ABSTRACT
In the absence of state intervention in direct housing delivery, the low-income group will be at risk because it may either inadvertently or deliberately be excluded from liberalized housing market. Findings revealed that low-income group’s access to public sector direct housing delivery in Nigeria is constrained by the types and prices of houses produced as well as the mode of granting access to such houses. In the contemporary times, public agencies prefer to develop detached houses, duplexes, bungalows, or flats that only the middle and upper income groups can afford. This has important implications for the “trickle down” hypothesis which states that increasing housing supply for middle/upper income group may not necessarily lead to increase in housing supply at the lower end of income scale, since the higher/middle income group may merely reduce their crowing without releasing housing units for the low income group. This paper examine the effect of government policy on selling of government residential houses on the provision of housing, highlight it’s adverse effects, and concludes with practical recommendations.
INTRODUCTION
An array of reasons has been advanced for the involvement of the public sector in direct housing delivery. In Eastern Europe, they were seen as ways of rapidly expanding housing and re-building cities damage during the second World War, as well as providing cheap and good quality accommodations for the low-income groups (UNCHS, 1996). With reference to the relatively developed countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, they were seen both as those in Western Europe and as a way of creating an egalitarian society and avoiding exploitative landlordism (Carter, 1994). In the less developed countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa, the reasons are slightly different. According to Hardoy and Satterthwaite (1989), in Latin America, public housing programmes were a response to rapidly growing city population although such programmes had been started in many countries in the region prior to World War II. In Africa and Asia, they were favoured by many independent governments although they were often rooted in colonial precedents that had previously housed colonial staff or provided cheap accommodation for the worker in certain key institutions and industries (UNCHS, 1996).
In Nigeria, direct intervention of the state in housing delivery is meant to achieve a significant increase in supply and bring relief especially to the low-income groups who are the most affected by the current shortage (FRN, 1975). In the absence of such intervention, those belonging to the low-income groups will be at risk because they may either inadvertently or deliberately be excluded from liberalized other than direct assistance from government for those who cannot (or are likely) to be reached even by the enabling approach (UNCHS and ICA, 1999).
What should however be noted is that in the scramble for open access to public housing, some groups are more equal than the others. While it is true that all citizens are eligible to own public housing, not all of them have equal means to do so. In the process of housing production and allocation, ensure that the low-income groups are marginalized of excluded.
2.0 HOUSING POLICICIES IN NIGERIA
Hornby (1999) defines policy as a plan of action, statement of ideals, etc. proposed to adopted by a government, political party, business, etc. Kaul (1997) stated that in the realm of the public sector, policy is the instrument for guiding action along the predetermined route and light discretionary powers of public officials. Grigsby and Rosenbug (1975) averred that policies are often consciously derived and thus have a life cycle. This policy cycle comprises principally of policy further explained that the major stages involved in the policy process often include policy initiation, policy processes design, policy analysis, policy formulation decision making, policy dialogue policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation (appraisal)
(i) PRE-INDEPENDENCE PERIOD
During this era which came to an and in 1860, physical planning in general was not a major concern of government. Consequently housing planning and development was virtually inconsequential. The major concern of the colonial government was the separation of while inhabited quarters from those of the natives. Some natives in specialized occupations like the police, armed forces. Railways etc. also benefited in the development of staff quarters. Some Isolated unplanned events also led to the development of some forms of legislation on housing and the urban environment. These include the Bubonic plague of 1928 which led to the creation of the Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB), the railway workers strike of 1945 which forced the government to develop staff quarters at Surulere. Since there was no defined housing policy by the central government at this period, housing development was haphazard, spontaneous and chaotic. However, the regional governments, especially in the West developed modern housing estates (like the Bodija Estate in Ibadan) which formed the major organized government intervention in housing, though, the impact was infinitesimal, as only a tiny proportion of the population had access to the housing units.
(ii) 1960-1979
The Housing Corporations of the regional governments were strengthened and they evolved into an association known as the Association of Housing Corporations of Nigeria (AHCN).
Many Federal agencies in housing and urban development were also established during this period. These include the Federal Housing Authority and the Nigerian Building Society (later renamed the Federal Mortgage Bank) amongst others. The LEDB policy was also expanded to include financial provision while the Land use Act of 1978 was also promulgated within the same period. The Act was aimed at guaranteeing easier access to land for development purpose. However, it created a new set of problems, and according to Obateru (1994), the decree has been made the acquisition of residential industrial and commercial plots more difficult and thus worsened the housing problem and slowing down economic growth. This period witnessed the first attempt at direct provision of housing by the Federal Government. However, out of a total hundred and two thousand (202,000) units programmed for construction less than 30,000, representing less than 15% of the large was accomplished. This underscores the failure of the policy despites the injection of enormous fund, as this period encompassed the golden age of Nigeria, otherwise known as the all boom era. The major causes of failure of the housing programs of this period therefore, could be diagnosed as; inappropriate policy formulation, (as exemplified in the Land Use Act) and poor implementation of programs.
