HOUSING AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM
The literature on economic development abounds with references to the ‘social’ nature of housing requirement. This phrase is used to distinguish the housing sector from other capital intensive sectors of developing economies such as manufacturing. The implication, which is often made very explicit, indeed, is that while there is no ‘economic’ need for housing investment since the market demand for it appears very weak, it ultimately must be provided in order to solve a “social problem.” According to Smith (1970), housing sector is regarded as a drag upon the process of economic growth. While it is admitted that housing must be provided or improved eventually, many national economic development programmes regard housing as a form of investment eminently able to be postponed. The longer it can be put off, the reason goes, the better the result for the nation as a whole.

The big question
How does housing come to be excluded from the category of ‘economic good’s’ so that it must be bestowed as a kind of social security benefit? Housing as a ‘social good’ is not a universal concept. There are portions of the world in which the satisfaction of demand for housing and housing improvement, is a rewarding private business which does not lack eager participants and which seems to produce, as in the United States, a general level of housing welfare which is widely envied. Nevertheless, in many parts of the world, housing is regarded as a demand, which cannot and should be not satisfied by the market and, hence, must be distributed as a form of public largesse.
The perception of housing as either ‘economic good’ or ‘social-good’ will determine the level of investment and government involvement in its production and distribution. When seen as a
‘social good’, housing market is subjected to political uncertainty and statutory intervention.
In such a circumstances, private involvement is discouraged for investors will be unwilling to take the risk. Our land policy is an example of such restraint. The 1996 Rent Control in Lagos was a discriminatory one. The rent control was limited to low income housing. This discrimination will lead to investment in high income housing as shown in Lagos, Abuja, etc. today. Pursuit of the export promotion, import substitution strategy did increase income and did induce migration of surplus labor from the rural to the urban sector. This migration, however, together with natural population increase, created growing housing needs. The needs were manifested in overcrowded, unsanitary living conditions and the sprawl of squatter settlement in urban centres. 70% of Metropolitan Lagos was declared slum in 1996, according to United
Nations’ report. Despite this, there is still a strong belief that people are too poor to save or to repay housing loans. This led to heavy housing subsidy e.g. allocating a standard plot of land in Lagos at the rate of N1, 000 for high density, N1, 500 for medium density and N2, 000 for medium density (Nubi 2000) and sale of Shagari core housing at N6, 000.00 and N15, 000.00 respectively for one bedroom and 3 bedroom bungalow- a paternalistic approach that could not be sustained.

A Review of Public Housing Delivery in Nigeria

State intervention in the form of public housing construction evolved during the period of colonial domination. This policy was exclusively directed at the provision of housing for the white colonial population “settled” in specially protected and developed areas, referred to as Government Reservation Areas (GRAS), “ Prohibited” to the local population, the housing forms and spatial patterns of the GRAs reflected the English nostalgia for the ”garden city”.
The post-independence period saw the development and extension of the GRAs and the introduction of special public housing programmes exclusively for the needs of the new national elites in the higher hierarchy of the state apparatus.

In 1962, National Development plans was introduced into the budgeting system of the country instead of the fiscal and sectoral plans, which were previously used. From the first National Development Plan period (1962-68), it was the intention or policy of the government that low, medium and high-income people should benefit from public housing and programmes of governments. However, the first ten years after independence does not have much to say about government efforts in the provision of public housing in Nigeria.

The first National Development Plan (1962-68) mentioned housing as part of industrial estates, Land Acquisition and Town Planning. The plan indicated government’s aim of producing 24,000 housing units during the plan period. Unfortunately, only 500 housing units were built by the Federal Government before the outbreak of the civil war in 1967.

The second National Development Plan ** (1970-74) was unique because government accepted housing as part of its social and political responsibilities. It emphasizes housing provision for all social groups whether displaced or not from the competitive housing market.
To fulfill the aims and objectives of the housing policy, the Gowon Military administration announced the following (1): during second development plan period

(1) Immediate construction of housing units by the Federal Military and State Military Governments for rent at affordable prices.

(2) Increase in the construction of houses for government workers. (Though not explicitly spelt out, this implies the senior officials of the administrative mechanism).

(3) Development and expansion of loans for private housing. (This case favoured the most privileged social group who already had access to the banks through collateral security and employment stability).

(4) Increase in investment in local production of cement and other necessary building materials. Increase in the importation of cement to supplement the needs created in the housing construction sectors.

In accordance with the public housing policy, 54,000 housing units were programmed for immediate construction between 1972 and 1973. Ten thousand units in Lagos and 4000 units in each of the then 11 state capitals. The Federal Housing Authority was established to directly construct these housing units. The housing volume was distributed as 60% for the low-income groups, 25% for the middle-income and 15% for the high-income social strata (5). However, the capital expected to be expanded on the middle-and high-income housing caused doubts about the amount to be spent on low-income housing.

