ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND THE AFFORDABILITY IN OGUN STATE (CASE STUDY OPIC AND OGUN STATE HOUSING)

ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND THE AFFORDABILITY IN OGUN STATE (CASE STUDY OPIC AND OGUN STATE HOUSING)
 
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1    BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Housing is an integral part of human settlement that fulfils basic need and has a profound impact on the quality of life, health, welfare as well as productivity of man. It plays a crucial role in integrated physical and economic development, environmental sustainability, natural disaster mitigation and employment generation as well as wealth creation (Erguden, 2001; Boehm and Schlottmann, 2001; UN-HABITAT, 2006a).
The desire for adequate and affordable housing also has strong links to the need for security, safety and proper socio-economic status of individuals and communities. In spite of this widely acknowledged importance of housing and various efforts in making adequate and affordable housing available to majority of people, a large proportion of urban residents in less developed countries do not have access to decent housing at affordable cost (Tipple,2004; 2006; UN-HABITAT, 2006a; Greene and Rojas, 2008).
As a result, most urban residents in Developing Countries live in housing conditions that constitute an affront to human dignity and which comes with appalling social, economic, spatial and health implications (Rondinelli, 1990; Cotton and Tayler, 1994; Opara, 2003; UN-HABITAT, 2006d; Coker et al., 2007; UNFPA, 2007). Hence, inadequate housing condition has become an intractable challenge that has continued to receive attention from governments and individuals in many developing countries.
In line with human tradition which seeks to investigate, describe, understand and proffer solutions to ameliorate defects in human conditions, and enhance individual and collective well-being; both public and private sectors have continued to take concerted efforts at addressing the social and economic challenges posed by inadequacies in housing provision in many countries of the world. These efforts have informed legislations, policies, strategies and reforms, which most often have culminated in various housing programmes (Onibokun, 1985; Rondinelli, 1990; Ajanlekoko, 2002; Sengupta, 2005; Sengupta and Sharma, 2008). A review of literature shows that between 1950 and 2000, governments in many developing countries have engaged in different housing programmes and delivery strategies. For example, previous studies have shown that successive administrations in Nigeria had launched a minimum of seven public housing programmes in the last few decades in a bid to address increasing housing challenges in the country (Onibokun, 1985; Awotona, 1990; Ogu, 1999; Ogu and Ogbuozobe, 2001; Ajanlekoko, 2002; UN-HABITAT, 2006a; Akinmoladun and Oluwoye, 2007; Ademiluyi and Raji, 2008).
However, substantial literature on public housing in developing countries has revealed three main streams of criticism (Mukhija, 2004). First, it is argued that most public housing schemes are inefficient and ill conceived, and thus failed to meet the needs of target population (Rondinelli, 1990; Mba, 1992). Second, direct government involvement in housing provision is viewed as being negligible compared to the volume of housing provided by informal private sector (UN-HABITAT, 2006a; 2006c).
Finally, government intervention in the housing market to check rising cost of housing is seen as counter-productive and an impediment to smooth operation of housing market and efficient housing delivery system (Sengupta and Ganesan, 2004; Mukhija, 2004).
Consequently, many scholars and stakeholders have argued that government has no business in providing housing for people, but rather government should act as a partner, enabler and facilitator of housing process by making available appropriate incentives, policy and good regulatory environment necessary for effective private sector participation in housing provision (World Bank, 1993; UNCHS, 2000). In view of this, there is an emerging consensus that current approaches to public housing be based on market-friendly policies and strategies that encourage reduction in government’s direct involvement in public housing provision.
Ong and Lenard (2002) and UN-HABITAT (2006a) were however of the opinion that this does not necessarily mean reduction in government’s social responsibility in providing housing for the citizens, but rather it implies the production of housing through collaborative approach in an integrated manner.