(iii) 1980-1983
This was the period when the central government was controlled by the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) whose cardinal objective was the provision of food and shelter. The loge of the NPN was a house and maize plant, supposedly signifying its main objective. The government set out to construct forty thousand (40,000) housing units per annum, aggregating to a total of one hundred and sixty thousand (180,000) units at the end of its 4 year term. However, at the expiration of its term in June, 1983, only thirty two thousand (32,000) units had been completed (FGN, 2004), representing only about 25% of the set goal. The major problem identified as the bane of house development during the period was the gross indiscipline of the political class and the wide spread corruption of the government at all levels.
(iv) 1984-1990
According to Agbola (2005), the Housing sector was limping in limbo during this period as there were no discernable strides made in the sector. The government announced ambitious housing targets without any strategy for meeting those targets. Housing became more scarce and more costly relative to income. The unfortunate coincidence with the period of the worst devaluation of the local currency- the naira-ensured that owning a house dipped from being a dream to becoming a mirage for most than 12% success rate (Onibokun, 1990, Agbola, 2005). The major problem of housing development during this period can be attributed to poor political will, unfavorable economic policies of the government like the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), Second-Tier Foreign Exchange Markets (SFEM), etc.
(v) 1991-2001
A new National Housing Policy was launched in 1991, and it was considered by many scholars as highly debated and well articulated. The evolution of the policy which spanned about six (6) years involved all the relevant slake-holder in the sector. A major feature of the major feature of the new policy was the re-organization of the housing finance sector as the fulcrum of this policy. Despite the acclaim granted the policy, the National Housing Policy-NHP- (2004) stated that by the beginning of 1999, housing development had been neglected and that a “no-housing” situation exited in Nigeria, as about 80% of Nigerian can be said to be “houseless persons”
The failure of the housing programmes of this period were not blamed on the formulating of policy. It was evidently a problem of poor implementation. This can be further distilled into poor political will, ineffective and or inefficient implementation strategies, inefficient implementation institution (which is usually caused by corruption and lack of requisite monitoring and evaluation. These adduced reasons were underscored in the NHP (2004) which states that for many years, successive governments did not regard housing as a priority, and on many occasion made no annual budgetary provisions for housing. This is clearly a case of poor political will.
(vi) 2002 to Date;
The civilian government of this era, in its determination to mitigate the appalling housing situation laid the foundation of a more articulated and realistic policy. The aim is to evolve a more pragmatic approach to solving the problems. The new National Housing Policy (2004) enunciates the configuration of the Nigerian urban settlements of the future and the housing policy for the nation. It devoted clear chapters to all vexing and variegated issues in housing such as Land, finance and building materials. Many scholar and researchers in the field of housing have opined that it is the most well researchers, critically assessed and most carefully articulated housing policy Nigeria ever had.
3.0 EFFORT OF GOVERNMENT IN PROVIDING HOUSING SCHEME
There is no consensus among practitioners of social problems on how to define the term low income group in an objective and generally acceptable form. The question as to who belong to the low income group remain difficult to answer because this social class is a social concept for which definitions depends on many factors, among which are culture, level of social development and of course the background of individual trying to define the term (Olanrewaju, 2004/2005).
However, for practical purpose, low income group is often expressed in term of the annual income of an employee or self – employed people. The presidential committee on urban development and housing (2002) define the low income group as all employees or self employed person whose annual income as at the year 2001 is N 100,000 or below ( i.e. the salary equivalent of Grade level 01 – 06 in government ). (FGN 2002)
4.0 HOUSING SALES
Access to public housing is a function of several constraints amongst which are the types of houses produced, house prices as well eligibility criteria considered before granting access to public housing. The major house types (flats, bungalows, duplex, terrace, and semi-terrace houses) show their target customers. None of the houses produced by the Corporation is tenement housing otherwise known as face-me-I-face-you, the type an average low-income earner could easily purchase or rent.
The next table shows that the prices of LSDPC houses range between N1.5 million and N12.5 million depending on types of houses and locations. A studio flat and one bedroom flat (expandable) in Ikorodu and Badagry cost N1.5 million and N1.8 million respectively. In the same locations, two and three bedroom flats are sold for N 2.0 million and N3.0 million respectively. At Oko-Oba, a two bedroom flat (middle piece) and two bedroom flat (end piece) cost N2.52 million and N2.782 million respectively. The price is even higher in Isheri North where a two bedroom flat ensuit goes for N 3.5 million in this same location, while type B three bedroom terrace attracts N6 million, type C attracts N9million. At Femi Okunnu Housing Estate/Lekki, III, a four-bedroom duplex is sold for N12 million while a three bedroom luxury flat is offered for N12.5 million.