In 1976, following the military overthrow of the Gowon regime, a reappraisal of the housing policy and the numerical dimension of the construction programmes was made and incorporated into 1975 –1980 National Development Plan. A total of 1.83 billion was allocated to housing during this plan period. The rise in the oil economy and local political pressures influenced this reappraisal. It was stated that:

(1) The Federal Military Government would build 202,000 housing units per year; 46,000 in Lagos, 12,000 for Kaduna, while 8000 units would be built in the state capitals. The State Government would be directly involved and FHA would provide the necessary infrastructure. (This marked the beginning of the decentralization of FHA to state levels).

(2) A Ministry of Housing, National Development and Environment with sole responsibility on housing was created. (For the first time, housing is accorded a separate status and liberated from the bureaucracy and financial inadequacy of the ministry of works, to which it was subordinated).

(3) The additional financing of the Federal Housing Authority in order to directly construct and develop housing estates in various cities of the nation. (This is different from the initial policy line. It recognizes the need for qualitative housing development in the larger secondary but no-primate cities).

The temporary departure of the military from state power and the installation of the Shagari civilian regime saw another reappraisal of the housing programme. This was done under the excuse of the huge economic and financial burden of the numerical dimension of the exercise. However, the new capital, Abuja, was to be rapidly constructed during the same period. The Federal Government, during the 1981 –1985 plan period, was to embark on the provision of 2000 housing units yearly in each of the 19 states of the Federation, without special attention to the cities worst pressed by the housing crisis (e.g. Lagos). About N1.6 billion was allocated to housing.

In 1979, in an apparent reply to the cancellation of the special housing programme for Lagos, the civilian government of Lagos State announced a state housing programme of 50,000 units to be constructed between 1979 and 1983. The 1984 re-arrival of the military witnessed a reappraisal of the housing units to be constructed by the Lagos State Property Development Corporation. Instead of the on-going exercise of 50,000 units, 8000 units with new design models were to be constructed between 1983 and 1986 by the state’s military government.

With change of government through a Military Coup in 1986, the public housing exercise was terminated. The Military Government claimed to no longer provide housing for Nigerians on grounds of restraining economic situation. House ownership was left to hard-working Nigerians although efforts were made by the Government to reduce costs of building materials and control land speculations. There is no doubt that this policy deviation placed the urban poor and middle-class in further displacement from the housing market.

With the enormity and perpetual nature of housing problems facing the Country, the Government nonetheless, took another look at housing and thus launched the National Housing Policy in February 1991. This was a comprehensive document aimed at “ ensuring that all Nigerians own or have access to decent housing accommodation at affordable cost by the year 2000 A.D.” This goal is consistent with the United Nations resolution of Housing for all by the year 2000 A.D. and thus required that 700,000 housing units be constructed annually in order to meet the target of 8 million units by the target year (2000A.D) in Nigeria. The policy provides for encouragement and promotion of active participation in housing delivery by all tiers of government; strengthening of institutions within the system to render their operation more responsive to demand; emphasizing housing investment which satisfy basic needs; and encouraging greater participation by the private sector in housing development. The policy also suffered major setbacks in its implementation.

It is however important to note that 1994 marked a rethink of the military Government to addressing housing provision. Hence in and address on January 20, 1994 by the Minister of Works and Housing titled “ The Beginning of a New Dawn” Unveil a National Housing Programme for 1994 – 1995 to be executed under the Ministry. During the period a total of 121,000 housing were to be constructed for all income groups (i.e. low, medium and high). Priority was given to newly created states. Each of the states is to have 5,000 housing units while the rest and Abuja share 76,000 housing units.

To ensure proper execution of this programme, the Government formed a 16-man committee to study the National Housing Policy in terms of its provision compliance and implementation. The issue of housing finance was addressed through the establishment of the National Housing Fund in 1992 and granted a take-off fund of N250million. Also the Federal Mortgage Bank (FMB) put in place three schemes viz: voluntary, mandatory and budgetary allocations and financial transfer schemes to curb the problem of housing finance.

Under the current democratic dispensation, which started in 1999, the federal government involvement in housing has been in partnership with private developers- a situation which makes one to query the authencity of government public housing programme.