In the light of foregoing criticisms coupled with the need for sustainable solution to burgeoning housing challenges; most governments in developing countries are engaging in new housing policies, programmes and strategies that seek to meet demands of market-driven economies in addressing housing needs of their people (Sengupta and Ganesan, 2004; Sengupta, 2005; Sengupta and Sharma, 2008). In Nigeria for instance, current approaches to public housing provision are based on private sector-driven strategies (National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy, 2004; Aribigbola, 2008; African Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development, 2008). Similar approaches are known to have been engaged in countries such as India, Malaysia, Peru and many other developing countries (see Arimah, 1999; Ong and Lenard, 2002; Sengupta and Tipple, 2007; Fernandez-Maldonado and Bredenoord, 2010). Surprisingly to date, the outcomes of those strategies, reforms and programmes are yet to be empirically evaluated in many of these countries, including Nigeria.
1.2    STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Despite burgeoning criticism on failure of public housing to provide quality, affordable and adequate housing units to target population in Nigeria; several studies have shown that governments in Nigeria have continuously engaged in different housing delivery strategies to address the problem of providing adequate, affordable and sustainable housing to the citizens (Kabir, 2004; Akinmoladun and Oluwoye, 2007; Ademiluyi and Raji, 2008). For instance, Ogun State government in Nigeria recently planned to provide about 12,230 housing units between 2003 and 2011 through its public housing programme.
The Government’s commitment to public housing provision, proclaimed by its political leaders, is reflected in the objectives of the State’s Housing Policy. Specifically, the objectives of public housing provision in this State are to (i) enhance the evolution of appropriate institutional framework for public housing delivery (ii) encourage home ownership with secured tenure among all socio-economic groups (iii) promote private sector participation in public housing (iv) provide self-sufficient public housing estates that meet the daily challenges of all residents and (v) provide all socio-economic groups access to adequate housing at affordable cost . It is expected that public housing in Ogun State will result in the provision of adequate housing and improvement of aesthetics of the urban landscape, and ultimately lead to improved quality of life of residents in public housing estates.
Public housing as a social intervention programme is designed according to peoples‟ perceptions of what seems to work based on practitioners‟ assumptions and logical reasoning (Birckmayer and Weiss, 2000). According to Weiss (1997), such a programme is born out of experience and professional lore.
It is usually implemented based on defined strategies to achieve set goals. Preliminary investigations revealed that current efforts in public housing in Ogun State of Nigeria has so far relied on four main housing delivery strategies-including the Core housing, Turnkey, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) and Shell stage strategies in providing the planned number of housing units. However, till date, very little is known on the performance of these strategies. Moreover, several studies (Idemudia, 1980; Muritala, 1980; Bana, 1991; Ali, 1996; Ukoha and Beamish, 1997; Ilesanmi, 2005; Olatubara and Fatoye, 2007; Fatoye and Odusami, 2009; Jiboye, 2009; 2010) have evaluated public housing schemes in different parts of Nigeria. Each of these studies attempted at identifying areas of deficiencies in public housing provision from residents‟ satisfaction point of view.
But it has been observed that certain inadequacies which bear upon the focus and usefulness of the findings for factual judgement on the performance of, and validity of underlying theories in public housing exist.
1.3    OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The main aim of this study is to assess housing development and the affordability in Ogun State. The specific objectives include the following:
1.4    RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following research questions were formulated to guide this study:
1.5    SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
In this study, the researcher set out to assess housing development and the affordability in Ogun State with the aid of highlighting the inherent problem facing low income earners in assessing affordable residential housing. It is expected that this work will be of interest to government, students and the general public.
This study will also help to serve as literature (reference source) to governments at all level, students, individuals or corporate bodies into what to carry out on further research on housing development and the affordability in Ogun State.
1.6    SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study concerns on assessment of housing development and affordability in Ogun State with a particular reference to Opic and Ogun State Housing.
1.7    LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
Distance and its attendance cost of travel in order to obtain the needed information which to write this study will be a major limitation. Another limitation to the study is short time factor which did not give time for thorough research work, hence gathering adequate information becomes very difficult.
Finally, lack of materials on the topic; this is new in the area of housing development and affordability in Ogun State. Therefore, the researcher resolved to seek friendly approach in order to obtain the needed materials or information from the area under study through the administration of questionnaire.
1.8    DEFINITION OF TERMS