Table 2: LSDPC HOUSE PRICE
| S/N | LOCATION | TYPE OF BUILDING | COST PER UNIT OF BUILDING (N MILLION |
| 1 | Ikorodu | Studio Flat 1 Bedroom Flat (Expandable 3 Bedroom Flat 3 Bedroom Bungalow | 1.5 1.8 3.0 3.5 |
| 2 | Badagry | Studio Flat 3 Bedroom Flat | 1.5 3.0 |
| 3 | Isheri North | 2 Bedroom flat (en-suite) 3 Bedroom Terrace 4 Bedroom Duplex 3 Bedroom Terrace (Type B) 3 Bedroom Terrace (Type C) | 3.5 6.5 12.0 6.0 9.0 |
| 4 | Lekki Area III (Femi Okunnu Housing Estate) | 3 Bedroom Luxury flat 4 Bedroom Duplex | 12.5 12.0 |
| 5 | Oko-Oba | 2 Bedroom flat (middle piece) 2 Bedroom flat (end piece) | 2.52 2.782 |
Source: Estate Department, LSDPC, 2004, 2005,
5.0 EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT ON SALES OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
If the minimum deposit required by LSDPC is any thing to goby, then it means it prospective low-income house owners will have to deposit N450,000 for bedroom flat (expandable) in Ikorodu N500,000 for a two bedroom flat |n Badagry Ikorodu; N630, 000 for a two "room flat (middle piece) in Oko Oba; and N875, 000 for a two bedroom flat in North. What this implies is that the lowest paid worker with Federal Civilize earning N71, 388 will need to all his/her income for more than six in order to meet the minimum
Deposit for a one bedroom flat in Ikorodu. Applicants are, however, encouraged to make higher deposit if desired since he or she is expected to settle the balance due within stipulated number of days. If applicant still intends to adhere strictly to the 25 percent minimum deposit, it will take such an applicant another 19 years to balance the remaining Nl, 350,000 (75%). Since housing allocation is not done until after the full payment, the applicant will have to save all his/her salary for at least 25 years before he can be allocated a one bedroom flat in Ikorodu.
Consequently such a worker will be denied access to public housing. It will be worthwhile to consider another worker belonging to -raceme group. A Grade Level 6 officer with the same Federal Civil Service will need to save all his/her salary (129, 490) for about 16 years in order to 2 two bedroom flat in
Ikorodu/Badagry. The duration will be higher if such a worker prefers to own the same type of dwelling unit in Isolo, Oko-Oba and Isheri North. In Isheri North, for example. a Grade Level 6 officer will need so save all his/her salary for at least 21 years before he/she can be granted access.
6.0 CONCLUSION
This paper has shown that the low-income group's access to public sector housing delivery is constrained by the types and prices of houses produced as well as the granting access to such houses. In the contemporary times, public agencies prefer to develop detached houses, duplexes, bungalows, or flats that the low-group cannot afford. This has important implication for the "trickle-down hypothesis. According to Linn (1979; 230). 'increasing the housing supply for middle and upper income groups may not lead to increase in housing supply the lower end of income scale. the higher income groups may merely reduce their crowding without releasing shelter units for the poor income groups. Indeed, to the extent that higher, middle and lower income group compete the same public housing, increased emphasis on high income housing may drive costs and prices up for low income housing. As a result, low-income earners have been constrained to construct their (tenement) houses in slums and informal/illegal settlements. Case studies have shown that it is not uncommon for 30% to 60% of the population of a city to live either in illegal settlements with little or no provision of infrastructure and services, or in overcrowded and often deteriorating tenement houses.
REFERENCES
Agbola, S.B. (2005). The Housing Debacle. Inaugural Lecture
Delivered at the University of Ibadan on Thursday, August 4, 2005.
Agbola, T. (2003). 'Assessing Private Sector Participation in Housing
Delivery in Nigeria. Paper presented at a One Day Continuing
Professional Development Workshop of the Ogun State Chapter of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, October 28, Abeokuta, Nigeria. Agbola, T. (1998). The Housing of Nigerians: A Review of Policy Development and Implementation, Research Report No. 14. Ibadan: Development Policy Centre.
Bako A. I and Alabi M. (2009) public housing supply organization and the low income group in Nigeria. Journal of estate surveying research
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2002). Government White Paper on the Report of the Presidential Committee on Urban Development and Housing
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1975). Third National Development Plan 1975-1980. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Economic Development.
Ifesanya A.O and Anthony P,(006), an assessment of the impact of housing policy reforms on housing delivery in Nigeria, environ-link journal.
Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC) (N.D). LSDPC at a Glance Lagos: LSDP.