One initial first step taken by government was the setting up of a 15-man committee to look into the problem of urban development including housing. The committee recommended appropriate framework for housing development among other issues (6). In 2002, the federal Government set up a new Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to deal with housing and urban development. This development demonstrates government commitment to continue to assure a paternalistic approach to housing.
The Government identified under the National Housing Policy a prototype-housing scheme, which was launched in order to increase the nation housing stock. The scheme was on a revolving fund basis and ensures that proceeds from sale of completed units are ploughed back into the scheme.
It is on record that the Federal Housing Authority, which is responsible for implementing Government housing programmes have stated to develop and manage real estates on commercial basis. Within the last two to three years it has completed 500 housing units in Abuja; it has entered into partnership with private developers to complete 1127 units in Abuja and Port Harcourt. In Lagos work has resumed at sites, which were previously abandoned – satellite 2 and Agbesian 1 & 4; in other States of the Federation the FHA encouraged the State Government to take over formerly abandoned housing projects in their states.
It is evident that the planning programming and implementation of the public housing policy and programmes suffer grossly from planning inconsistency and organizational structures, due to political instability and an overcentralised mechanism of decision and execution.

In Nigeria, governments rise and fall, revolutions come and go, but the mass of urban population will always remain with the housing problem since they are, at present, not in a position to decisively influence the rise or fall of these “ interchanging governments”.
Organized and consistent approaches, less susceptible to political instabilities are needed to challenge the growing urban housing crisis. Such approaches, which must include mass housing provision, should secure the political support and genuine participation of the needy at local government and mass organization levels, supplemented by an organized system of participatory financing, implementation and management not exclusively dependent on the centre or dictated by it.

Factors affecting public housing delivery in Nigeria.
The provision of housing has for long been seen as a government concern and the Federal Government has tried in different ways to tackle the nation’s housing problems. The synthesis of government activities reveals that during the past few years, a series of constructive programme and far reaching actions were taken by the government to combat the housing problem. However, it is a fact that the housing problem is far from being solved, and this can be attributed to flaws in the strategies adopted by the government. Such flaw include:

First, Government’s intervention through direct housing construction. Even though the government possesses the resources and executive capacity to embark on direct home construction, it should not have done so given the past experiences of the high cost and slow XXXIII IAHS, September 27-30 2005, Pretoria South Africa pace of construction of government projects. Apart from the fact that the Ministry of Housing and Environment was faced by many constraints which affected its performance level, the houses built were usually very expensive which put them beyond the reach of the low income group, and the houses for did not meet the requirements of the people e.g. providing one bedroom houses for low group when the average family size is put at 6 persons.
Secondly, the adopted practice and system of granting loans makes it difficult for the really low income people to benefit. The bulk of the mortgage loans went to family in the upper class, making it necessary to re-examine the loan policy of the country.

Thirdly, other means of encouraging housing construction were not given adequate attention. For example the government agreed to lay emphasis on the provision of basic infrastructure in various layouts on which individual could build their own houses, but this was not done. Also, cooperative societies were not given much encouragement as planned.

Fourthly, many government housing projects were embarked upon without effective programme of action and appropriate institutional arrangement for their execution. This means that the project lacked adequate and sound planning which led to their failure

Fifthly, there was too much corruption in high quarters. For example, Chief Awolowo alerted the nation to the fraud in the Ministry of Housing and Environment in one of his Campaigns in 1982. He said about N5.4 million was missing, a figure later reduced to N4 million by the minister when he confirmed the said fraud. This shows tat money meant for housing project were diverted into private hands thereby allowing the projects to suffer.

Also there is the problem of party politics in Nigeria, and this affected the Federal Housing Project extents. For instance, the uncooperative attitude adopted by some state government were simply because a different party other than their own controlled the federal administration. These states saw themselves as competing with the Federal Government and did all they could to slow down the pace of the Federal Housing Projects.

In summary, one may conclude that lack if financial prudence, public probity and accountability, inefficient and ineffective administrative machinery, mass importation of foreign technology, material, personnel and inflation, as well as incomprehensive analysis of the nation’s housing requirement caused the low performance of the public housing programmes.

Lessons to be learnt
One important lesson we might get from our experiences is that the Federal Government should not engage in direct housing construction. Studies have shown that individuals build better and cheaper houses and at faster rate than the government agencies. We should borrow a leaf from the U.S.A. where the federal Government responsible for policy formulation and provision of funds for research and matching grants to the states. The Nigerian Federal Government should adopt this stance too.

Another lesson is that the government should encourage the use of local building material for construction so as to reduce building cost. This has been successfully done in counties like Tanzania, and Sweden. Entrepreneurs wishing to go into the production of building material should be encourage through tax relief and incentives.

Government should promote alternative strategies for house construction. For example, the government might acquire land; lay them out and service them with basic infrastructures before making them available for sale to individual needing them
It is the opinion of the writers that the adoption of the various suggestions made above the housing problems in Nigeria could be successfully tackled and more housing units constructed for the citizen of the country.
Note: Before 1980 1US$ = 0.65 Naira
Now in 2005 1US$ = 135 Naira