Of late India is experiencing significant transitions in its key socioeconomic and demographic indicators. Manifestation of messy and hidden urbanization (Ellis & Roberts, 2016) in India poses a serious challenge to the government particularly in the context of realizing the potential of its cities for prosperity and livability. Consequently, it fails to adequately address congestion constraints stemming from the strain that colossal urbanization put on existing land, housing, physical infrastructures, civic amenities and services including the environment. As per governments’ estimate, as many as 18.78 million families were in acute housing deficit and high level of shelter deprivation across urban India (MoHUPA, 2012). In June 2015 the incumbent union government launched its comprehensive mission oriented and ambitious flagship national housing programme called ‘Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana (Urban) – Housing for All (HFA)’ to cater to the escalating unmet ownership housing needs of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and the Low Income Groups (LIG), including the Middle Income Group (MIG) living in urban areas. Under the stewardship of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), this giant housing scheme is expected to build 12 million new houses across all states/UTs by March 31, 2022 in a phased manner. It has four verticals namely in-situ slum redevelopment using land as a resource, credit linked interest subsidy (CLSS), affordable housing in partnership (AHP) and beneficiary-led individual house construction or enhancement (BLC).
Physical and Financial Progress of PMAY (U)
Total number of estimated urban housing shortage during 2001 and 2007 has been around 10.57 million and 24.71 million respectively (Bhan, et al., 2017). These numbers glaringly portray the face of ‘housing poverty’ in urban India. Though the implementation of Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) – a flagship housing scheme under JnNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) programme had been partially successful in the last decade, the total housing shortage to be addressed in PMAY (U) programme is still huge (18.78 million).
Almost five years after the government launched the PMAY (U) programme, just one third of the houses (31%) have been completed under the programme against the sanctioned number of houses, while another 59% houses are grounded for construction. Out of ₹1.63-lakh crore Central assistance sanctioned for the programme, the government has released only ₹64,000 crore till February 10, 2020. This implies a rather slow pace of implementation and the physical and financial progress of this housing scheme has not being very impressive (Table 1 & 2). Nonetheless, more disaggregated data on the financial and physical progress of the scheme for each of the vertical components including other details, like economic categories, is not available in the public domain for in-depth analysis. This is indeed a serious lacuna in making an effective assessment of the performance of the programme.
The government plans to construct 1.63 lakh crore houses under this very mission. As per recent statistics released by the MoHUA on February 2020, as many as 21566 projects have been sanctioned for construction of 10,308,595 houses under this programme, of which 6,155,024 houses are grounded for construction and 3,215,666 houses are completed.
Spatial Variations in the Progress of PMAY (U) Implementation
A further look at its geographic variation reveals an interesting picture. For instance, more than 60% of the total approved houses are situated in the large states of – Andhra Pradesh (20.07 lakh), Uttar Pradesh (15.74 lakh), Maharashtra (11.77 lakh), Madhya Pradesh (7.84 lakh) and Tamil Nadu (7.68 lakh).
More than 80% of the total approved houses in Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Telengana have been grounded for construction followed by West Bengal, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh where construction of 75% approved houses is underway (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Approved houses grounded for construction
When it comes to completion of approved housing construction, just two states namely Gujarat (58.21%) and Kerala (55.45%) achieve the 50% mark among bigger states. House completion rate is hovering around 40-45% in West Bengal, Telengana, Odisha and Madhya Pradesh and no other bigger state have achieved the 50% mark yet (Figure 2). By and large, progress of such a celebrated housing programme across states seems to be disappointing. Nonetheless, it is crucial to remember how India’s affordable housing puzzle challenges the scheme’s ability to achieve the target by 2022.
Challenges for the Effective Implementation of PMAY (U)
Without a doubt PMAY (U) is a mass housing programme involving colossal budgetary commitments and other efforts and as of now the number of houses approved under this flagship scheme has been phenomenal, and seemingly it can achieve the anticipated 2022 goal. However, there are certain constraints impeding PMAY (U) from achieving its full potential. First, the quantum of new houses to be built to mitigate the existing housing shortage is massive. Given the current success rate of PMAY (U) implementation, with 32.16 lakh houses built so far, it will take a lot of time to address the housing deficit. Second, shortage of urban land for new housing construction is the biggest issue in speedy implementation of the programme. Though, land issue can be averted partially through in-situ slum redevelopment with the partnership of private developers using land titles, it remains ineffectual in many small cities where land prices are low and private players are reluctant to invest due to high risk of cost recovery. Third, absence of appropriate documents is another challenge for effective implementation of PMAY (U). Central assistance under BLC needs the beneficiary to have reliable and clear land titles and documentation which is rarely available to slum dwellers (Bhan, 2017). Dismal state of land and property records among urban poor creates frequent and widespread issue of unclear land titles, thereby hindering effective implementation of the scheme. However, some bigger states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Telengana, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, among others where updation of land records have been successful, PMAY (U) also made commendable performance. Fourth, chronic economic poverty. Due to lack of adequate regular income support and intangible collaterals, many housing poor families are unable to get loans and therefore remain deprived in terms of accessing the concession for housing construction under CLSS component of PMAY (U). Scope for monetary assistance enlisted in PMAY (U) is thus largely unreached. Fifth, neglected rental market. There are 10 million houses that have remained unoccupied as per the census of 2011 estimation across urban India, which accounts for roughly half of the total urban housing deficit. Due to distorted rental market in India and stringent rent control act, homeowners often prefer to leave their dwelling lying empty, rather than letting it out on rent, leading to underutilization of valuable resources.
Way forward
Housing is a state subject, therefore, efficient and effective implementation of PMAY (U) and its expected level of performance is largely contingent on the very nature of state-centre political relationship. Nonetheless, in order to mitigate the policy bottlenecks that PMAY (U) faces now, following measures can be useful.
a. In order to adequately harness the scope of monetary assistance enlisted under the BLC and CLSS verticals of PMAY (U), states, in coordination with the union government, need to adopt an easy and hassle free process of property document updation and develop a system of clear land titles so that the poor people can get appropriate documents to their land and property.
b. Urban poor lacking legal land title for in-situ upgrading of dwelling should be given greater tenure security through effective policy measure that would encourage them to invest more in housing construction and enhancement.
c. Finally, there is a desperate need for a balanced approach to housing issues by strongly considering rental housing development, coupled with fair policies backed by the robust demand for affordable rental housing in urban India, using relevant levers to spur rental housing. Sustainable social rental housing in partnership with private and foreign players and the strong engagement of state and local governments might be the way forward. These are essential for not only catering to the colossal housing demand but also to ensure equitable housing outcomes in terms of quantity, usage, quality and affordability among diverse city residents. There is also an emerging need for vacant housing surveys, as is being carried out in developed nations, to gain a more nuanced understanding for the sustainable use of existing resources.
References
Bhan, G., Deb, A., and Harish, S. (2017). Understanding inadequacy: The view from urban India. Available at: http://iihs.co.in/knowledge-gateway/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Understanding-Inadequacy.pdf (accessed on: 20/04/2019).
Bhan, G. (2017). From the basti to the ‘house’: Socio-spatial readings of housing policy in India, Current sociology, 65(4): 587–602.
Ellis, P., and Roberts, M. (2016). Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing Spatial Transformation for Prosperity and Livability. South Asia Development Matters. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0662-9.
MoHUPA (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation). (2012). “Report of the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage,” (TG-12) (2012–17), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, National Buildings Organization, Government of India, New Delhi.
