christians in Kerala have supported the UDF alliance and same is the case with the LC also. The major reasons for support are- The professed atheism of the communist party-backed LDF. The involvement of the church in health and education sectors, which the LDF opposes due to its anti-commercialization view. The ‘abstinence’ stance taken by the LDF over alcohol prohibition unlike the clear pro-ban position of the Congress. Even though the LC continued to support UDF during the early yea
By Sambhavi Ganesh* Introduction Part III of the Indian constitution contains the much-extolled Fundamental Rights. Articles 14 - 24 guarantee the protection of life and liberty, equality before law, and prohibit discrimination. These are clearly based on the abstract, liberal notions of universal citizenship. Articles 25-30 deal with particular collectivities or groups – rights of freedom to religion, cultural and educational rights – that is, freedoms to propagate and practise any religion, freedom to manage religious affairs, protecting the interests of minorities, and the right of minorities to establish educational institutions. These freedoms are a part of our inalienable fundamental rights, and rightly so. However, they are silent about some underlying tensions arising out of these very rights, the primary such tension being individual rights vs. community rights. This conflict is most manifest in the debates around the Uniform Civil Code (henceforth UC
By Arjun.M, Administrative Assistant, Centre for Public Policy Research Judicial activism can be described when the judiciary steps in to the shoes of the executive or the legislature and embarks on the works and privileges of the other two organs rather than interpretation of law. This topic has assumed immense significance because today everything from river pollution to the selection of the cricket team and even the disposal of waste has become the purview of Judicial Activism. The Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment on May 5, 2010 in Selvi v. Karnataka considered the constitutionality of the investigative Narco analysis technique holding it permissible only when the subject consents to its use. The decision taken by the Supreme Court of India about the 9 th Schedule of the constitution deserves great attention. It was an example of excessive judicial Activism. In this case, one of the most controversial judgments of the Supreme Court was