Providing decent, affordable housing is a growing challenge in developing and developed economies alike. With demand far exceeding supply, the adverse effects — on mobility, productivity, and growth — are (or will be) increasingly apparent. Fortunately, there are ways to narrow the affordable-housing gap substantially, using mostly market-based approaches at the municipal level.
Worldwide, 330 million low and moderate-income urban households either live in substandard housing or are so financially stretched by housing payments that they must forgo spending on essentials such as healthcare and education. By 2025, that figure could reach 440 million households, or about 1.6 billion people — and that does not even cover some of the world’s poorest people, who often live outside of cities, on urban streets, or as squatters, leaving them unaccounted for in census estimates.
Replacing today’s substandard housing and building the additional units needed by 2025 would require an investment of an estimated US$16 trillion — a daunting figure, to say the least. However, there are four key “levers” that can reduce the cost of housing delivery by 20 percent to 50 percent, thereby making housing affordable (amounting to no more than 30 percent of total income) for households earning 50 percent to 80 percent of the median income in most cities.
Illustration: Mountain People
The first lever is more efficient land use. Acquisition of land for development in the right location at a reasonable price has the greatest potential for reducing housing costs.
Location is especially important in developing countries, where many areas lack adequate transport, water, electricity and sanitation infrastructure. Investment in these areas would improve and expand land use — whether by unlocking unused land or equipping areas to support more inhabitants — thereby helping to reduce housing costs.
Similarly, cities can loosen land-use restrictions, such as unit size requirements, to allow for higher-density, and thus more valuable, projects. In exchange for providing the increased value to real-estate developers, municipal authorities could require that a portion of the land or a certain number of units be set aside for affordable housing. Such a cross-subsidy would increase the housing supply across income bands, at no direct cost to the public.
The final step toward improving land use is the implementation of measures to discourage land hoarding. China, for example, imposes an idle-land tax on formerly public land if its owners fail to initiate the development process within a year.
This brings us to the second key lever to expand affordable housing: a more cohesive and efficient construction industry. As it stands, the housing-construction industry is highly fragmented, impeding its ability to take advantage of economies of scale, and builders often rely largely on the same methods used 50 years ago.
By standardizing design elements like ceiling heights, fixtures and flooring, construction companies can cut costs and raise productivity, as workers gain experience with repetitive tasks. Further savings are possible through industrial approaches, such as the use of components — for example, walls and flooring slabs — built offsite.
Most builders lag behind other industries in terms of the efficiency of purchasing and other processes. Together, these improvements could cut housing-construction costs by up to 30 percent and delivery time by 40 percent to 50 percent.
The third key lever to make housing more affordable relates to operations and maintenance — everything from heating the building to repairing cracked tiles — which account for 20 percent to 30 percent of total housing costs. Here, the biggest opportunity lies in efforts to improve energy efficiency, with insulation, windows and other retrofits generating energy savings of 20 percent to 30 percent.
Additional savings would be possible if maintenance and repair companies were more transparent and competitive, and operated on a larger scale. To this end, public institutions could certify and list suppliers that meet quality standards, or bring owners together in buying consortia.
The final affordable-housing lever is expanded access to finance, especially for low-income households, which often face the highest borrowing costs — if they can gain access to finance at all.
To expand access to finance, countries can improve underwriting by establishing credit bureaus, which are uncommon in developing economies, and training and certifying property appraisers. In some countries, collective-savings programs — that is, provident funds and building societies — have helped low-income households to accumulate down payments, with the pooled savings also providing capital for low-interest mortgages.
At the same time, to reduce financing costs for developers, municipal bodies can “de-risk” projects by committing to purchase affordable units or guaranteeing qualified tenants. Cities can also streamline approval processes to accelerate completion.
These four levers, if used systematically, can reduce the costs of housing for those who need it the most, while creating a better-functioning market that provides more choices for households across income levels. Indeed, while municipal and national governments will have to take additional measures to address the needs of their poorest citizens, cities have powerful tools at their disposal for closing their affordable-housing gaps.
Though no single solution will work everywhere, initiatives that integrate land policy and more accessible finance with efforts to modernize housing construction and management can lead to progress everywhere.
Charles Laven is president of Forsyth Street, an impact investment company, and an adjunct professor of real-estate development at the Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. Jonathan Woetzel is a director of the McKinsey Global Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS