Homes, not houses

The Housing Ministry is ambitiously trying to beat the odds by beginning the construction of 35,000 houses countrywide in November and pledging to finish them within the month. On a toss of a coin such a feat could be extremely impressive or be a huge waste of resources if not carried out transparently and with due process. 

The 60-day housing development program under Minister Sajith Premadasa aims to build 35,000 out of 50,000 houses promised by the Government. In addition they will also repair 10,000 houses that have been selected from around the country. 

The Government plans to spend a whopping Rs. 3.5 billion for the project while Rs. 240 million is to be spent under the housing program for the construction of houses in 38 “model villages”. The target is to launch construction work on all these housing projects by 31 October and have the bulk of them completed by November end, according to a statement released by the Ministry. 

Laudable as this plan is, the sheer scale and ambition of the enterprise is startling. One of the top complaints against the Government is its choking red tape calcifies any project leaving beneficiaries waiting for years. But such due processes also ensure the most deserving people are selected, politicisation is minimised and owner-driven participation means the houses will not just be built but also lived in, thus saving millions of public funds.

A comprehensive National Housing Policy must embrace the issues of land, infrastructure and finance as well as the capacity of the building materials, construction industry and the capability and aspirations of the people to house themselves. In Sri Lanka each of these components of housing falls under a different administration, with different controls, traditions and values that have to be brought together in a single State policy for facilitating them and a new strategic approach to implement it.

If the Government actually manages to get these variables working together, it will be unprecedented. It will require a mammoth amount of resources, especially in the sector of finance, as most houses will be targeted at vulnerable communities who are unable to fund their own homes. Such a huge program also needs to be sustainable over several decades to have any meaningful impact.

The challenge with large scale housing drives is they can just be limited to numbers. For example after the tsunami and the end of the war, many organisations, some with Government oversight, built thousands of houses around the country. However, some of these were later abandoned as people swiftly de-invested from the projects. Finding better housing, bad construction, one person getting several houses and socio-economic demands are all among the reasons for “ghost” houses to pop up around the country. 

These are all important lessons for a Government that does not have spare cash to waste. As the Government struggles to meet the Budget deficit for 2015 and strains to reduce public expenditure for next year it is extremely important for earmarked funds to be used as meaningfully as possible. This means less emphasis on numbers and more on making sure well-constructed houses are given to the most deserving people in society. Such efforts should also come with follow up reports that evaluate the success of these ventures to correct mistakes and direct future efforts. Focusing on numbers to get political mileage will mean more houses and not homes.