Construction; Public housing and the private sector

2014 ◽  
pp. 311-354
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 110-124
Author(s):  
Tai Wei LIM

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam presented her housing policies at the 2019 annual address in broad strokes, including using ordinances to resume undeveloped land in accordance with the law. The Hong Kong government could use its regulatory power as disincentives for private development of land given the highly bureaucratic, time-consuming and expensive land development approval process. The Hong Kong government would also work jointly with private sector landlords to potentially develop public housing and profit-driven projects, which would then be negotiated based on the Hong Kong government’s terms and conditions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander von Hoffman

President Lyndon Johnson declared the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to be “the most farsighted, the most comprehensive, the most massive housing program in all American history.” To replace every slum dwelling in the country within ten years, the act turned from public housing, the government-run program started in the 1930s, toward private-sector programs using both nonprofit and for-profit companies. As a result, since its passage, for-profit businesses have developed the great majority of low-income residences in the United States. The law also helped popularize the idea of “public-private partnerships,” collaborations of government agencies and non-government entities—including for-profit companies—for social and urban improvements. Remarkably, political liberals supported the idea that private enterprise carry out social-welfare programs. This article examines the reasons that Democratic officials, liberals, and housing industry leaders united to create a decentralized, ideologically pluralistic, and redundant system for low-income housing. It shows that frustrations with the public housing program, the response to widespread violence in the nation's cities, and the popularity of corporate America pushed the turn toward the private sector. The changes in housing and urban policy made in the late 1960s, the article concludes, helped further distinguish the American welfare state and encourage the rise of neoliberalism in the United States.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-155
Author(s):  
Porfirio Guevara ◽  
Robert Hill ◽  
Michael Scholz

Purpose This study aims to show how hedonic methods can be used to compare the performance of the public and private sector housing markets in Costa Rica. Design/methodology/approach Hedonic price indexes are computed using the adjacent-period method. Average housing quality is measured by comparing hedonic and median price indexes. The relative performance of the public and private sector residential construction is compared by estimating separate hedonic models for each sector. A private sector price is then imputed for each house built in the public sector, and a public sector price is imputed for each house built in the private sector. Findings The real quality-adjusted price of private housing rose by 12 per cent between 2000 and 2013, whereas the price of private housing rose by 9 per cent. The average quality of private housing rose by 45 per cent, whereas that of public housing fell by 18 per cent. Nevertheless, the hedonic imputation analysis reveals that public housing could not be produced more cheaply in the private sector. Social implications The quality of public housing has declined over time. The hedonic analysis shows that the decline is not because of a lack of competition between construction firms in the public sector. An alternative demand side explanation is provided. Originality/value This study applies hedonic methods in novel ways to compare the relative performance of the public and private housing sectors in Costa Rica. The results shed new light on the effectiveness of public sector housing programs.


1989 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Smart

There are three explanations in the literature for Hong Kong embarking upon the state provision of housing in 1954. One explanation sees this provision as an inevitable response to the inability of the private sector to provide affordable housing for the influx of immigrants after 1945. The second interprets it as support for the property development industry, rather than for public welfare. The third explanation traces the intervention to the need to reproduce labour power, All three explanations may be criticized for faulty reasoning and for misinterpreting the historical background of the involvement. An argument is made for more attention to the autonomy, although limited, of the state and to the actual and potential resistance of squatters in producing the outcome of squatter resettlement and not just squatter clearance.


2006 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
STUART A. COHEN

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document